This video from the USA is called: Greenwash Guerrillas Pie Thomas Friedman on Earth Day.
It says about itself:
Thomas Friedman, the author and NY Times columnist, was invited to Brown University to give a keynote speech on Earth Day, before a packed auditorium. His talk, titled “Green is the new Red White and Blue” was about how corporate environmentalism (based on putting a price on the atmosphere, and investing in biofuels and techno-fixes) can restore America to its “natural place in the global order.” Luckily, this outrageous neoliberal capitalist propaganda was interrupted with a suprise visit from the Greenwash Guerrillas. Leaflets were thrown to the crowd, stating:
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.
By Alex Lantier:
New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman on Zimbabwe: A case of unclean hands
21 July 2008
The foreign affairs columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman, published an op-ed piece on July 16 entitled “So Popular and So Spineless.” The column was devoted to denouncing the Russian-Chinese veto, delivered on July 12, of a US-sponsored UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions on Zimbabwe. The sanctions targeted Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, who responded to his March 29 electoral defeat with a campaign of violence and repression against the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC).
The legal concept of “unclean hands” allows courts to throw out complaints where the plaintiff is shown to have acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint. Amid US occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, supported by the Times and justified by Friedman as exercises in “democratic nation-building,” which have cost the lives of millions of civilians and wounded or displaced millions more, Mr. Friedman’s long-suffering readers have every right to question the good faith of his claims to moral outrage.
After noting at the beginning of his column “the decline in American popularity around the world,” China’s greater popularity in Asian countries, and the weakness of “America’s overextended military and overextended banks,” Friedman writes: “Welcome to a world of too much Russian and Chinese power.”
Citing polls showing worldwide hostility to US foreign policy, Friedman tosses off the type of obligatory and cynical criticism of US “excesses” that has become commonplace among liberal apologists for America’s wars of aggression. “We should have done better in Iraq,” he writes. “An America that presides over Abu Ghraib, torture and Guantánamo Bay deserves a thumbs-down.”
That said, he proceeds to lambaste the polls: “I also find some of these poll results self-indulgent, knee-jerk, and borderline silly. Friday’s vote at the UN on Zimbabwe reminded me why.”
The Sino-Russian veto is “truly filthy,” he continues. And South Africa’s call for Mugabe-MDC negotiations prove that “when it comes to pure, rancid moral corruption, no one can top South Africa’s president, Thabo Mbeki.”
Friedman concludes: “Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The UN vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these ‘popular’ countries—called Russia or China or South Africa—that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his people.”
Evidently, according to Friedman’s moral and political bookkeeping, America’s destruction and plundering of countries is an “imperfection,” in no way comparable to the maneuvers of nations that thwart US foreign policy aims.
Friedman appears to have forgotten the proverb that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. When it comes to supporting the “pulverizing” of political opposition as state policy, Friedman himself is hardly a neophyte.
The 1999 US-led NATO air war against Serbia lasted for ten weeks and involved 38,000 combat missions and hundreds of Tomahawk cruise missile strikes, largely against civilian targets. During the second week of the onslaught, with concerns mounting in Washington over continued Serbian defiance, Friedman wrote on April 6: “Twelve days of surgical bombing was never going to turn Serbia around. Let’s see what 12 weeks of less than surgical bombing does. Give war a chance.”
On April 23 he wrote: “It should be lights out in Belgrade: every power grid, water pipe, road and war-related factory has to be hit… [W]e will set your country back by pulverizing you. You want 1950? We can do 1950. You want 1389? We can do 1389.”
In a 1999 piece for the New York Times magazine, he reiterated his enthusiasm for the destructive power of the American military, writing: “The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist—McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps… Without America on duty, there will be no America Online.”
New York Times boosts Pentagon push for wider bombing in Afghanistan: here.