New York Times Columnist Speaks in GR
The World Affairs Council of Western Michigan held its annual dinner on Wednesday in Grand Rapids. Their keynote speaker this year was New York Times Columnist Thomas Friedman, who was asked to speak on the topic of his latest book, Hot, Flat & Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution – And How It Can Renew America.
Not all of the local news reported on Friedman’s visit. In fact, just the Grand Rapids Press and WOOD TV 8 covered his talk. Channel 8 begins their story with the claim that the auto industry is “motoring towards energy efficiency,” even though there is no evidence that this is the case. This was their way of introducing Friedman’s talk and saying that the columnist was advocating a “Green Revolution.” No where in the story is there any information about what Friedman was suggesting in order to make a “Green revolution” happen other than the idea that energy efficiency needed a financial incentive.
The GR Press provided more substantive coverage and ran their story on page 3 of Thursday’s paper, with the headline – “Green is the new red, white and blue.” The story states that Friedman claims that, “carbon emission is the source of the world’s biggest mega-problem.” While this may be true, Friedman also says that growing global population and a larger middle class is to blame. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, there is no equity when it comes to carbon emissions if you break it down by country, particularly per capita emissions. The US and Australia are the worst when it comes to per capital carbon emissions.
Friedman’s main point in the Press article was that the US should see the current global energy and environmental crisis as an opportunity for the “country to get its groove back.” What Friedman was saying is that the US needs to be the world leader in energy efficiency and innovation. Unfortunately, there is no information provided on how this country should concretely engage in energy efficiency.
What Friedman does articulate what he means by going “Green.” “It’s about economic power, innovation power and national power. Green is geopolitical, geo-strategic, capitalistic. Green is the new red, white and blue.” This is exactly why the World Affairs Council invited him to speak at the annual dinner. People in the local business community, many of which do business internationally, dominate the World Affairs Council. Therefore, the audience would welcome a speaker who is advocating a form of green capitalism and green nationalism.
Friedman underscores his commitment to green capitalism by saying: “The next great global industry has to be the search for abundant, cheap, clean reliable electrons. That country (that owns that energy/technology industry) has to be our country. If we do not own ‘ET,’ the chance of us passing on our standard of living to our children is zero.”
Notice that he thinks the US should own the energy technology (green nationalism) and that people should want to provide their children with the same living standard as they currently enjoy (green capitalism). Unlike Friedman, most of the global writers on climate justice, writers like Vandana Shiva, Bill McKibben, and Derrick Jensen, all acknowledge that the US level of global consumption is unsustainable and that it is impossible for the rest of the world to have a US standard of living.
The Press reporter does not verify any of the claims made in Friedman’s talk, nor does he get any reaction from local groups doing climate justice or energy efficiency work.
For those who have followed Friedman’s writing over the years it would come as no surprise that this is where he stands on the issue of climate change. Friedman is one of the most committed cheerleaders of US led Global Capitalism. Energy writer Harvey Wasserman notes that Friedman has been an advocate of nuclear energy and “clean coal.” Both of these types of energy are not clean nor are they sustainable.
Another writer comments that Friedman leaves out the issue of “peak oil” in his book, an issue, which is central to the current climate crisis. New York Press writer Matt Taibbi takes the critique of Friedman’s commitment to global green capitalism a bit further in an excellent review of his book Hot, Flat & Crowded, that you can read on Alternet.
Lastly, it should be mentioned that many grassroots environmental and social justice activists have been critical of Friedman for years. One example is from Earth Day in 2008 where members of the Greenwash Guerrillas decided to pie Friedman who spoke at Brown University. The group pied Friedman for the following reasons:
* 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.
(This story and video was produced by James Ayers and Girbe Eefsting)
On October 3, 2009 a group of activists gathered at Heartside Park in Grand Rapids, Michigan to protest the escalating war in Afghanistan. Holding signs declaring the devastating human and economic costs of the war the protesters marched from Heartside Park to the blue foot bridge and there stood amid the bustling Artprize spectators to make there voices heard. There they handed out several dozen flyers with information and resources about the war’s economic impact on Grand Rapids. On the bridge and the street the participants weren’t met with much enthusiasm, however, they did receive several car honk votes of solidarity, nods, and sometimes just a silent thumbs up. For more information on the Cost of War in Afghanistan, visit www.nationalpriorities.org.
