Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Yes Yes Y'All
Culture pranksters Mike Bobanno and Andy Bichlbaum, the "Yes Men," have been lurking around D.C. interviewing libertarians for a faux "follow-up" to Free to Choose. Here's the e-mail going around warning classical liberals about the hoax.
I wanted you to know that a British film crew representing themselves as being from the “Adam Smith Foundation” and Hill and Knowlton are interviewing their way around Washington’s free-market think tanks this week, purportedly for a TV documentary... They are a fraud, evidently from an outfit called The Yes Men (see www.theyesmen.org)—a left-wing amalgam of Michael Moore and Sacha Baron Cohen. They have done long interviews with Ken Green and Ted Frank at AEI and with Fred Smith at the Competitive Enterprise Institute—long enough to permit them to extract footage making their subjects appear to be saying about anything they want.
And here's an example of the Yes Men in action.
|7.11.07 @ 3:36PM|#
someone should kick 'em in the nuts.
(I came up with that proposal after jettisoning my first
instinct-to cut off their heads and make love to their neck
stumps.)
|7.11.07 @ 3:38PM|#
make love to their neck stumps.
I can think of a few phrases I would have used to describe what you
were going to do to their neck stumps, but "make love" was
certainly not one of them.
|7.11.07 @ 3:39PM|#
I can think of a few phrases I would have used to describe
what you were going to do to their neck stumps, but "make love" was
certainly not one of them.
Put me in for that vote too.
VM|7.11.07 @ 3:40PM|#
between ,"make love to their neck stumps" and "monster tard", today is great for learning new stuff...
|7.11.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Wow, I thought Cohen was cool until about 30 seconds
ago...
On the other hand, Moore and Cohen would make a great
Abbot-and-Costello-style comedy team!
|7.11.07 @ 3:54PM|#
Am I the only one who didn't think it was funny at all? As much as I hate Micheal Moore, I think he could've at least made it entertaining and funny.
GILMORE|7.11.07 @ 3:54PM|#
ed | July 11, 2007, 3:47pm | #
It puts the lotion on the neck stumps...
har! best. movie quote. ever.
|7.11.07 @ 3:57PM|#
Contrary to the implication, Moore and Cohen have nothing to do with this. It's just "like" what they do.
Randolph Carter|7.11.07 @ 4:00PM|#
I couldn't watch the whole video but let me guess - the candles were people fat, right?
|7.11.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Contrary to the implication, Moore and Cohen have nothing to
do with this. It's just "like" what they do.
So is Borat a socialist or what?
|7.11.07 @ 4:02PM|#
From the wikipedia Yes Men site:
On June 14, 2007, the Yes Men acted during Canada's largest
oil conference in Calgary, Alberta, posing as ExxonMobil and
National Petroleum Council (NPC) representatives. In front of more
than 300 oilmen, the NPC was expected to deliver the long-awaited
conclusions of a study commissioned by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman. The NPC is headed by former ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond, who
is also the chair of the study.[5]
In the actual speech, the "NPC rep" announced that current U.S. and
Canadian energy policies (notably the massive, carbon-intensive
exploitation of Alberta's oil sands, and the development of liquid
coal) are increasing the chances of huge global calamities. But he
reassured the audience that in the worst case scenario, the oil
industry could "keep fuel flowing" by transforming the billions of
people who would die into oil.
The project, called Vivoleum would work in perfect synergy with the
continued expansion of fossil fuel production. The oilmen listened
to the lecture with attention, and then lit "commemorative candles"
supposedly made of Vivoleum obtained from the flesh of an "Exxon
janitor" who died as a result of cleaning up a toxic spill. The
audience only reacted when the janitor, in a video tribute,
announced that he wished to be transformed into candles after his
death.
Come on, that's pretty funny. I'm sure even after the joke was
exposed many of the oil executives were thinking, "hmm...what if we
could turn people into oil?"
dhex|7.11.07 @ 4:04PM|#
"So is Borat a socialist or what?"
if sexual harassment and social faux pas are socialism, then
yes.
i know i may regret offering that up to someone for whom most
nearly everything is socialism, but i stand by my answer.
|7.11.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Kind of reminds me of some the goofy stuff the "no nukes" crowd came up with during the cold war. The annoying part, is not so much how clever they think they are. It's more how they think their cleverness trumps academic discourse.
crap-action-jackson|7.11.07 @ 4:09PM|#
Anyone sitting for an interviewer without checking credentials
is asking for trouble.
