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.

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/

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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