For Obama, Withdrawal is Off the Table
On Wednesday (Oct. 7) the Grand Rapids Press ran an Associated Press article headline, “You can call it a war: US Afghanistan plan unsettled, but Obama won’t shrink its status.”
The story is about a recent meeting that the Obama administration had with top Republicans and Democrats to discuss the future plan for Afghanistan. The article states that nothing has been decided on as of yet, except that US withdrawal from Afghanistan is off the table. The article further states,
“Obama said the war would not be reduced to a narrowly defined counterterrorism effort, with the withdrawal of many U.S. forces and an emphasis on special operations forces that target terrorists in the dangerous border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Two senior administration officials aides say such a scenario has been inaccurately characterized and linked to Vice President Joe Biden, and that Obama wanted to make clear he is considering no such plan.”
So, even a downsized troop focus on doing counter-insurgency work is not an option. The only thing that remains to be seen is whether or not the administration will send more troops on top of the 20,000 they have already added this year.
Unfortunately, the article provides no assessment of the current US occupation of Afghanistan, nor any Afghani perspectives. The article also does not question the fundamental premise of the US occupation, which the administration claims is to “defeat the Taliban and rid al-Qaida of a home base.” This story only provides a very narrow framework for discussing the US position on the War in Afghanistan, a point which independent journalist Glenn Greenwald has recent made.
The GR Press version of the AP story omitted information about a recent poll, which showed that, “Public support for the war in Afghanistan is dropping. It stands at 40 percent, down from 44 percent in July, according to a new Associated Press-GfK poll.” This growing opposition is reflected in the increasing number of activities across the country where people are organizing to oppose the US occupation of Afghanistan.
More importantly, the majority of Afghanis are opposed to the US occupation, a perspective that people who read the Press would rarely see, based on a recent study we conducted of their coverage of Afghanistan. There continues to be good independent coverage of what is going on in Afghanistan, like this excellent video from independent journalist Rick Rowley.
Into the Streets: This is What Democracy Looks Like
(This article was submitted by Kristi Arbogast, an independent journalist who was in Pittsburgh for the G-20 protests.)
“Tell me what democracy looks like!” The cry went up into the tense air of downtown Pittsburgh, barricaded and boarded up. A few hundred of us marched through the streets, chanting and blowing whistles that someone had handed out. Up ahead the marching band played, consisting of several drums, trumpets, tubas, and clarinets. Press swarmed around us, photographing and recording one of the first marches to oppose the soon to be arriving G20. We continued mounting a ruckus in the road, drawing attention from passersby and chanting out our disgust with corporate greed. At one point, we were forced to snake our way around giant concrete barricades that were protecting the glass walls of a bank. The protestors were itching to change our words into actions, but resisted. After winding our way up town and back down again, my friend and I headed out for the night, eager to rest in preparation for the events of the next day, rest that it turns out we would desperately need.
A march calling itself the People’s Uprising was set to begin up in Lawrenceville at Arsenal Park. After getting off the bus I had no idea in which direction the park was located but that turned out to not matter. Little masses of people were all heading through the streets in the same direction, and we knew we were getting close by the sound of the helicopter flying overhead. We were being watched. It was an eerie feeling. Rounding the corner we were confronted with police, but we continued on to join up with the rest of the people getting ready to take back the streets. This was a march without a permit from the city, as was the intent of the Pittsburgh Resistance Group that organized this. People were ready for the confrontation that would therefore ensue, wearing bandanas and googles as protection against the pervasive tear gas. I hoped it wouldn’t come to that, at least for me, especially since I didn’t necessarily agree with the political and tactical ideas of most of those I was marching with. If I was to get chased and gassed for something, I wanted it to be for something I felt strongly about.
As we began to march, it didn’t take long for the police to make their presence known. The mood of the mob grew tense and volatile as down the street, barricading our route forward to the conference center where the leaders of the world gathered, stood a line of riot police, German shepherds, and SWAT trucks. Standing on top of the truck was a man dressed in military garb. Seeing the crowd of protestors up the street, he hit the play button on his recorder which blasted this warning to those gathered.
