Tom Petty and the Super Bowl: Rock & Roll Rebellion Gone Flat?

An Open Letter to Tom Petty

Dear Tom Petty folks,

I am a musician, writer and political activist, and a longtime Tom Petty fan. I am writing to tell you that I am very distressed by the fact that Tom is planning to perform at the Super Bowl this Sunday. The biggest cause of this distress is the fact that the main sponsor of the half-time event is, as I am sure you are aware, Bridgestone/Firestone. Perhaps you are unaware that Bridgestone/Firestone operates the largest rubber plantation in the world in Liberia, where it has employed child labor for much, if not all, of the past 82 years. Currently, workers there receive as pay the equivalent of $3.19 per day. Most live in company housing with no running water, in buildings that have not been renovated since they were constructed in 1926. The workers (and their families) are routinely exposed to toxic chemicals. Recent attempts at unionization have been brutally suppressed by police, in violation of internationally recognized labor and human rights.

Of course, Bridgestone/Firestone, the largest tire manufacturer in the world, is looking to raise its visibility and improve its image with the American public. I can hardly believe that Mr. Petty would participate in this effort by lending his name and talent in support of this despicable corporate misbehavior if he were to be made aware of the issues involved.

Mr. Petty has been (to this point) associated in my mind with rebels, rock and roll, and also loosely with a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood that emerged from the activism and camaraderie of the global peace, justice and solidarity movement of the 1960s and ’70s. But his association with Bridgestone/Firestone and scheduled participation in this Super Bowl is giving me a new impression.

I know there is a great deal of money to be made from exposure to such a mass audience, but at what cost? I am willing to assume that lending tacit support to the brutal exploitation of the labor of desperate people trying to make a decent life for themselves is not something that Mr. Petty would support were he to be made aware of the extensively documented antisocial and brutal behavior of his corporate sponsor.

Here are just a couple of links. Please take a moment to review this material:

* “Super Bowl of Shame” (by Jamie Menutis, Foreign Policy in Focus, 1/28/08)

* “Stopping Firestone: Getting Rubber to Meet the Road” (by Roxanne Lawson and Tim Newman, Foreign Policy in Focus, 12/7/06)

I would very much appreciate it if you would pass this message, these links, or a synopsis of this plea to Mr. Petty.

Actions, they say, always speak louder than words, or song lyrics, or images of rock and roll rebellion. I really don’t want to believe that Mr. Petty values money and career advancement over the lives and welfare of children in Liberia, or of working people anywhere. That is why I have taken the time to try and make Tom Petty and your entire organization aware of the harsh realities that these desperate workers and their families face at the hands of the folks at Bridgestone/Firestone.

To my way of thinking, a rock and roll hero that knowingly lends a hand (or his good name) to corporate abusers is no hero at all, and deserves to have his image adjusted accordingly.

Unquestionably, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers would receive a career boost from exposure to a huge Super Bowl audience. I cannot help thinking, though, that their legacy would be better served if Petty were to announce his intention to back out of participation in the Super Bowl in order to better stand for principle over profit. That would be my idea of an action worthy of a respectable rock icon.

Thanks for your time and consideration,

Paul Dean
Sebastopol, CA

Paul Dean is a composer and bassist with the band Blusion, whose music is described as "a remarkably unmarketable blend of jazz, funk, hip-hop, blues, salsa, rock, vocal and instrumental music." Blusion exists "to serve as a warning to all those who would perhaps otherwise be tempted to attempt something new and different. We starve so that others may live." Paul can be reached at: paul@blusion.com. Read other articles by Paul, or visit Paul's website.

25 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Liz said on February 1st, 2008 at 8:39am #

    Paul, if you were truly a Tom Petty fan you would know that none of his decisions are motivated by financial gain. And do you really think he needs exposure?? Wow…

  2. Michael Donnelly said on February 1st, 2008 at 10:23am #

    The SuperBowl is chump change for Petty. His far more heinous act was to organize the $10 million Bat Mitzvah that Zionist war profiteer David Brooks held for his daughter. I’ll never even listen to Petty again!

  3. Paul Dean said on February 1st, 2008 at 11:17am #

    I remember hearing about David Brooks humble little bash in honor of his daughter. But I guess it somehow escaped my notice that Tom Petty was the host.

    Maybe the guy really is just another Heartbreaker.
    or
    Oh no Tom! Not U2!

    I acknowledge that it is very difficult to maintain something that looks like integrity when embedded within a corrupt system, as we all are. But playing Court Jester to the Kings of War would seem to be a choice that someone in Petty’s position has the economic freedom to refuse.

