The Age of Stupid is a new eco-doco premiering next week in the UK, to be released on DVD in June. There’s a fictional element in that Pete Postlethwaite plays the part of an archivist looking back on why this current generation did so little to stop ecological disaster. The rest of the content is strictly non-fiction. Another interesting aspect of the movie is that it was financed using crowdfunding.
A stunning piece of work by Karl Burkart of greendig fame which provides a great overview as to how the environmental movement can leverage web 2.0 technologies to get its message across.
The Slumdog Millionaire movie has certainly caused a stir and not just because it picked up all the gongs on Oscars night. I have not seen it yet, but my lunch partner disclosed, in between mouthfuls of his naan and dahl, that he could not sit through the whole thing because of the poverty porn factor. His complaint is that the portrayal of the slum dwellers is demeaning in that it does not convey the self-respect that these people have. He also rages at the inactivity of the wealthy to right the obvious wrongs in Indian society, given 80 percent of Indians live on less than $2 per day. This sentiment is conveyed in an excellent piece in the International Herald Tribune today by Anand Giridharadas who points out that ‘ … economic development is not Photoshop. There is a difference between making poverty history and making the mention of poverty history’.
I learnt this week that the Google company motto is: “Don’t Be Evil” (perhaps a thinly disguised jibe at Microsoft!). I personally use this search engine many times each day and would be lost without it, but I can’t help but be a little concerned by the juggernaut nature of this company, and its apparent preparedness to collaborate with ‘evil empires‘.
Apocalyptic visions of climate change used by newspapers, environmental groups and the UK government amount to “climate porn” according to the (left-leaning) Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Apparently, the over-use of alarming images is a “counsel of despair” making people feel helpless, but more sinisterly, they (the newspapers, I suppose) are using cataclysmic imagery partly for commercial gain. How very quintessentially British, old chap! I say, let’s not be too bold, after all, we don’t want to worry anyone. As for scare-mongering to sell newspapers … well, I’d hardly put the Independent and the Financial Times in the gutter press category. If this is porn, give me more of it. It beats standing naked baying at the moon trying to convince people the planet is in trouble.
To my amazement, AsiaOne (Singapore Press Holdings) ran an AP report today on Soros’ comments about the lack of openness in Singapore society. An article entitled ‘S’pore not an open society, argues George Soros’ also made p. 7 of the ‘Home’ section in the Straits Times (albeit minus the names of opposition MPs who have been bankrupted through law suits). The ST piece also reported that: ‘Responding to Mr Soros’ comments on Singapore, a spokesman for the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts said: “If we are not an open society, George Soros would hardly be able to make the comments at an open forum in Singapore, and be reported in the Singapore media.”
What has become abundantly clear to me in the last few days is that we are in the midst of an unprecedented catastrophe. The thing is, I reckon many of us are ‘CNNed out’. With a daily dose of video footage from Iraq and Palestine with dead bodies lying in the streets and buildings bombed to smithereens, I think the ‘shock-horror threshold’ of the average TV news viewer is much higher than it used to be. I put myself firmly in this category. If you want to give yourself a reality check, turn off the television and read some of the blogs. IMHO, the best information source on the whole disastrous affair — as it evolves — is available at the Wikipedia site.
Finally got around to watching Farenheit 9/11 on Friday night. Michael Moore isn’t everyone’s ‘cup of tea’ (I was a little irritated by his style in Stupid White Men, for example) but he actually maintains quite a low profile in this film, leaving the limelight to the main character, President George W. Bush. It is a ‘must see’ movie although I did find the whole thing rather distressing. I watched it in a Dublin movie theatre and, needless to say, there was a very sympathetic audience (complete with a ripple of applause at the end!) The more important question, of course, will be how the film will be received in the US.
As US Republicans and right-wing media outlets have been scrambling to eat humble pie over the last few weeks since the publication of the grotesque Abu Ghraib ‘holiday snaps’, the Wall Street Journal has managed to excel itself by bucking the trend with an editorial that, quite frankly, beggars belief.
According to the WSJ, ‘apart from Iraqi soldiers detained in uniform and certain members of Saddam Hussein’s chain of command–most Iraqi detainees are arrested as civilians and fall under the protection not of the Third Geneva Convention but of the Fourth.’ This apparently entitles the US, as an occupying power ‘to use its discretion within wide parameters to maintain law and order (Article 64), and contains no specific restriction on interrogation, other than saying that “protected persons” not be subjected to “physical or moral coercion” (Article 31). But–note well–protected persons are defined as “persons taking no active part in the hostilities” (Article 3).’ In other words, says the WSJ, ‘the Geneva Conventions do not speak specifically to the interrogation treatment of non-uniformed Baathist or jihadi guerrillas detained in connection with attacks on U.S. forces or Iraqi civilians … With that in mind, we’ll risk liberal censure and suggest that 45 minutes of uncomfortable posture (the guidelines’ limit) and the other techniques … are certainly appropriate. The U.S. holds some very dangerous people in Iraq, and it’s easy to forget that the point of interrogating them is to better protect both U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi civilians that the Geneva Conventions oblige us to safeguard.’
Damn, I feel so stupid now being utterly appalled and sickened by the photographs. If only the WSJ had pointed this out to us earlier we needn’t have worried. Seriously, though, as my good friend Vijay Srinivasan pointed out in his unpublished response to the Editor (see below), one minor oversight on the part of the WSJ is the notion of innocence until proven guilty.
As a person who never feels truly happy unless I am depriving myself of some sort of pleasure, I have been a long time subscriber to The Economist. This magazine has, for many years, thoroughly irritated me with its pious, supercilious, and doctrinaire attitude to certain issues. In recent times, however, I’ve begun to feel increasingly cheated by its seemingly enlightened approach. There have been a number of articles that question the orthodoxy and then … this week … (shock, horror) they seem to have developed a sense of humour with an article entitled Transatlantic cleavage. It would now appear that a subscription to The Spectator is my only option.
Yours, ‘Disgusted’, Tunbridge Wells.