After a shouting match, the crowd disappeared. My friend and I didn’t follow, as she wanted to get out of harm’s way. Me? I wanted to get right in the thick of things. My friend stayed back, watching what was about to unfold from afar. I, however, got closer, moving down the road with media, onlookers, and stragglers from the protest. The police stood at the end, dressed to the hilt in protective pads, shields, and helmets looking at us as if we were going to attack at any second. They kept a close eye on everyone milling about, keeping expressionless and silent. Rumors were rampant about where the protestors had reassembled and how the police had tear-gassed them. Soon I was on a street, riot police wearing gas masks at one end and police marching towards us on the other. I knew I had to get out of there. I went and huddled around with the ACLU Legal Observers, who stood by making sure no unlawful behavior from the police or demonstrators went undocumented. The police closed off the streets, forcing everyone upwards, declaring this was an unlawful assembly.
Further up the road the media was everywhere. Filming, interviewing. The person who was gathering the most attention was John Oliver, the British correspondent from “The Daily Show”. People swarmed him, eager to have their time on the television epitome of liberal cool. For my part, I purposely walked in front of the camera several times. It worked!, as I ended up in the background on the show.
Eventually the police got sick of us milling around, so they decided to intimidate us by pounding on their shields and marching up the street. People cried out their anger and disgust but eventually had to acquiesce to the law. I was just as angry, because we were all onlookers and media and posed no real threat to anyone. But I had to leave and went in search of my friend, who had decided to get away from the tense situation.
Later on that evening, my friend Jess and I witnessed a large standoff between students and the riot police. The lights from the numerous police cars lit up the night sky at Schenley Park by the University of Pittsburgh. Hundreds of students, along with some anarchists from the day’s earlier march, stood around, watching the massive lines of police all decked out in their riot gear. Then the chanting started, as the students decried the police presence on their campus. Many of us just stood there, watching the scene unfold before us. A great number of these students had just stopped by, taking a break from studying, to see what was going on. The police deemed us to be a threat.
Just then a city bus full of riot police pulled up and unloaded. They silently joined the ranks of the others. The mounted police, their horses wearing protective face shields, eyed us, especially those who were yelling and riling everyone up. Just then, the newly arrived police, charged through their line and into the crowd, waving their clubs and screaming at us to get out of here. The students fled, freaked out by the unprovoked show of violence. But then we recuperated and re-gathered, re-forming our line of protest. The yelling and chanting continued. The police had enough and decided to start making a move. Standing up by the fountain of the Greek god Pan, I was near to the police, who were on either side of the hill the fountain was situated on top of. All the sudden I hear them yell “MARCH” and they start closing in on the fountain, yelling, “MOVE” to those who stood in their path. They marched towards me, only a few feet distant, and I slowly walked away from them, frustrated and annoyed that they keep using their brute force. Eventually they forced us all off the hill and into the street, then off the street into the park. Students walking about couldn’t believe their campus had been taken over. Walking away from the standoff to go and join up with Jess, who was sitting safely in a coffee shop up the road, I wondered what would happen next.
Flipping on the news that night, I got my answer. The police at Schenley Park had gassed and arrested the students. I was appalled watching the images on the screen. What also had me disgusted was the media’s coverage of the People’s Uprising March that I took part in for a few brief moments. Pittsburgh’s news teams didn’t disappoint with their stereotypical coverage of protests. They focused solely on the property destruction caused by the few and didn’t even touch on why we were protesting in the first place. The media painted us demonstrators as a bunch of hooligans who didn’t know what we stood for and why we were so angry. If they had only asked or took the time to delve into the issues. No wonder the people dislike us and misunderstand us! We are being misrepresented! I hoped things would be different the next day.
After going to a lecture by some prominent Latin American labor union and civil rights leaders in which they detailed the despicable meddling of the United States in their countries, Jess and I were riled up to speak out. Today was going to be the huge march, the city permitted one, guaranteed to be constitutionally protected. I was excited. Jess and I mingled with the thousands gathered. Those marching were as varied as their political opinions, coming from all corners of the state and country to protest against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, healthcare, Tibet, Palestine, capitalism, bailouts, the World Trade Organization, and the unfair ratio of twenty world leaders to the 6 billion inhabitants of the world.
After some speakers, we were on our way. Eight thousand strong we marched down the streets of Pittsburgh, heading to the heart of the city. We were jubilant to all be gathered together, sharing the common idea of having our causes represented. Walking amidst the different groups of people, chanting one song and then another, I was amazed by the passions and convictions of those around me. But I was also slightly disappointed. The march felt disjointed. We had the public ear but we were yelling everything to them at once. I felt that if we had a clear message, focusing on one or two things, chanting the same songs together, eight thousand strong, we would have really captured the attention of the media, the public, and those who gathered on the sidewalks to watch us pass by.