  4. Sunil Sharma said on February 1st, 2008 at 11:20am #

    Liz wrote: “Paul, if you were truly a Tom Petty fan you would know that none of his decisions are motivated by financial gain. And do you really think he needs exposure?? Wow…”

    Liz, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you’re just incredibly naive. Yeah, who would imagine that any star wants mass exposure and fortune! St. Petty is above all that as evidenced by —

    Michael Donnelly wrote:
    “The SuperBowl is chump change for Petty. His far more heinous act was to organize the $10 million Bat Mitzvah that Zionist war profiteer David Brooks held for his daughter. I’ll never even listen to Petty again!” [see the link in his comment]

    It should be added that last October, Brooks, infamous in Gotham for his overly conspicuous consumption, was arrested for conspiracy, insider trading, fraud and other charges.

    Excerpts from a couple of news items sum up this scumbag’s story:

    October 26, 2007 — The former CEO of the leading supplier of body armor to U.S. soldiers in Iraq was charged yesterday with looting the company to bankroll a lavish lifestyle that included a $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter.

    In addition to the bat mitzvah — which included performances by Aerosmith, 50 Cent, Tom Petty, Kenny G and the Eagles –prosecutors said David Brooks got the firm, DHB Industries, to pay for other goodies.

    Among them were a face lift for his ex-wife; vitamins for his stable of 100 horses; pricey vacations; fancy jewels; an armored car; a $194,000 Bentley; and a $100,000 diamond-studded belt buckle.

    The elaborate scheme exploded yesterday when federal prosecutors unsealed a 21-count indictment accusing Brooks, 53, of securities fraud, insider trading, tax evasion and obstruction of justice. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life behind bars.

    And from here:

    Here in Gotham, Brooks is less known for his legal troubles than for his reported conspicuous consumption, and the indictment highlights the alleged big living. Prosecutors say that more than $5 million in company assets were diverted to Brooks, his family and companies he controlled. The unreported pay allegedly included more than $36,000 in expenses related to his son’s Bar Mitzvah; more than $350,000 in expenses related to his horse business; $11,420 for acupuncture treatments; $7,900 for a face lift for his wife; $10,000 for his kids’ summer camp; and $101,500 for an armored vehicle for Brooks and his family’s personal use, prosecutors said.

    But the piece de resistance: an alleged $122,000 for the purchase of iPods and digital cameras to give as gifts at his daughter’s Bat Mitzvah. Indeed, the New York tabloids call him “Bat Mitzvah” Brooks for pricey bash he threw his daughter last year at the Rainbow Room, hiring Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers, 50 Cent and Aerosmith, among others.

    Did Petty really have to answer the call and perform for this criminal asshole, whose company profiteered — with your and my taxpayer money — off the misery in Iraq, and whose ill-gotten fortunes were so obscenely spent?

    Looking at both this and Bridgestone/Firestone’s plundering and profiteering abroad, I’ve really lost all respect for Mr. Petty.

  5. Rustie said on February 1st, 2008 at 11:57am #

    Liz wrote: Paul, if you were truly a Tom Petty fan you would know that none of his decisions are motivated by financial gain. And do you really think he needs exposure?? Wow…

    So Liz, please explain, if Mr. Petty’s decisions are not motivated by financial gain &/or exposure then why would he choose to lend his good name, his music and the reputation of his band to murderous, profiteering, rapacious scum like Bridgestone/Firestone and David Brooks? Perhaps you are absolutely correct and it’s not for money or visibility, after all he needs neither. Perhaps these are just the kind of folks Petty chooses to associate with…..Wow!

  6. JMS said on February 1st, 2008 at 1:22pm #

    I like Tom Petty’s music, but he’s not a fighter. Aside from a few benefit concerts, what has he really accomplished? (correct me if i’m wrong).

    If you want some contemporary folkie rockers to admire, see Billy Bragg, Tom Waits, Steve Earle..

  7. Liz said on February 1st, 2008 at 1:24pm #

    Sunil wrote: Liz, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or if you’re just incredibly naive. Yeah, who would imagine that any star wants mass exposure and fortune!

    Actually, none of the above, Sunil. I was making the point that Tom Petty doesn’t need money or exposure. Sorry that was over your head.

    And Rustie–there’s no need to mock me. If you had a good argument you wouldn’t need to. I think we both know that.

  8. JMS said on February 1st, 2008 at 1:28pm #

    Liz, what’s his motive?

