Tuesday, October 1, 2019

Together Forever book signing in Rome Friday 5 October

Questo è un appuntamento per gli amanti della cultura punk, hip hop e dello skateboarding ribelle.
Venerdì 4 ottobre alle 19 Glen E. Friedman sarà a Officine Fotografiche Roma per un talk e la presentazione del libro Together Forever.

Non potete perdervelo!

We will be screening the 20 year old FUCK YOU ALL mini doc made by Roma's own Fluid Video crew.

And I will be signing books and answering questions.

Thursday, September 26, 2019

TOGETHER FOREVER book comes out Tuesday!

View this post on Instagram

Run-DMC & BEASTIE BOYS - I got my advance copy (see above and swipe for more) of TOGETHER FOREVER - my new book of photographs - 224 packed pages - same dimensions as “keep your eyes open” - many many never before seen photographs, as well as the classics, and detailed stories I’ve never told before, in my (5000 word 🙄) introduction, that comes after the forward by huge Run and Beasties fan, Chris Rock @ChrisRock - as well as commentaries from Chuck D. @mrchuckd_pe , Mike D. @miked , Darryl @kingdmc , Adam Horovitz @garbagefeet , Run @revwon , The Hurra @djhurricane1 , Russ @unclerush , and Rick @rickrubin - if you love these two groups you will love this book. . . Official release day is October 1st!!! There will be several book signings. The first is going to be in Northern New Jersey, at a store call Book Ends @bookendsnj on the 1st day of release!!! DMC will be there with me to sign books! If RUN is in town he may come by too! Should be fun. . . . 🤞🏽 I am also looking to have signings in Manhattan (@fotografiskanyc), Brooklyn (@beyondthestreetsart), Los Angeles (@booksoup), Miami (@miamibookfair) and possibly one in Rome, 🇮🇹 . All are being worked on now, I’ll let you know as any further of these or other dates get confirmed... this book is being published by @rizzolibooks so it will be AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE ... if you are interested, try and get it from your favorite local bookseller. . . #rowofthree #books #HipHop #RunDMC #BeastieBoys #DefJam #photography #inspiration #OldSchool #GoldenEra #TogetherForever #Unity #StandTogether #Peace #loveofthegame #LoveOfArt #RapMusic #NewYorkCity #UniversalLanguage #GoldFoil #guilding #BBOY #Style #RockinTheGold #DookieRope #DedicatedToTheKids

A post shared by glen E. friedman Ⓥ (@glenefriedman) on

Thursday, September 12, 2019

The "3.5% rule":
How A Small Minority Can Change The World

from BBC Future Now:

Nonviolent protests are twice as likely to succeed as armed conflicts – and those engaging a threshold of 3.5% of the population have never failed to bring about change

In 1986, millions of Filipinos took to the streets of Manila in peaceful protest and prayer in the People Power movement. The Marcos regime folded on the fourth day.

In 2003, the people of Georgia ousted Eduard Shevardnadze through the bloodless Rose Revolution, in which protestors stormed the parliament building holding the flowers in their hands.

Earlier this year, the presidents of Sudan and Algeria both announced they would step aside after decades in office, thanks to peaceful campaigns of resistance.

In each case, civil resistance by ordinary members of the public trumped the political elite to achieve radical change.
There are, of course, many ethical reasons to use nonviolent strategies. But compelling research by Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist at Harvard University, confirms that civil disobedience is not only the moral choice; it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics – by a long way.

Looking at hundreds of campaigns over the last century, Chenoweth found that nonviolent campaigns are twice as likely to achieve their goals as violent campaigns. And although the exact dynamics will depend on many factors, she has shown it takes around 3.5% of the population actively participating in the protests to ensure serious political change.

Chenoweth’s influence can be seen in the recent Extinction Rebellion protests, whose founders say they have been directly inspired by her findings. So just how did she come to these conclusions?

Needless to say, Chenoweth’s research builds on the philosophies of many influential figures throughout history. The African-American abolitionist Sojourner Truth, the suffrage campaigner Susan B Anthony, the Indian independence activist Mahatma Gandhi and the US civil rights campaigner Martin Luther King have all convincingly argued for the power of peaceful protest.