And anyone sitting for an interview should have their own camera
rolling the entire time... cameras as cheap as they are, there's no
excuse.
|7.11.07 @ 4:13PM|#
Hate to be a killjoy (actually love it) but these "gotcha" comedy teams deserve a solid punch in the dick.
|7.11.07 @ 4:25PM|#
Wow, things change. Back when Borat first came out, I remember being roundly mocked for suggesting that he was an unfunny scumbag who takes advantage of people's politeness and then makes fun of them.
|7.11.07 @ 4:27PM|#
crap-action-jackson
True that. Any corprate executive being asked for an interview by
60 min. et al should agree to do the interview, at his own
conference room. He should agree to allow in one journalist and one
cameraman. The conference room should be set up with three
different cameras and the AV club in attendance. The reporter
should have to answer a question for every one she asks.
|7.11.07 @ 4:34PM|#
True that. Any corprate executive being asked for an
interview by 60 min. et al should agree to do the interview, at his
own conference room. He should agree to allow in one journalist and
one cameraman. The conference room should be set up with three
different cameras and the AV club in attendance. The reporter
should have to answer a question for every one she asks.
This is known as the "George W. Bush" style interview. You only
forgot the part where the interview subject writes the
questions.
|7.11.07 @ 4:41PM|#
Dan T.: Thanks. That makes a lot more sense, and actually is funny. That video is shit though.
|7.11.07 @ 4:42PM|#
Looks like we now face a long nightmare of unfunny people trying
to copy the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Borat.
Borat says, "après moi, le déluge. Very nice!"
Stephen the Goldberger|7.11.07 @ 4:54PM|#
these guys inspired me to actually auction off my vote next general election
Ted Frank|7.11.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Anyone sitting for an interviewer without checking
credentials is asking for trouble.
Getting credentials doesn't do much good when the credentials are
faked. They fraudulently gave me the name of a legitimate
journalist and a legitimate organization. And, yeah, my mistake for
trusting that an interview set up by my employer's media relations
department had been appropriately screened by my employer's media
relations department.
Nevertheless, the entire time, I was on guard for Borat-style
tactics, which they avoided; they even avoided Daily-Show-style
tactics. Anything they do to me, they're going to do in the process
of editing, inserting audio of fake questions, or manipulating the
blue screen that was behind me, and the result is going to be about
as funny and entertaining as drawing a mustache on a poster.
NB that the Yes Men also go by Jacques Servin and Igor Vamos and
other names; somehow, Vamos has an academic job at RPI.
Paul|7.11.07 @ 5:02PM|#
Warren:
It's more how they think their cleverness trumps academic
discourse.
There is actually quite a chasm between cleverness and intellect.
Michael Moore, for instance, makes clever films.
dhex|7.11.07 @ 5:07PM|#
crimethink: you'll be happy to know i still think it's funny so long as it measures on the humorosity scale.
theOneState|7.11.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I'm sure even after the joke was exposed many of the oil
executives were thinking, "hmm...what if we could turn people into
oil?
No doubt. Cos that's how oil execs think.
Ted, how come they get to use the footage? Don't they need your
consent? (Do they have naked pictures of your dog or
something?)
Anonymous Bastard|7.11.07 @ 5:25PM|#
IIRC, anything shot with a clearly visible camera is fair game.
Ted Frank|7.11.07 @ 5:40PM|#
They asked questions such as "How can the free market help
citizens evaluate risk in pharmaceuticals?" I gave a standard
libertarian answer out of Milton Friedman with reference to the
Abigail Alliance case, which they no doubt find hilarious
in and of itself, given their extreme anti-free-market views.
Someone complaining about thousands of people dead because of
excessive government regulation is always funny, right?
They asked me about whether IBM should be liable sixty years later
for selling computers to the Nazis. I noted that that depended on
whether one wanted a legal rule that one could never buy a product
unless the seller did a full background check on the likelihood you
would misuse the product for wrong, and gave the example of banks
being sued for terrorist acts because of tertiary relationships of
terrorists to someone who holds a checking account. Heck, I said
that in the Wall Street Journal.
They asked me about asbestos litigation; I didn't say anything I
haven't said on my blog, at AEI, or in the book I'm writing.
They asked me about the pending DBCP lawsuits against Dow. I said I
didn't know enough about the case to comment.