  9. Sunil Sharma said on February 1st, 2008 at 1:39pm #

    Actually, Liz, I think Rustie makes a valid point that you’re choosing to evade.

    Personally, I might be willing to shrug my shoulders and sigh if Petty was performing at the Super Bowl because he really really needs the money and exposure (just as he’s about to kick off a major North American tour in May). After all, it’s hard to begrudge someone who is broke (though perhaps not as broke and broken as the child laborers in Liberia). But if, as you claim, these are not the reasons, it reflects even more badly on Mr. Petty that he’s participating in an event sponsored by such a rapacious corporation when he doesn’t need to . . . wouldn’t you say?

  10. Liz said on February 1st, 2008 at 1:46pm #

    I don’t recall saying anything about Petty’s decision to play the Super Bowl. All I’ve said so far was that he doesn’t need money or exposure. Show me when and in what post I defended his decision to play the Super Bowl.

  11. Sunil Sharma said on February 1st, 2008 at 1:47pm #

    Folks wanting more information about Bridgestone/Firestone’s practices in Liberia and — more importantly — what you can do to help stop them should visit: http://www.StopFireStone.org/

  12. Paul Dean said on February 1st, 2008 at 2:24pm #

    Yes, thanks Sunil to post all this. The real point of the discussion is to stop the abuse of actual real flesh and blood people, and soon. It is unthinkable that we can live in a world of instant communication, glitz and Super Bowl Style, and fail to make the connection to the enabler of this orgy-the blood and sweat that is daily extracted from abused laborers, including children.

    These people, in 2008, are still living a Dickensian-style early industrial-era nightmare. It is disgusting.

    Of course Tom Petty is only one more petty enabler, it seems, of a system of corruption and greed in desperate need of reform.

    I write from this angle because I think music is powerful, and images are powerful, and it pisses me off that already rich and powerful musicians/artists will let their art be used in service of this kind of unforgivable abuse.

  13. Rustie Woods said on February 1st, 2008 at 2:35pm #

    Liz wrote in response to Sunil: I was making the point that Tom Petty doesn’t need money or exposure. Sorry that was over your head.

    Liz also wrote: And Rustie–there’s no need to mock me. If you had a good argument you wouldn’t need to. I think we both know that.

    We both know, Liz, that a comment such as yours to Sunil (“Sorry that was over your head”) has some point to it? Or is it that you don’t feel obliged to make a good argument? I raise these questions because while you have responded to our comments you still have not answered the direct question, which by the way was raised by your sarcasm in the first place. Once again Liz, why if not for money and exposure would Petty make such a choice?

    It seems like a small point, however your apparent misguided perception that those with money, fame and power don’t make choices based on increasing their riches and standing is a naive and dangerous position. If only this were true perhaps we would not have such an unrelenting industrial military complex daily murdering innocents by the thousands. And maybe Bridgestone/Firestone doesn’t abuse its laborers for the sake of larger profits. And just possibly our leaders didn’t march us into an unsanctioned war because they were seeking even more wealth and power. No there must be some other acceptable explanation for such behavior and choices. What exactly is your point Liz?

  14. Liz said on February 1st, 2008 at 2:47pm #

    Oh goodness…okay, I’ll try one more time.

    My first post wasn’t meant to be taken as sarcasm. I was stating a fact. Tom Petty doesn’t need more money or exposure.

    You guys are so insistent that I’m trying to make some point against what you’re arguing that you’re not even listening to me when I say I’m not.

    Try looking at what I originally wrote like this: If Tom Petty doesn’t need money or exposure, what other reasons might he have for playing this show?

    Because that’s the POINT I was trying to make. Does that satisfy you Rustie?

    Not everyone is the enemy.

  15. Sunil Sharma said on February 1st, 2008 at 2:54pm #

    Liz wrote:
    “You guys are so insistent that I’m trying to make some point against what you’re arguing that you’re not even listening to me when I say I’m not. Try looking at what I originally wrote like this: If Tom Petty doesn’t need money or exposure, what other reasons might he have for playing this show?”

    Well, that would have been a clearer way to post it from the start. But with the “Wow” and the “Paul, if you were truly a Tom Petty fan . . .”, your intent reads more like either sarcasm, antagonism or both.

    “Not everyone is the enemy.”

    Agreed.