Yet Chenoweth admits that when she first began her research in the mid-2000s, she was initially rather cynical of the idea that nonviolent actions could be more powerful than armed conflict in most situations. As a PhD student at the University of Colorado, she had spent years studying the factors contributing to the rise of terrorism when she was asked to attend an academic workshop organised by the International Center of Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC), a non-profit organisation based in Washington DC. The workshop presented many compelling examples of peaceful protests bringing about lasting political change – including, for instance, the People Power protests in the Philippines.

But Chenoweth was surprised to find that no-one had comprehensively compared the success rates of nonviolent versus violent protests; perhaps the case studies were simply chosen through some kind of confirmation bias. “I was really motivated by some scepticism that nonviolent resistance could be an effective method for achieving major transformations in society,” she says.

Working with Maria Stephan, a researcher at the ICNC, Chenoweth performed an extensive review of the literature on civil resistance and social movements from 1900 to 2006 – a data set then corroborated with other experts in the field. They primarily considered attempts to bring about regime change. A movement was considered a success if it fully achieved its goals both within a year of its peak engagement and as a direct result of its activities. A regime change resulting from foreign military intervention would not be considered a success, for instance. A campaign was considered violent, meanwhile, if it involved bombings, kidnappings, the destruction of infrastructure – or any other physical harm to people or property.

“We were trying to apply a pretty hard test to nonviolent resistance as a strategy,” Chenoweth says. (The criteria were so strict that India’s independence movement was not considered as evidence in favour of nonviolent protest in Chenoweth and Stephan’s analysis – since Britain’s dwindling military resources were considered to have been a deciding factor, even if the protests themselves were also a huge influence.)

By the end of this process, they had collected data from 323 violent and nonviolent campaigns. And their results – which were published in their book Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict – were striking.
Strength in numbers

Overall, nonviolent campaigns were twice as likely to succeed as violent campaigns: they led to political change 53% of the time compared to 26% for the violent protests.

This was partly the result of strength in numbers. Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are more likely to succeed because they can recruit many more participants from a much broader demographic, which can cause severe disruption that paralyses normal urban life and the functioning of society.

In fact, of the 25 largest campaigns that they studied, 20 were nonviolent, and 14 of these were outright successes. Overall, the nonviolent campaigns attracted around four times as many participants (200,000) as the average violent campaign (50,000).

The People Power campaign against the Marcos regime in the Philippines, for instance, attracted two million participants at its height, while the Brazilian uprising in 1984 and 1985 attracted one million, and the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia in 1989 attracted 500,000 participants.

“Numbers really matter for building power in ways that can really pose a serious challenge or threat to entrenched authorities or occupations,” Chenoweth says – and nonviolent protest seems to be the best way to get that widespread support.

Once around 3.5% of the whole population has begun to participate actively, success appears to be inevitable.

Besides the People Power movement, the Singing Revolution in Estonia and the Rose Revolution in Georgia all reached the 3.5% threshold

“There weren’t any campaigns that had failed after they had achieved 3.5% participation during a peak event,” says Chenoweth – a phenomenon she has called the “3.5% rule”. Besides the People Power movement, that included the Singing Revolution in Estonia in the late 1980s and the Rose Revolution in Georgia in the early 2003.

Chenoweth admits that she was initially surprised by her results. But she now cites many reasons that nonviolent protests can garner such high levels of support. Perhaps most obviously, violent protests necessarily exclude people who abhor and fear bloodshed, whereas peaceful protesters maintain the moral high ground.

Chenoweth points out that nonviolent protests also have fewer physical barriers to participation. You do not need to be fit and healthy to engage in a strike, whereas violent campaigns tend to lean on the support of physically fit young men. And while many forms of nonviolent protests also carry serious risks – just think of China’s response in Tiananmen Square in 1989 – Chenoweth argues that nonviolent campaigns are generally easier to discuss openly, which means that news of their occurrence can reach a wider audience. Violent movements, on the other hand, require a supply of weapons, and tend to rely on more secretive underground operations that might struggle to reach the general population.

By engaging broad support across the population, nonviolent campaigns are also more likely to win support among the police and the military – the very groups that the government should be leaning on to bring about order.

During a peaceful street protest of millions of people, the members of the security forces may also be more likely to fear that their family members or friends are in the crowd – meaning that they fail to crack down on the movement. “Or when they’re looking at the [sheer] numbers of people involved, they may just come to the conclusion the ship has sailed, and they don’t want to go down with the ship,” Chenoweth says.

