>I have to agree. I think that it's quite perversely banal to toss off the
>whole incident with vague comments like "I think we have inherited the
>whirl wind when we abandoned moral standards in the endless pursuit of
>commodification." Was there a glorious moral era when this kind of assault
>was any less perverse, if made pornographic now by its coverage? The fact
>that it's live, whether on CNN or BBC (or...?) is entirely incidental,
>unless, perhaps we contrast the pathetic rage product we consume here with
>the pathological impotence product which we consumed for 4+ years of
>watching the most documented assault in history, Sarajevo?
>
>
I have already replied to John Daigle saying that my first concern is for
the people of Iraq who are being slaughtered in the name of Pax Americana.
But this *is* a film philosophy list and it is proper that we do address
the notion of wall to wall coverage of the slaughter bench of history. I do
not think this is a 'perversely banal observation' but then I have to
confess that I have little idea what that is supposed to mean.
Nor frankly do I understand the last sentence about pathetic rage versus
pathological impotence.
Now my remarks about increased commodification of the spectacles of
television does not imply a "glorious moral era". Frankly, to say that it
does is just *stupid*.
But it does suggest that we are capable of moral deterioration and that is
precisely what is happening and the motor force for this moral degeneration
is the most advanced capitalist nation in the world - the USA.
If there are those who doubt my word let them think of the pathetic [sic]
piece of dirt that inhabits the White House who seems to long to be the CNN
equivalent of the warrior prince that we saw on Hollywood's Independence
Day and Air Force One.
regards
Gary MacLennan
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|