GRITtv Link

The Yes Men, those impervious impersonators of the world's most toxic rich people, are up to their hijinks again. Word over the wire is that they're coming out with a new movie, The Yes Men Fix the World, but their funny-bone still seems to be intact: t hey promise that "this film has one of the very few underwater ballet scenes you will ever see in a political documentary." Take a look.

UPDATE: Suggestion successfully submitted.

Well, I tried to submit this to recovery.gov but it failed. I can only assume it's due to a spike in traffic during Obama's address to Congress.

It's a small thing, but many small things together make a big thing.
I'm so glad "clean coal" wasn't mentioned :-)

An oft-overlooked aspect of energy independence is local food production and distribution.

I just thought I'd point you at a local San Francisco organization that is doing that now, by developing private gardens and distributing organic produce. I am not affiliated with MyFarmsSF, but my sister, a gardener in Ireland, approves of this effort. She was considering similar possibilities during my last visit to Ireland, when the Celtic tiger had recently disappeared and the recession was in full swing.

http://www.myfarmsf.com/

Best regards,
Richard Walker

You may be surprised to hear my take on this, but I know a little about Liberace and way more than I want to about Ted Haggard. After all, I'm a classically trained pianist, as was Liberace.
 

All of the sudden I think there may be something to all this channeling nonsense! [Cue spooky Liberace piano music, lots of reverb, and ghostly holograph of Liberace piano playing itself]. Oh did I leave that stage cue in there? I can be such a klutz sometimes!

Anyway darlings, rumors of my untimely and unglamorous death were highly exaggerated by some well-meaning friends in the Hollywood and Vegas press.

But it all turned out just fine, like always my little lambs! Had them over for a huge weekend party in my new secret lair - and they stayed for the redecorating Dinner on Sunday night! More on that later. I think I need a break from Rococo, and crawl back to the comfort of my beloved Louis XIV.

Liberace

Mother was reading the paper to me yesterday, and there was this rather disturbing news about some religious man and the goings on in his boudoir. Not that his boudoir is disturbing, I'm sure it's nicely appointed.

Instead, the news was about this poor man and his wife and this nasty little trick trying to take the good Christian down into the gutter!

I won't have it. Liberace's fans won't have it! We must start a fabulous media blitz campaign and let everyone know just how good and Christian Ted Haggard is! We can hire lots of nice young men to do the heavy lifting and go door-to-door. I don't have that many bedrooms though, thank heavens. [cue angelic singing]

Am I gay? GAY, you SAY? Heck no, I'm married to Jesus! And he told me to turn the other cheek even though I want to slap you!

Too bad Ted isn't creative like I am. I think his wife gets at least a Rolls and I suggest a nice Throne as well. Works for me! And you put that nasty little trick to work driving you around and cleaning your gutters. America loves you!

Do you like the diamonds and furs, Ladies? They are nice, don't you think? OF COURSE THEY ARE - JESUS BOUGHT THEM FOR ME

My assistant tells me the Colored Big Television Lady at 3 did an interview with Ted, but she won't let me show it here! Imagine that!

Ted Haggard Admits Everything to Oprah

Well, Ted, I'm not sure about all of that. When I cry all the way to the bank, it's because I've given my life to showbiz - and she's a b-word if you take my meaning! I certainly don't make a habit of telling my secrets. Antiques and wardrobe are expensive enough as it is!

[yes I tagged Perez Hilton. You gotta problem widdat? ]

See last updates for SF MoMA response and others' reactions.
See very last updates for:

More proof that this is not a fluke, not a "Hawk" or "Blint" issue, but a disturbing national trend that should transcend partisan politics in my opinion.

Mr. Hawk recounted the events of Friday, August 8, 2008 on his blog.

Recently I blogged about my excitement regarding the San Francisco MOMA's decision to begin allowing photography in their permanent collection after years of maintaining a closed no photography policy. Directly because of this change in policy, I decided to purchase a family membership in order to support the museum, both with my artistic energy and financially. I was excited to begin spending regular time exploring and documenting the museum.
...
After purchasing my family membership and visiting the museum today I was forcibly thrown out of the museum by two museum security guards at the direction of the Director of Visitor Relations Simon Blint...