In terms of the specific strategies that are used, general strikes “are probably one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, single method of nonviolent resistance”, Chenoweth says. But they do come at a personal cost, whereas other forms of protest can be completely anonymous. She points to the consumer boycotts in apartheid-era South Africa, in which many black citizens refused to buy products from companies with white owners. The result was an economic crisis among the country’s white elite that contributed to the end of segregation in the early 1990s.

“There are more options for engaging and nonviolent resistance that don’t place people in as much physical danger, particularly as the numbers grow, compared to armed activity,” Chenoweth says. “And the techniques of nonviolent resistance are often more visible, so that it's easier for people to find out how to participate directly, and how to coordinate their activities for maximum disruption.”

A magic number?

These are very general patterns, of course, and despite being twice as successful as the violent conflicts, peaceful resistance still failed 47% of the time. As Chenoweth and Stephan pointed out in their book, that’s sometimes because they never really gained enough support or momentum to “erode the power base of the adversary and maintain resilience in the face of repression”. But some relatively large nonviolent protests also failed, such as the protests against the communist party in East Germany in the 1950s, which attracted 400,000 members (around 2% of the population) at their peak, but still failed to bring about change.

In Chenoweth’s data set, it was only once the nonviolent protests had achieved that 3.5% threshold of active engagement that success seemed to be guaranteed – and raising even that level of support is no mean feat. In the UK it would amount to 2.3 million people actively engaging in a movement (roughly twice the size of Birmingham, the UK’s second largest city); in the US, it would involve 11 million citizens – more than the total population of New York City.

The fact remains, however, that nonviolent campaigns are the only reliable way of maintaining that kind of engagement.

Chenoweth and Stephan’s initial study was first published in 2011 and their findings have attracted a lot of attention since. “It’s hard to overstate how influential they have been to this body of research,” says Matthew Chandler, who researches civil resistance at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana.

Isabel Bramsen, who studies international conflict at the University of Copenhagen agrees that Chenoweth and Stephan’s results are compelling. “It’s [now] an established truth within the field that the nonviolent approaches are much more likely to succeed than violent ones,” she says.

Regarding the “3.5% rule”, she points out that while 3.5% is a small minority, such a level of active participation probably means many more people tacitly agree with the cause.

These researchers are now looking to further untangle the factors that may lead to a movement’s success or failure. Bramsen and Chandler, for instance, both emphasise the importance of unity among demonstrators.

As an example, Bramsen points to the failed uprising in Bahrain in 2011. The campaign initially engaged many protestors, but quickly split into competing factions. The resulting loss of cohesion, Bramsen thinks, ultimately prevented the movement from gaining enough momentum to bring about change.

Chenoweth’s interest has recently focused on protests closer to home – like the Black Lives Matter movement and the Women’s March in 2017. She is also interested in Extinction Rebellion, recently popularised by the involvement of the Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. “They are up against a lot of inertia,” she says. “But I think that they have an incredibly thoughtful and strategic core. And they seem to have all the right instincts about how to develop and teach through a nonviolent resistance campaigns.”

Ultimately, she would like our history books to pay greater attention to nonviolent campaigns rather than concentrating so heavily on warfare. “So many of the histories that we tell one another focus on violence – and even if it is a total disaster, we still find a way to find victories within it,” she says. Yet we tend to ignore the success of peaceful protest, she says.

“Ordinary people, all the time, are engaging in pretty heroic activities that are actually changing the way the world – and those deserve some notice and celebration as well.”

Please see the original BBC piece HERE with images.

Saturday, September 7, 2019

Brilliant promos

If you ever played baseball as a kid, and I certainly did (and still love playing softball to this day), these 15 second clips will resonate wildly with you as they did for me. Great work MLB and who ever produced these.

Friday, August 2, 2019

Pentax K1000 is the Camera You're Looking For (Probably)

The host of this video Mike Padua has a great shop for people who are into shooting film - Patches Stickers and More for Film loving Photographers https://shootfilmco.com

BONUS clips:

Pentax K1000 - Best Intro to Shooting Film

This is what I use


Friday, July 5, 2019

“Together We Rise”

One woman decided not ignore a great injustice done to her by the government.
This is the story of Amanda Nguyen's and her organization, Rise.