Ted, how come they get to use the footage? Don't they need your
consent?
They gave me a release before the interview. I signed it after
checking to ensure that I wasn't waiving the right to sue for
fraud. Of course, it wouldn't do me very much good to sue for
fraud; these guys have no money, have no hopes of making money, and
any lawsuit would give them more publicity than if I just shrug
this off. My mistake: I was thinking of the HBO/Borat scenario, and
not of the anarchic culture-jammer scenario, where the jammer
doesn't particularly care about staying within the law. In the
future, I'll refer a release to the media relations department and
offer to sign later, but the lack of a release wouldn't really
affect these guys' willingness to act if they're going the YouTube
route rather than the movie route. I may seek a declaratory
judgment that the release is invalid; I haven't decided whether
that is worth my time. I'll talk things over with Fred Smith and
Ken Green and AEI and some lawyer friends.
Edward|7.11.07 @ 6:06PM|#
Gee, this is pretty funny:
http://www.theyesmen.org/hijinks/dow/acceptablerisk.shtml
On April 28, 2004, at a London banking conference to which they had
accidentally been invited because of their satirical website, "Dow
representative" "Erastus Hamm" unveiled "Acceptable Risk," a Dow
industry standard for determining how many deaths are acceptable
when achieving large profits. The bankers enthusiastically
applauded the lecture, which described several industrial crimes,
including IBM's sale of technology to the Nazis for use in
identifying Jews, as "golden skeletons" - i.e. skeletons in the
closet, but lucrative and therefore acceptable ones.
Several of the bankers in attendance then signed up for licenses
for the "Acceptable Risk Calculator" and even posed with Acceptable
Risk mascot "Gilda, the golden skeleton in the closet," for
photos.
The exercise was intended to illustrate the absurdity of depending
on "Corporate Social Responsibility" (CSR) to set limits to
corporate behavior. If corporations were completely free to behave
as the market demands - the logical extreme of CSR - then
industrial catastrophes of huge magnitude, such as Bhopal, would
not necessarily be disadvised.
Edward|7.11.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Hey, most of the posts that appear here also appear here:
http://mrebman.info-blogs.com/
|7.11.07 @ 6:58PM|#
The annoying part, is not so much how clever they think they
are. It's more how they think their cleverness trumps academic
discourse.
A la those "Truth.org" assholes...
|7.11.07 @ 10:00PM|#
If you work for AEI or CEI you got issues -- I'm a libertarian but if you are a wonk at one of these places, you have the emotional intelligence of a single cell organism and get what you deserve. Plus if you believe a bastard like rothbard, freidman isn't a libertarian anyways.
|7.12.07 @ 12:23AM|#
Ok, I might not care for their politics, but give 'em points - as pranks go, that one was pretty good! I give them points just for having the balls to pull it off. Not only that, they managed to get the audience to totally buy into it. That's gotta be worth something!
|7.12.07 @ 2:03AM|#
I've seen the move. They are sometimes pretty funny and I'll
admit they can get away with some pretty shocking things but really
that's all they're doing. Going to conferences, saying crazy things
in a really dead pan manner and getting away with it. They annoying
part about it a mentioned earlier is the fact that they think all
their pranks really amount to something meaningful.
It has been a while since I saw it but I remember the conclusions
that these guys were so sure their stunts yielded annoyed me. For
instance trying to suggest that corporate businessman were stupid
and knew nothing because they were willing to sit through those
bullshit presentations. Just because no one stood up and said 'this
is absurd!' doesn't mean they were being taken seriously. Most of
their presentations I recall as being ridiculous but feasible. I
could imagine sitting in an audience thinking 'Ok this is insane
and these guys are nuts' but at the same time being able to fathom
that these guys could be for real and just sitting it out and
pretending to pay attention.
Then they seemed to be trying to make a point at some university
that the new generation shows promise because the young people
questioned their proposals, PFFFT! first of all they were pitching
the idea of selling the public human excrement as food. That was
FAR beyond ANYTHING they had tried on the corporate guys. Secondly,
it was more of an informal open forum so questioning it out loud
would have been easier. Thirdly, most of the students while visibly
outraged had one thing in common with the corporates: they didn't
realize they were being duped. No one knows how they would react to
something like that until they're put on the spot but still, I'm
pretty sure I wouldn't even bother arguing and realize it must just
be a prank when it got to that kind of level.