But we continued to march, each with our own ideas, under the watchful eyes of the riot police lining the route. As we passed by them, I looked at the solemn faced police officers, trying to catch their gaze to humanize them for me. Dressed up in their full riot gear, they looked more like robots than humans. When our eyes met, the police would always quickly look away, perhaps afraid to humanize us demonstrators. Regardless I kept looking and marching.
After marching for miles and crossing the Andy Warhol Bridge to the other side of Pittsburgh, we stopped at a park for our final rally. Exhausted, the thousands of protestors collapsed on the grass. I looked out over the river to the white roofed David Lawrence Convention Center where the leaders of the world were seated, talking about things we could only guess at. This was as close as we could get to them, and I wondered if they had even heard our voices.
This doubt continued to nag at me as I wondered if what we had all just done would make any change in the grand scheme of things. I decided that no, on the world stage it didn’t really make a difference. That is almost impossible. But what we did change was ourselves and those who are a part of our lives. By each one of us protestors being there we had taken a firm stand in what we believed in and what we felt needed to be changed to better this world. Our passion for truth would draw the curiosity of our friends and families, and we would tell them about the ills of the world and our desire for change. A chain reaction of information and ideals would pass from one person to the other. This spark will help inflame our ability to demand real change from our leaders, as more and more of us take a closer look at the world around us. Glancing around the park in Pittsburgh at the thousands gathered under the sun, I began to feel hopeful again.
Media Bites – Ford Trucks & Masculinity
This week’s Media Bites takes a look at a recent Ford Truck commercial that features comedian Dennis Leary. The spot is in many ways about masculinity, with it’s use of images and language. We contrast the hyper-masculine commercial with the downsizing of workers by Ford and its relationship to power in Washington.
An evolving internal monologue, now published: Brett’s addition to the ArtPrize “Conversation”
(This article is submitted by Brett Colley, an Associate Professor of Art & Design at Grand Valley State University, and an exhibiting participant in ArtPrize.)
In its efforts to “reboot the public conversation between artists and audiences”, ArtPrize has raised into stark relief the tensions between two broad groups: Those with no formal art education who produce and/or patronize art, and those with credentials and/or careers connected to its preservation, theory, and production. Of course, members of each group are equally entitled to their opinions and practices.
I know from my experiences as an educator that mutual animosity between such factions is not intrinsic to a dialogue regarding contemporary art or its cultural value. However, the lack of organized forums (relative to other ArtPrize programming) for substantive public discourse concerning the art currently on display in downtown Grand Rapids has drawn out the suspicion and misgivings of each group.
In the past week, I have witnessed emotionally charged exchanges at both Kendall’s Lunchbox discussion with the ArtPrize team, and at the Battle for the Top 10 Critical Discourse, hosted by the UICA on Friday evening.
From the “General Voting Public”, there has been contempt projected toward the “Art Experts” who question the quality or legitimacy of some popular entries.
From the Expert crowd, there has been obvious disdain directed at the Voting Public for making what they perceive as poor choices. The model of a popular vote to determine the outcome has purposefully stripped those with years of education and experience of any exceptional role in assessing the contestants, and increases the likelihood that winners will not be representative of the high critical standards of the field. In an era that has seen the conflation of “High” and “Low” art/culture, does this really matter? Later in this essay, I’ll argue that it does.
Given the source of the idea (ArtPrize) and conditions that deliberately humble them, it is hardly surprising that area Art Experts (academics, professionals, et.al.) would brace with trepidation as their discipline was deemed the subject of a grand “social experiment” funded by one of the region’s wealthiest, most infamously conservative families.
It is equally unsurprising that the General Public has grown at best suspicious, and at worst resentful of Art Experts, and now feels exceedingly grateful to Rick Devos and company for restoring the validity/power of their own tastes (at least that’s a popular perception.)
After decades of assorted media-hyped “art controversies” (Robert Mapplethorpe, Andre Serrano’s Piss Christ, the Sensation show at the Brooklyn Museum), being fed vacuous rhetoric (“beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, or “I know what I like”) as if it were philosophical comfort food, and then being told what is “good” or worth lots of money (but seldom, if ever why) who can blame the G.P. for feeling indignant?