Featuring: Amanda Nguyen
Director: Victoria Rivera
DOP: Soren Nielsen
AC: Taylor Antisdel
Gaffer: Sean Li
Sound Operator: Monica Rodriguez
Sound Operator: Katerina Aurigema
Hair and Makeup: Elvira Gonzalez
Hair and Makeup: Michelle Coursey
PA: DaeQuan Alexander Collier
PA: Carrington Amey
PA: Kodi Perryman

Production Studio: Already Alive
Executive Producer: Michael Marantz
Executive Producer: Jason Oppliger

Young Amanda/Patient: Sara States
Nurse: Ann Herberger
Doctor: Qurrat Kadwani
Woman on Subway: Naaji Kenn
Woman at Grocery Store: Athena Alexis
Soccer Teen: Sadie Bea Kosoff
Woman at Swimming Pool: Christina Catchis
Woman Jogging: Loren Barr
Girl With Backpack: Jaida Simpson
Man In Train Station: Drew Gardner
Video Portrait: Carrington Amey
Video Portrait: Cara Marceante
Video Portrait: Constance Tang
Video Portrait: Jacob Horsey
Video Portrait: Julia Barrett-Mitchell
Video Portrait: Kor Skeet
Video Portrait: Petra Jarrar

Editor: Zach MacDonald
Composer: Michael Marantz
Assistant Editor: Riley Price
Sound Mixer: Brandon Hickey
Colorist: Michael Marantz

Rise Team
Deputy to the CEO and UN Liaison: Nataliya Palinchak
Fellow: Cameron Marsh
Development and Communications: Holly Johns Rowland

Vital Voices Team
President and CEO: Alyse Nelson
Vice President, Leadership & Global Activation: Lauren Wollack
Program Manager, Leadership & Global Activation: Sophia Greve

Kara Dubbs
Deanna Kowal
Alex Kurze and AbelCine
Chloe Sarbib

Tuesday, July 2, 2019

DOGTOWN - The Legend of the Z-Boys and

25% discount order HERE direct http://www.akashicbooks.com/catalog/dogtown/


25% discount order HERE direct http://www.akashicbooks.com/catalog/keep-your-eyes-open/

I am very happy to have both of these books back in print, it's been a couple of years and they are now BETTER THAN EVER.
The Dogtown book was first released in 2002 and the Fugazi book was first released in 2007... both critically acclaimed and loved.

Sunday, June 16, 2019

Happy Fathers Day!
What have you done for the community lately?

The last game of the 2019 season. Our Pirates won their last nine games straight including this final championship game, beating the odds on favorite. We couldn't be more proud to have sponsored the Pirates for this 4th and final season. What a blast!

I shot the video and my son who played the game, and is in the video, edited the whole thing on an iPad.

Sunday, June 9, 2019

Sunday Sermon:
Wealth is correlated with greed, dishonesty and cheating -- are these effects or a causes?

from Boing Boing:

There's a wealth of psychological research that correlates wealthy people in the real world with negative traits like rudeness (people driving fancier cars are less considerate of pedestrians and their likelihood of cutting off another driver is correlated to the cost of the driver's car); greed (rich people take more candies out of dishes set aside for kids than poor people); generalized unethical behavior; cheating at games of chance; and overall stinginess.

One possible explanation for all this is that getting rich is easier if you're dishonest, lack empathy, and cheat whenever you think you can get away with it.

But consider that in a rigged Monopoly game, players who won due to an obviously unfair advantage (being given twice as much starting money and twice as many dice-rolls) acted like dicks throughout the whole game, and then boasted about their "brilliant tactics, their finesse at the game of monopoly and their daring moves."

So maybe the causation goes the other way: maybe getting rich is mostly a matter of dumb luck, which we justify for ourselves by convincing ourselves of our superiority, which leads to us treating others as inferiors.
But why are they more likely to cheat, lie and to cut off pedestrians? And why are they less likely to give to charity?

It may be in part because they are cut off from the reality of poverty – living in an upper-class bubble. But primarily the researchers found that greed is actually viewed more favourably in upper-class communities.

“We reason that increased resources and independence from others cause people to prioritise self-interest over others’ welfare and perceive greed as positive and beneficial, which in turn gives rise to increased unethical behaviour,” the researchers concluded.
Opinion: Why do rich people lie, cheat and steal more than those on low incomes? [Diarmuid Pepper/The Journal]

(via Naked Capitalism)