An Inconvenient Truth About An Inconvenient Truth

Box office sales slump, studio cutbacks in staff and number of films produced each year, high tix costs for moviegoers --all due in great part to a decrease in movie-going, and yet...

If things are so dire with the environment as touted in the film and all the promotion surrounding it (according to the film, we only have 10 years left), why did they release the film theatrically? If the environment really needs help and we the citizens must act, why not buy some broadcast time on network TV (not cable) and inform the public in a much larger way --in a way that doesn't require the public to dish out $10+ a person to view how we're all doomed and killing the planet in the process.

And, why not make the film available on-line for free--now? If the world is in deep do-do, why not do everything possible to get the word out so people can do something? Doesn't Al Gore have an Internet/Cable channel?

"With wit, smarts and hope, An Inconvenient Truth ultimately brings home Gore’s persuasive argument that we can no longer afford to view global warming as a political issue – rather, it is the biggest moral challenge facing our global civilization."

Why make, what is touted, the most important issue of our time a THEATRICAL event and charge people to see it? If it is the biggest "moral challenge facing our global civ", why is it that morality is left on the doorstep as soon as profits and awards come into play? It makes you wonder if they think we're either too far gone and there's really no need or it's all a big show.

[Here's some inconvenient facts to ponder if you're so inclined: www.iceagenow.com and an interesting article from 1974 Time mag article: http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/printout/0,23657,944914,00.html]

This is Going to Hurt Me More Than it Will Hurt You

Proclaimed my dad just prior to him doling out a whoopin'. The statement was blatantly absurd in my estimation, but it was meant to convey to me the sense of conscious that my dad had regarding the situation i.e. punishment is not easy or pleasant for the giver or the receiver, but it is necessary in order to achieve a desired future outcome of acceptable behavior.

It’s a concept I don’t think a good friend of mine has encountered or pondered. An Adjunct Professor of Law at a university in northern Cal, my lawyer friend recently discussed his grading system for his students’ final exam. The students’ grades ranged from As to Ds, but he proudly pronounced “I did not give anyone a ‘D’ and passed everyone.” I asked him why and to this he answered “I can’t fail a student.” I repeated his words back to him “You can’t fail a student? YOU didn’t ‘fail’ the student, the student failed.” He said that to him, it just wasn’t right to fail a student.

So, I asked him what the client of the failing students’ law services will receive when they need his "expertise" or worse, have a lawsuit. Rather than getting a passing student, they’ll get a student who shouldn’t have passed, but because the professor doesn’t believe in failing students the client and ultimately, society suffers and fails. He understood, but to him it was a matter of principle.

What if this was the standard for professors of medical students? What if it is?

I understand now, and have for many years, the right-ness of my dad’s “this will hurt me more…” statements. Because it really does. It’s not easy being the guy who must adhere to and uphold standards and proffer punishment when it would be much easier to give a pass or passing grade.

But whom does this ultimately help? In my case, having me and my ol’ man suffer in the short term benefited me in the long run. In the law students’ case the pass doesn’t help him/her, doesn’t help his clients, doesn’t help society and diminshes the standard of civilization to its lowest common denominator.

All because the Professor has decided his principled decision is based on him not wanting to feel bad.

Only for Others, Not for Thee

Photo by D.K.

"What about the Americans?!!!"

Screamed the Israeli/Lebanese victims as rockets and bombs exploded all around them...

NOT!

While interviewing a soon-to-be-evacuee about the situation, the reporter was so frustrated that the evacuee had little to say and thus created no news. You could feel the reporter trying to puuuuuuull the feelings out of the man as he asked “How do you feel? What do you think of the evacuation plan? Are you frustrated? You’re scared, right?” Basically, give me something!!! Complain!!!

And there were complaints from evacuees that were safely ashore after a 16-hour sea crossing. Happy they were out of the war zone? You wouldn’t know it from the press conference given by the evacuees. Yes. A press conference in which one of the patriarchs (isn’t there always a group spokesman?) complained about the length of the trip:

“It should have only taken 5 hours but instead took 16 and there were no conveniences! No services! We had to sleep on the floor like freight!"

Heaven forbid! I say, get your arse back to Lebanon then you SOB and see how lack of services and sleeping on the floor works out for you there.

Geez. Humans. It makes you want the big guy in the sky to smack ‘em down sometimes.

I'll Have a White Russian

Says Russian diplomat today in response to Israeli/Hezbollah/Hamas gettin' it on: "It's not appropriate to kill civilians while rescuing hostages." Cue the civilians in the Russian Theatre and the civilian children screaming in Beslan...

Just dripping with condescension...

Capital Crime

Big crime in DC. Homocides increasing. Tourists robbed at gunpoint. Rapes on the rise. WHAAAAT???? They stripped DC residents of their Constitutional right to bear arms (2nd Amendment folks) and yet... people are getting killed and robbed with forbidden weapons? No. Can't be.

What's the dealio DC?

Standard Deviation

Much ado about the Geneva Convention(s) being applied to the Gitmo guys as though these "sanctified conventions" reflect a moral standard that exceeds that of the U.S.

This entire obsession with so-called (alleged) torture (let's be real about this) at Gitmo is a reflection of a much reclined, soft, self-absorbed, wealthy peoples who have way too much time on their hands and not enough real life experience and encounters with not-so-nice people to know what torture is. (And doesn't it really come down to what "is" is?)

In America, you can be slapped and slandered with sexual harassment charges if you put your hand on the shoulder of a female/male employee or merely touch their arm. Most likely, there's nothing sexual or harassing about it, but NO TOUCHING ALLOWED (let's not EVEN broach the subject of "verbal abuse/harassment"). Now, does that reflect the "truth" of the matter-- real harassment? Likely not. But that's where we are now. A standard in which all degrees become a baseline zero sum.

UN STANDARD
Same is true with the "United" Nations as though the standard of morality, fairness, legality, humanity and so forth emanates from this hallowed body.

Sure... Few words for ya: Rwanda, Zimbabwe, China (Tibet), Haiti, Liberia, Sudan, Pakistan, Israel (Palestine), Congo, East Timor, Iraq and on and on and on. Does the US want these countries to determine a moral "standard" that all should follow and should the US be obliged to adhere?

The UN serves a purpose, but let's get serious about what that purpose is and how ineffective they really are as a world "body" in matters that require a serious approach, action and follow-through, not a bunch of hollow threats in the form of strongly worded memos, declarations and "resolutions" that don't "resolve" anything.

It's so much easier to point the finger at good ol' USA for a number of reasons:

1: We're an easy, soft target and have tremendous achievers-guilt/shame PLUS we think we're better than everyone and therefore should be held to different standards than the dictators and fascists that make up a healthy % of the world body
2: If the US obliges the UN body, which it often does, it reflects well on the UN--they feel powerful and effective--they've slapped down the Giant, it seems like they're actually accomplishing something and worth the $billions poured into the UN each year
3: No repercussions for criticizing the US; the US wants the love, needs the approval (the US a country of sycophants)
4: Focus on the easy trumped-up issues; making them the central problem diverts attention from really dire situations that require fast, efficient action and results (Congo, Rwanda, Sudan)

Fixating on America is like fixating on celebrity. It's shallow and superficial and accomplishes nothing, especially when there are much more important issues at hand. America has its problems, no doubt. But putting so much focus on America's shortcomings shortchanges those countries and the people therein that really need some attention and action paid to them.