So much of the conflict is simply built into the subject at hand, or ”conversation”. (Which makes the structure for negotiating it all the more critical.) As my colleague Paul Wittenbraker recently and succinctly observed:
“Art is many things to many people simultaneously. This is one of the great powers of art, but also grounds for confusion and stress…The presumption that we can bring diverse art worlds together under the pretense of a unified outcome is problematic.”
Resolutions to the conflict are not simple, and the onus is on both groups – as well as the ArtPrize team itself – to enact them. I will go on to suggest some of the actions I believe necessary for resolution, but first it is important to cite some of the conditions that have brought this conflict to the forefront of the ArtPrize conversation:
By assigning value to the arts primarily through their ability to drive our economy, and incentivizing artists with prize money and wide-scale exposure, the organizers of ArtPrize have skewed both the event and the ensuing conversation toward creative works that are easily accessed (physically and conceptually) and commodified, and have marginalized many credentialed artists and critics with divergent ideas and practices.
The local news outlets (press and television) have focused overwhelmingly on the event’s positive impact for businesses in downtown GR, and treated the actual competition and entries as if discussions of quality were irrelevant. Their biased coverage quickly established the tenor of the conversation and has further rendered the event almost unassailable by critics. Those who don’t support ArtPrize unconditionally are tagged with the dreaded “e-word” (elitist) and regarded with suspicion.
I cannot delve into all the complexities of ArtPrize at once, as compelled as I am to do so. Thus, I won’t attempt to untangle the thorny “elitist/expert” knot in this essay. Suffice it to say: We live in an increasingly specialized world. The next time we need brain surgery or a general to orchestrate our troops in wartime, we will surely call upon a specialist with education and experience relevant to the task at hand.
I suspect that one reason the General Public perceives those of us who’ve expressed reservations about ArtPrize (or its potentially negative impact on area art) as “elitist” is because they believe we are merely trying to preserve our own authority and power within the culture of Art.
While I cannot deny that any “authority” I may have in this field has been hard-won (through 8 years of post-secondary education and 15 years of professional experience) and does indeed have value to me, it has not been my motivation in critiquing either ArtPrize or the quality of the contestants.
The undermining of my authority does have consequences, in that it potentially compromises my ability as an educator to convince students to grow beyond clichés, refine their craft, and reflect critically upon their impulses as young artists. I can certainly imagine future situations in which the “popular” winners of past ArtPrizes will render that task more difficult.
However, I do not aspire to assert opinions about art that will prevail over all others, nor do I expect to persuade 35,000 other voters to adopt my tastes.
My critiques (of the current ArtPrize model) stem from my sincere desire (evidenced by more than a decade of similar efforts in the classroom) to inspire and preserve high-quality visual culture. Again, I am not seeking to defend my own platform of authority, but I do wish to protect our visual environment from the repercussions of rewarding ill-considered or badly constructed work, and celebrating simplistic spectacle over subtlety and sophistication. Such repercussions would be felt by children, adults, amateurs and professionals alike, for it is evident that poor-quality creative culture degrades the experience and discourse of public life.
An intellectually lazy citizenry is the foundation of a weakened democracy.
In other words, all citizens have something at stake in this, knowingly or not.
On the evening news, I have watched Jeff Meeuwsen implore ArtPrize voters to carefully consider their decisions, and help shape an outcome they can be proud of. I believe that Jeff and I share an understanding with respect to the significance of what is judged as “good”. We each recognize the potential consequences of this social experiment for our immediate and long-term environment.
Rather than tuck my head in for fear of being labeled the “e-word”, I am offering my expertise to facilitate such “good” judgment.
Having made that offer, it is imperative that I and other Art Experts (academics, professionals) who share this aspiration find useful terms with which to engage the General Public. Recognizing that I am writing primarily to an audience of my peers, I will suggest that we engage those who lack formal training with language that is honest, reflects our shared humanity, shows respect, and which openly communicates our desire to produce and preserve a quality culture for the benefit of all. We each need to formulate ways of expressing the true value of the arts, in order to promote appreciation for both our convictions and our specialized work.
In short, we needn’t apologize, nor should we patronize.
I believe that every artist, art educator, or student of the arts should be capable of mounting an immediate, uncomplicated argument for the cultural value of what they do – an argument that does not lean on economic viability, marketable skills, or the intrinsic value of self-expression. (As an aside, I contend that there is nothing inherently beneficial to self-expression. For example, does anyone value Mahmoud Amademajad’s expressions of disbelief concerning the Holocaust?)