And at the end they do a thing where they make a bunch of people
involved with the WTO beleiv that the organisation is closing down
and the way they try and spin the reactions in to something really
significant is incredibly stupid. Some people ended up thinking the
WTO closing down would be a good thing. Well a lot of people think
a lot of things. That didn't prove anything. There are a lot of
negative things that could come out of closing the WTO, it's pretty
childish to just say 'hey look we duped some insiders in to
thinking it was happening and some were optimistic about the higher
ups decision! Oh we are so righteous!' That's just lazy, you'd have
to wait and see what actually happened or at least analyze in depth
all the things that would be likely to happen if the WTO shut down
and weigh it all up before you can expect to be taken seriously,
that really pissed me off.
Man oh man i went on for too long...
No Dupe|7.12.07 @ 2:25AM|#
I wonder what would happen if a bunch of hoaxers set up a University Symposium on Stalin and then use it to claim that the purges were justified, the show trials were necessary and his actions during WW2 prove that he was one of the best leaders in history? And what would happen if they taped and later parodied the reactions of the audience?
|7.12.07 @ 7:38AM|#
Maybe we need a libertarian version of 'yes men'? Couple of guys pose as either extreme righties or lefties, go around, give presentations at conferences or make videos ala Michael Moore. At any rate, libertarians are way behind in the parody deparment (unless you count Huck Finn or Gullivers Travels as libertarianish parodies).
|7.12.07 @ 9:24AM|#
I'm not sure about the technology, but last I knew we already
have factories turning animal left-overs (such as from chicken
processing) into oil, so it is not a stretch being able to do that
with people.
That said, I cannot think of anything being less efficient, as the
fuel spent bringing the people to the plant would exceed whatever
would be produced from their bodies. It works with the chicken
waste because the plants co-locate just down the street from each
other.
|7.12.07 @ 9:38AM|#
Solution: Have the people processing just up the street from the vivoleum factory.
Scooby|7.12.07 @ 9:48AM|#
It works with the chicken waste because the plants co-locate
just down the street from each other.
From what I can tell, it doesn't work very well as a source of
usable energy. It's mostly a way to get back a portion of the
energy required to dispose of a waste stream. It's better than
trucking it to a landfill, but might not be better than composting
the waste for fertilizer.
Of course, composting people for fertilizer would be only one step
removed from Soylent Green. That might give folks the
heebie-jeebies.
Xaq Fixx|7.12.07 @ 2:35PM|#
BureauCrash have done several Crashes like that.
http://youtube.com/user/bureaucrash
Mark Bahner|7.14.07 @ 1:17AM|#
"Come on, that's pretty funny. I'm sure even after the joke was
exposed many of the oil executives were thinking, 'hmm...what if we
could turn people into oil?'"
Probably not. Probably oil executives actually know something about
oil and energy.
There are 6.5 billion people in the world...figuring a life
expectancy of 65 years, that's 100 million deaths each year.
Now assume an average weight of 160 pounds, and a heat content of a
human body (generously) at 5000 Btu/lb. (It's actually probably
less than 4000 Btu/lb, considering the high percentage of water in
the body.)
100 million people x 160 lbs/person x 5000 Btu/lb
= 80 trillion Btus
That's less than 1/1000th of the energy use in the U.S. each
year.
|7.14.07 @ 4:48AM|#
Hell, I'm sure Michael Moore alone would supply enough biodiesel
blubber to drive an 18-wheeler from New York to Los Angeles a dozen
times.
-jcr
Mark Bahner|7.14.07 @ 9:52AM|#
"Hell, I'm sure Michael Moore alone would supply enough
biodiesel blubber to drive an 18-wheeler from New York to Los
Angeles a dozen times."
Obviously, the Yes Men don't watch Star Trek: the Next Generation.
Otherwise, they'd know that human beings are "Ugly bags of mostly
water."
Per the Science.Enotes.com website, the human body is about 62
percent water, 17 percent protein, 15 percent fat, and 3 percent
nitrogen.
Even if Michael Moore weighed 300 pounds (which seems possible, if
I remember him correctly), and was 20 percent fat, the heating
value of his body would probably be below 4000 Btu/lb, so he'd have
about 1,200,000 Btu of heating value in his body. That's about 10
gallons of gasoline.
|7.25.07 @ 10:25AM|#
these two speakers are the best that I have ever heard. The world should listen
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245