    Peace,

    — S

  16. David Stewart said on February 1st, 2008 at 6:28pm #

    Tom Petty is playing the Super Bowl because it’s an audience of at least 140 million people. I have no problem with Tom Petty doing a gig for the NFL. They’re paying him to play which is what Petty and his band do really well. If you want to blame someone, blame the NFL for letting Bridgestone sponsor the halftime show. Petty has only allowed corporate sponsorship during one tour of his own and that was in the late 70’s and he’s regretted it ever since. But he has played in numerous venues with sponsorship. The Nissan Pavillion in Virginia comes to mind. You have to pick and chose your battles. The NFL has given Petty the freedom to play the show that he would like. I give the NFL credit for hiring someone as free spirited as Petty to play the halftime show while simultaneously criticizing their choice of sponsorship. It’s a mixed bag for me when it comes to the NFL and their choices.

  17. P. Tillman said on February 1st, 2008 at 7:18pm #

    Even better, you should urge the 2 competing NFL teams not to play with such a heinous sponsor such as Firestone. Or argue the case that football itself propagates a militant mindset, and narrow either-or thinking, that plays out in such bloody conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan.

    I’ll be doing my part by boycotting the world’s most overrated sporting event completely.

  18. MC said on February 2nd, 2008 at 6:43am #

    RS: This halftime show is sponsored by Bridgestone Tires. Are you softening your stance about working with corporations?

    TP: No. I’m not sponsored by Bridgestone. My deal is with the NFL. The halftime show is always presented by a sponsor. If I play on The Tonight Show, it’s presented by sponsors. Truthfully, every venue in America has some sort of corporate sponsor above the door or on the wall. It’s not a deal that I made, you know? Don’t worry, I haven’t gone corporate.

  19. 7. said on February 2nd, 2008 at 8:38am #

    Capitalism’s greatest trick – the commoditization of rebellion.

  20. Paul Dean said on February 2nd, 2008 at 10:54am #

    This is in response to P.Tillman, David Stewart and Ryan.

    Tillman thinks pressure should be brought to bear on the NFL. I agree. Lets write them and tell them what we think of Bridgestone Firestone and their labor record. I’ll be boycotting the Super Bowl as well, and would do so even without Tom Petty’s involvement.

    David Stewart has no problem w/Petty playing for the Super Bowl, and brings up the point that there are corporate sponsors for all the venues.
    Ryan quotes Petty in Rolling Stone saying he didn’t choose his sponsors, so don’t worry, he hasn’t “gone corporate.”

    Tom Petty: “No. I’m not sponsored by Bridgestone. My deal is with the NFL. The halftime show is always presented by a sponsor. If I play on The Tonight Show, it’s presented by sponsors. Truthfully, every venue in America has some sort of corporate sponsor above the door or on the wall. It’s not a deal that I made, you know? Don’t worry, I haven’t gone corporate.”

    Petty has spoken the clear truth, that’s for sure, about every venue in America being under corporate control. But in addressing the issue this way, he has omitted some other truths. Essentially, he says “Don’t blame me man, those corporate sins are not connected to me in any way.”

    Petty signed with the NFL, they signed with Bridgestone, so he is out of the loop, and thus still cool and non-corporate. We’ll call it the “Firestone Firewall.”

    But Petty relies on that system-the venues, the sponsors, for his bread and butter: it is the ‘infrastructure’ upon which his career is based. If he wants to be cool and not associated with corporate rapaciousness, let him to the largest extent possible not associate with corporate thieves.
    What he did not say is “Firestone sucks, and treats their employees like slaves, literally.”

    He did not even say, “Hey I’m not happy with the way some corporations do things, and I do not want to be associated with any corporate sponsors.” All he really said was “I didn’t choose them” and “I can’t get away from corporate sponsors because that is just how business is done in America today.”

    When you sign a big bucks contract with a huge corporation, like the NFL, you are choosing. When Petty played for billionaire war profiteer and (allegedly) serial felon David Brooks’s private bacchanalian orgy, what was his firewall? That it was his agent and not he that cut the deal?

    Yes, you choose your battles. I am not saying Petty is the embodiment of evil, or that this is the most important issue of the day. This started when I sent an email to his website, identifying myself as a fan, to inform him that the sponsor under whose name he will appear in the Super Bowl, is a greedy, rapacious and untrustworthy corporate actor on the world stage. My intent was only to inform them that for me, Petty’s image will take a hit just from being associated with them. Bridgestone/Firestone+ruthless suppression of labor rights+Tom Petty????

    Doesn’t work for me.

  21. Tim said on February 2nd, 2008 at 9:38pm #

    Thanks for this awesome discussion folks and especially to Paul for starting it off. Of course neither the NFL nor Tom Petty should be associating themselves with such an unethical company. However, this presents us with a strategic opportunity to raise awareness about Firestone’s long history of abuse in Liberia. I also think it is important to note (as others here have) that since Petty says he does not have a contract with Firestone, then there is no reason why he should not speak out publicly to support the workers in Liberia. Come on Tom!