Historically, the arts have been inextricably linked to technological and conceptual innovation. Artists think through and with materials and contribute to the language and scholarship of other disciplines. We have looked to the arts in order to expand our capacity for communicating difficult concepts, or to share ideas we cannot otherwise express. Art can serve to catalyze public discourse regarding complex issues (in this instance, “Art” itself!) Art reminds us that problems can have more than one solution, that small changes can make big differences, that words and numbers are incapable of expressing all that we know, and that the world is comprised of multiple, diverse perspectives.
(These are values – lessons the arts teach – that have been clearly articulated by Stanford Professsor Emeritus of Art and Art Education, Elliot Eisner. If you don’t know him, look him up.)
Blunt, creative spectacles that captivate by virtue of bright colors, moving parts, and sheer scale often lack these more redeeming characteristics of art. One does not attend (or erect) a theme park with the intention of personal or societal growth, but for entertainment. Many of the 2009 ArtPrize entries operate on this level – they are rooted firmly in the familiar and presume our desire for nothing more than action movies and amusement parks. Art and entertainment are often, easily, and sometimes effectively conflated. But is presenting art as entertainment the mission of ArtPrize?
Several artists responsible for the “entertainment” in this year’s competition have readily admitted to employing spectacle as a strategy to capture the public attention and vote, working big and adopting popular, unchallenging subject matter. After all, one was overheard to say at Friday night’s “Battle for the Top 10”, “This is a popular vote, so we wanted to make something big and fun.”
If one pauses to fully consider that sentiment, one may begin to see why and how a capitalist model for art can so effectively break down the quality of art/culture and the discourse surrounding it. It is valuable, even imperative, that art production flourish outside the arena of capitalism in order to contribute freely to the intellectual and spiritual growth of our citizenry. Competitions structured as the 2009 ArtPrize has been structured serve (unintentionally) to further disenfranchise those artists working outside the sphere of populist appeal and the marketplace.
As long as the arts are viewed and applied as fuel in the economic engine, their value will be assessed thusly*. Art ideally teaches qualitative assessment skills, and yet so many of the measures for assessing the success of ArtPrize have been quantifiable: The number of voters, votes, gallery patrons, contest participants, restaurant profits, etc.
*(This is the unfortunate blowback of Richard Florida’s research. If you don’t know him, look him up.)
As an artist, educator, and citizen of Grand Rapids, I support all initiatives to reboot the conversation between artists and audiences, and ask simply that we continue to question this particular mechanism.
As future iterations of ArtPrize transpire, I hope that a structure is realized that places less emphasis on the competition/prize and successfully incorporates more opportunities for (adult) art education and moderated public critiques of the exhibited work. In Kendall’s Lunchbox Series – an aspect of ArtPrize that respectfully showcases the expertise and scholarship of the field – both content and discussion have veered toward the social experiment, rather than the actual exhibitors. I believe the real teaching/learning opportunities reside within the art itself.
The education day for area students, K-12, the audio guides, and the tutorial on contemporary art included in the preview party at the Old Federal Building have all been exemplary programming. But the UICA staff cannot – should not – do it all.
With respect to the conversation that happens inside this structure, arts professionals need to clearly understand the (non-monetary) value of what they do, develop an effective vocabulary with which to address “fans” and detractors alike, and (learn to) lead in efforts to inform our democracy, through reasonable, respectful discourse. The first language of artists and non-artists alike should be empathy. Embrace it or not, ArtPrize is now here, and has left us little room to hide behind our cynicism and doubts.
Support Internet Neutrality
The National Media Reform is asking people to sign an online petition to get your members of Congress to support legislation that would prevent corporations from creating an unequal Internet system.
Their petition states:
“The FCC has taken a big step forward to protect a free and open Internet, and now Congress needs to follow suit.
The phone and cable companies are scrambling to kill Net Neutrality so they can inspect and filter content, and overcharge you for using the Web in ways they don’t like. These companies have hired 500 lobbyists in Washington to try to stop this bill from becoming law.
It’s up to you to tell your members of Congress to side with the public — not with the corporate lobbyists — and take a final stand for an open Internet by supporting the Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009 (H.R. 3458).”
Share this information with friends and watch the short video that the Save the Internet Campaign developed.
Rethinking Afghanistan Screening Prompts Lively Discussion
Last night about 35 people came to Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ to view a screening of the new 6-part documentary from Robert Greenwald, Rethink Afghanistan.