FriendFeed had three very impassioned conversations:

1. Thomas Hawk's FriendFeed discussion

2. Jeremiah Owyang's FriendFeed discussion

Thomas Hawk's skewering of Simon Blint: Thomas is a community leader (and photo site CEO) he needs to wield his power with responsibility. Tagging Simon Blint and "*sshole" has damaged his online reputation for years on end, and will likely impact job screenings.

3. Cyndy's FriendFeed discussion

When FriendFeed Creates a Mob

SFist covered the incident (thanks, Brock!)

...Hawk talked to Blint who (allegedly) told him "he did not care" and that he needed to "protect" his employees -- employees that might appear in my photographs." Hawk goes on to say, "I was not shooting with a tripod. I was not shooting with a flash."

Was Blint, in fact, being an *sshole? Was Hawk putting up a pissy fight, which led to his ejection? We don't know yet. But we think banning of any type of photography is inane, especially if you work in the arts.

But what say you? Should photographers be subject to this kind of harassment? Or does Blint deserve a serious tongue lashing?

BoingBoing didn't miss the story.

Robbo sez, "Thomas Hawk was forcibly removed from the San Francisco MOMA by two security guards at the direction of the over-zealous Simon Blint, Director of Visitor Relations. How ironic is that? Why? Taking photos in the atrium. SF MOMA policy on this? Their own web site specifically allows photography in the atrium. Hawk had also previously confirmed this personally with Thea Stein in the Marketing and Communications Department of the museum...

Consumerist covered it as well.

Despite What Their Website Says, Taking Pictures In San Francisco's Museum Of Modern Art Is Cause For Ejection

The Guardian covered it. Oh dear, it crossed the pond. Unexpected, to say the least.

The power of the Hawk is a problem for SF-MoMA
Throwing the esteemed Thomas Hawk out on his ear is not the way to win friends and influence people 

It was the top story on Digg.com on Saturday.

Takeaways (not done yet, in progress, subject to change)

• SF MoMA is apparently clarifying its policies, not re-banning photography (add links)
• Mistakes were made: Hawk & Blint (links)
• Blog & "web2.0" commentators are opinionated (links)
• Blog commentators are lazy (links)
• You can't win: online activism is ineffectual, or a mob (links)
• Character assassins often don't disclose personal motivations (profit motives)
• Allegations of pseudonyms being a cowardly shield, easily falsifiable here (links)
• Allegations of perversity, child abuse and privacy violations still pervade
• Even the least noisy conversations have a very wide difference of opinon (friendfeed links)
• Pervasive tendency is subjectivity, not objectivity; big picture reduced to a thousand tiny icons
• Definitions of public v. private space, rights and violations, still an issue
• If Photography is a privacy violation, why is there wide acceptance of surveillance cameras?

Some of my comments are gathered here:

Disclaimer:
I've concluded that I was confused as to whether "galleries" includes the permanent collection, or refers to the "special exhibits." My initial impression was that the change in policy would allow for photography of the stuff that's owned outright by the SF MoMA. Apologies for any confusion, and perhaps this would be a point of clarification, i.e. if photography of any "exhibited" piece is disallowed, say so. Perhaps discuss stairs, hallways, elevated walkways, etc., as these are not "galleries," may not be part of the "atrium" and yet provide unique vantage points from which to take photos (of the architecture.)

FYI, even though I understand it's not a Thomas v. Simon issue: an anonymous commenter claims to have worked with Simon before: "I worked with this douche at ZEUM one block down from SF MoMA. I can attest to his short temper and general lack of people skills. He found no trouble in bullying the teens who worked there."

"Director of visitor relations" is a poor match for his behavior. He should apologize, resign, or try to otherwise repair the situation. Since it's a PR-related job, he seems uniquely unfit and uneducated about the causes and effects of negative PR. He'll probably have a "rich learning experience" though.

dianachen and ScribeGuy, I'm glad you signed up to SFist just to comment about the incident. It's too bad Blint or other SF MoMA person hasn't spoken up. So, thanks for giving your opinions. Someone else who has worked with Blint did not have kind things to say. I find the less agreeable sites engage in character assassination on both sides. Perhaps you aren't finding the best conversations.

