Wednesday, August 30, 2006
« Jamie's Cryin' | Main | Sorry? »

The Yes Men.  A group of hoaxers so bold that they fool leaders and media personnel with ease.  They are called culture jammers, postmodernists who turn the joke on the powerful. 

Monday they appeared at a conference on rebuilding New Orleans.  When a man claiming to be a representative of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development took the stage with New Orleans mayor Ray Nagin and Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco, no one batted an eye.  "Renee Oswin" made some powerful statements:

In his speech, ["Oswin"] said the department's mission was to ensure affordable housing is available for those who need it.

"This year, in New Orleans, I'm ashamed to say we have failed," he said.

To change that, HUD would reverse its plans to demolish 5,000 units "of perfectly good public housing," with housing in the city in tight supply, he said.

Former occupants have been "begging to move back in," he said. "We're going to help them to do that."

The government's practice had been to tear down public housing where it could, because such projects were thought to cause crime and unemployment, he said.

But crime rates in the city are at a record high and there is no evidence that people in the projects are more likely to be unemployed, he said.

The man added that it also would be essential to create conditions for prosperity.

Toward that end, he said, Wal-Mart would withdraw its stores from near low-income housing and "help nurture local businesses to replace them."

Wal-Mart was unmoved. "As evidenced by the fact that we recently reopened two stores in the New Orleans metropolitan area, there is absolutely no truth to these statements," said spokeswoman Marisa Bluestone.

In a comment that elicited applause from the contractors and builders, Bichlbaum said, "With your help, the prospects of New Orleanians will no longer depend on their birthplace, and the cycle of poverty will come to an end."

Finally, to ensure another hurricane does not inundate the city, Exxon and Shell have promised to spend $8.6 billion "to finance wetlands rebuilding from $60 billion in profits this year," he said.

Except none of it was true.  By lying to the audience, the Yes Men demonstrated the truth--that the U.S. Government is letting down the victims of Katrina.  

But this isn't their first experiment with truth. 

In 2004, "Dow Chemicals'" "Jude Finesterra" appeared on BBC News and announced that the corporation would liquidate their Union Carbide subsidiary and use the money to pay for health care for those killed in the 1984 disaster at the Union Carbide plant in Bopahl, India.  It was a lie that showed the truth, that no one had properly helped the victims.

Want to know more?  Check out the movie.

Update:  The Yes Men site is down.  Hmmmm. . . .

RW
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:03:25 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Victims of Katrina have been hoaxed enough. This was a tasteless prank, while in the end of little consequence, that shows the Yes Men as adolescent attention seekers who don't mind kicking a people who are already down.
Wednesday, August 30, 2006 8:05:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Off topic: Where's the big Richard Armitage post? (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/30/leak.armitage/index.html) Considering the amount of virtual ink this blog spent on the subject of the Plame leak, I'd think you'd want to clear the air with an admission that you were mostly wrong. Peace. --s
Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:15:05 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
The point of the Yes men is to demonstrate that the government isn't doing the right thing. They aren't kicking the people who have been hurt, they are kicking those who have failed them. That's obvious.

What exactly did we say about Plame where we say we are mostly wrong? We haven't said a damn thing that was wrong. Armatige's admission changes nothing about the case. Nothing. The fact that Armatige was also a leaker means nothing at all. It means the whole fucking crew was in on it in an attempt to discourage people from listening from the truth. Point out where we were wrong.
Thursday, August 31, 2006 10:38:21 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
"Armatige's (sic) admission changes nothing about the case. Nothing."

Armitage was against the war so he would have no motivation to discredit Wilson. He was Novak's source and is known to blab inside the beltway gossip. But of course, this means nothing to a die-hard, obsessive and irrational Bush hater. Nothing.

Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:14:52 PM (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Hmmmm . . . Armitage against the war? I thought that was true until I read Fiasco by Thomas Ricks. I was suprised to learn that he was for it before he was against it. His motivation? To protect the Administration that he works for. Just because he may have argued at one point against the war, doesn't mean he doesn't want it to succeed or that he helps Democrats.

Plus, Armitage works for Bush. He takes orders. He may have opposed the war, but he, like his boss Powell, got in the front lines despite that alleged opposition.
Name
E-mail
Home page

Comment (HTML not allowed)  

Enter the code shown (prevents robots):