    Anyway, folks can send an urgent action e-mail to the NFL and Firestone here: http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/NFL08 Please take action, forward it around to friends, sign up for updates and continue to take more action!

    Also, for more thoughts on Tom Petty’s Super Bowl performance, the Firestone campaign and international labor rights issues in general, check out the Labor is Not a Commodity blog here: http://laborrightsblog.typepad.com/

  22. ken mcbride said on February 3rd, 2008 at 2:00pm #

    last superbowl in phoenix i went south to tucson.so i’m not the type that digs the big crowds; it’s too much but that’s how it is and it’s showbiz..these people are the rich and they’re paid by the elites.. we’re just the speculating spectators,just look at this murderous executive branch that continues to run the country into the ground and down into hell..we’re on a hellbound train..maybe petty should do all cover songs like savoy brown’s hellbound train and an alice cooper song ‘dead babies’..that would be,in my best butthead, ‘ that’ll be cool’..

  23. Tereza said on February 4th, 2008 at 11:28am #

    I agree with Liz (I think) that we’re all part of the problem. Tom Petty’s role in this, and the Superbowl itself, has been a great publicity boost to the issue. But it’s likely that your city and school busses also run on Firestone, like 85% of Berkeley, CA’s tires, where they’re working on a resolution to ban new purchases. Bridgestone spent $25M for the Superbowl spot, but that’s money they put out. It would be more effective to stop criticizing those who’ve taken their money (now that the point’s been so articulately made – thank you, Paul), and make sure we stop giving them our money. We’re the ones whose children are riding on the products of Liberian child labor.
    I’m part of the Stop Firestone coalition, and we need more people who know the facts. We’re all collaborating, and we have to face it before we can find a way out. We didn’t end slavery in the U.S. – we simply outsourced it. Liberia, where freed U.S. slaves were sent by James Monroe to enslave the residents (hence, Monrovia) is a case in point. There’s a lot of momentum to create alternatives to the global master-slave scenario. I’m confident we’ll succeed, but it can’t happen soon enough for these workers and their children.
    An article in the Monrovian news the other day mentioned the plantation security police and some national police flogging 11 workers accused of illegal rubber tapping. Their wives and children were arrested (demonstrating that kids are working), their homes ransacked, and personal items taken, but it wasn’t clear if the women and children were also flogged. But the outrage in the article was over Firestone confiscating $4000 of rubber, buckets, and shovels from the other farm. The flogging was a matter-of-fact detail in a dispute between landowners. I’d like someone to ask Adomitis, Bridgestone CEO, if this is so routine for his security force that it doesn’t make the news unless there’s property with real value involved – not someone’s skin.

  24. Paul Dean said on February 4th, 2008 at 4:58pm #

    Tereza, thank you to bring us back to the center of the issue. We are all part of the problem because the problem is systemic. The “slave system” is well entrenched and expressed in many ways throughout our economic and social systems worldwide. I agree that we are all participants.

    I think one of the major implications of this is that we should (in addition to battling corporate malefactors like Firestone) use less tires in general, drive around much less, and consume less of every other resource. It seems to be true that much of our consumption here in the US is fueled by inequitable trade.

    But to even call it “inequitable trade” is a polite way to describe what often manifests in virtual slavery, as in the Firestone/Liberian situation. Imagine workers in America being flogged by their employers!

    When workers and their families can be subjected to pre-judicial punishment at the hands of their employers/accusers, what words describe this relationship better than to say the relationship is between slave and master?

    The point was never to blame Petty for all this. Shedding yet another layer of my culturally induced inclination to hero worship, has to be a good thing. I’m already over it-with him.

    I won’t even be able to begin to get over it with Bridgestone Firestone until they change their despicable behavior.

    I defer to Tereza and Tim as highly articulate persons with far more direct knowledge of the situation than I. It is important work that you folks are involved with.

    I hope this discussion has encouraged some more folks to get involved. And I hope it leads to more thinking about how we are all enmeshed in an economic system that extracts wealth from the already poor to enrich the already rich. But most of all, I hope that very soon, it leads to a direct improvement in the lives of the Firestone workers and their families in Liberia.

  25. hp said on February 7th, 2008 at 3:26pm #

    When are you children going to realize that “those people,” the chosen few, have an entirely different set of rules. Or should I say no rules?