RobinSF, you are a piece of work. Photography w/o flash is allowed in the permanent collection, atrium is OK always, if you use a flash in the atrium it must be a hand held point-and-shoot. While the policy is imprecise and ambiguous, you manage to completely miss the intent. Can YOU read? Do YOU know flash photography can damage the pieces? Do you seriously think they are mandating the use of a flash in the atrium? Does the point-and-shoot restriction refer to the Atrium, or the use of flash? Go ahead, rant some more, it's entertaining.

This morning, residents of the Big Apple were treated to 1.2 million copies of a free newspaper:

Jack Boulware wrote this about his piece on his blog:

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, I wrote down everything I saw or heard in the media, and fashioned a sort of poem. A month later, I read it at San Francisco’s Edinburgh Castle pub, and then recorded an audio version for Salon.com. It’s now been published as part of the Public House anthology.

I liked the essay quite a bit, and later I was making recordings of piano noise and effects, so it was an obvious choice. The audio fidelity here isn't great partly due to limits imposed by Vox. Now for our feature presentation:

Warning: explicit language

Let's give the imagery a rest, shall we?
Can we give poor Mr. Barber and his Adagio for Strings a breather as well?

 

UPDATE: My favorite merry pranksters are to unveil an anti-war event of some sort before the election. They are soliciting funds and seeking participants in the New York City area. A new film is apparently on the way.

The Yes Men infiltrated the "Go Expo" conference in Calgary in June 2007, after being contacted through their fake Exxon website.  They announced a revolutionary new energy process and fuel product, accompanied by a slick presentation, back story, and props.  They were ejected eventually, but not before making their point.  The Yes Men are available for hire as educators in media literacy. 

Shows are Live and On-demand at the GRITtv Site
Get Grit TV Twitter updates by following @grittv

GRITtv airs Mon-Thurs, at 8pm & 1am ET, on Free Speech TV (DISH Network ch. 9415)

Laura Flanders is the host of "RadioNation" heard on Air America Radio and syndicated to non-commercial affiliates nationwide.

She is the author most recently, of Blue Grit: Making Impossible, Improbable and Inspirational Political Change in America (Penguin, 2008) and BUSHWOMEN: Tales of a Cynical Species (Verso, 2004), an investigation into the women in George W. Bush's Cabinet. Publisher's Weekly called Flanders' New York Times best-seller, "fierce, funny and intelligent."

She wrote on Hillary Clinton in The Contenders (Seven Stories Press, 2007) and edited The W Effect: Sexual Politics in the Age of Bush, in 2004 for the Feminist Press.

Before joining Air America when it launched in March 2004, Laura hosted the award-winning " Your Call," Monday-Friday, on public radio, KALW, 91.7 fm in San Francisco.

Flanders' TV appearances include "Lou Dobbs Tonight" and " Larry King Live " on CNN as well as "The O'Reilly Factor," and "Hannity and Colmes," (FOX News) "Washington Journal," "Donahue," "Good Morning America" and the CBC news discussion program, "CounterSpin."

Her writing appears in The Nation, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, and elsewhere and her op-ed pieces have appeared in papers including The San Francisco Chronicle.

Flanders was founding director of the Women's Desk at the media watch group, FAIR and for more than ten years she produced and hosted CounterSpin, FAIR's nationally-syndicated radio program.

Shie is also the author of Real Majority, Media Minority; the Cost of Sidelining Women in Reporting (Common Courage Press, 1997) about which Susan Faludi wrote, "If only there were a hundred of her." Katha Pollitt called it "Funny, angry, factfilled and brilliant."

UPDATE: Laura is in Denver broadcasting this week from the Democratic party convention.

Related Post: Unheard Radio: Radio Nation with Laura Flanders

From the Lessig Blog:

Lessig has made available the first version of his argument for the "Change Congress"  movement.

Here's a text-based (.PDF/.doc/.rtf) of the argument for the Change Congress movement. First version, many flaws, feedback welcome.

Netroots nation was previously known by the name "YearlyKos", the yearly get-together organized by Marcos of the DailyKos.

This definitely counts as "Unseen TV" for those of us without Cable.
Apologies to my international readers; Hulu is restricted to the U.S. currently.

Hulu is also showing full episodes of the Colbert Report posted shortly after airing on cable.