The documentary explores issues like human rights, security, women, Pakistan and the cost of war in Afghanistan. After the screening there was interesting discussion around the motive for the US occupation of Afghanistan now that it has lasted 8 years. Some people felt that there was no clear objective and that the US should either end the occupation or put the focus on doing development and anti-poverty work.
Most people were quite aware of the current discussion within the Obama administration over whether or not to send additional US troops, as is being suggested by Gen. McChrystal. Some US officials, like Michigan Senator Carl Levin, are advocating for more emphasis on training Afghani police and soldiers, but it was pointed out that this is just a tactical difference and not a disagreement on the larger strategy to win the “War on Terror” in Afghanistan.
Someone suggested that focusing on the monetary cost of the US occupation in Afghanistan might be the best way to reach people. A member of the group Brunch & Revolution talked about a recent march they held in Grand Rapids, where they handed out flyers with information on what the cost to taxpayers has been from Grand Rapids. According to the National Priorities Project (NPP), there has been a total of $479.2 million in tax dollars that have left Grand Rapids to fund the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. The NPP also provides a breakdown of how that money could have been spent for health care, housing and education if it stayed in Grand Rapids.
Other issues that were raised dealt with the US efforts to respond to the skyrocketing opium production that is taking place in Afghanistan, US militarism and the US geo-political and natural resource interest in that part of the world as well.
One thing that many people seemed to agree on was that the information that was presented in the film is not a perspective that the US news media is providing. GRIID confirms that observation with our most recent study of the Grand Rapids Press and its coverage of Afghanistan.
You can view the 6-part documentary online and in light of the recent information coming out of Washington, we think that part 6 is particularly relevant since it speaks to the issue of policy and security.
The Press misses Greenwashing Campaign by Coca Cola in their partnership with local environmental group
On the front page of the region section in today’s (10/3) Grand Rapids Press there is a story about how barrels that were once used for soft drink syrup are now being used by local residents to catch rainwater. The story is framed as a good example of how people can reuse industrial waste and promote sustainability.
According to Press reporter Jim Harger, the Coca Cola Bottling Company of Michigan (Grand Rapids facility) contacted the West Michigan Environmental Action Council (WMEAC) about using their old barrels for a residential rainwater program. WMEAC was delighted to partner with Coca Cola and this effort fits into what the Coke plant manager John Bryne says was “part of the company’s Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Week.” In fact, the rain barrel campaign is part of a larger effort by the Coca Cola Company to paint themselves as an environmentally sustainable corporation. The Coke website is filled with information and images about all the wonderful things they do to protect the environment and help communities.
What is unfortunate about this Grand Rapids Press article is that the reporter never bothered to investigate or challenge whether or not the company does indeed engage in sustainable practices. In the documentary Blue Gold: World Water Wars, Coca Cola and several other bottled water companies are exposed for their efforts to privatize public water to secure greater access to resources for their beverage sales. Maude Barlow in her book Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop the Corporate Theft of the World’s Water says that Coca Cola has been stealing water from communities for decades and since they got in the business of selling bottled water this theft has increased.
Take the case of India for example, where local communities and farmer have been battling companies like Coca Cola for years. According to the India Resource Center, Coca Cola has been taking needed water from communities all across India and contaminating the soil with factory waste. The case of India is but one example and Coke Cola has been the target of numerous local and international campaigns to challenge to company’s environmental and human rights practices.
It is unfortunate that the Grand Rapids Press didn’t bother to investigate why Coca Cola was partnering with a local environmental group during its Corporate Responsibility and Sustainability Week PR campaign. Had the Press looked into this issue they might have discovered that Coca Cola is doing nothing more than engaging an effective Greenwashing campaign.
Rethinking Afghanistan Film Screening October 4
This Sunday, October 4 there will be a free public screening of the documentary “Rethinking Afghanistan.” This six part documentary questions the 8 year US/NATO occupation of Afghanistan by investigating themes such as history, civilian casualties, how the occupation is impacting Pakistan, women in Afghanistan and who the insurgents are. A discussion will follow about the film and local efforts to organize against the war.
Sunday, October 4
7:00PM
Plymouth Congregational United Church of Christ
4010 Kalamazoo SE
Hosted by: Plymouth Justice & Peace Task Force, Brunch & Revolution, The Bloom Collective
Grand Rapids Institute for Information Democracy 