What the BLIP...?!

Don't get me wrong: I find excessive obsession with so called "privacy" ridiculous and only helpful as a possible aid to help you unmask your own deepest fears.

(Like, what EXACTLY do you fear would happen if somebody finds out certain of your personal facts or indulgences?
No, really: think about it! It would only matter if the "government" or whoever your pet foe is could actually do something that would impact your life negatively - i.e. something that would not be merely the consequence of your perception of your hypothetical Self in the hypothetical eyes of the Others.
If they could do it, then that usurped power is something you - and the Others - definitely should fight. If they couldn't - if it's all simply a matter of your comfortable perception of your Self as a public person - then the problem lies in you.)

Even more ridiculous is the apparent facility which many people disclose their sex life (real or fictitious) with - but God forbid they should be asked how much they earn! (At least it shows you what really matters to them...)

But who the blip would be as stupid as to broadcast what they are buying, and when, and how much it cost?

My guess is... many.
Wanna bet?

Tell the whole world what you're buying... and in real time, too!

The author of the article hyperlinked above "caught up with Kaplan" (the father of this Frankenstein's bride) "to talk about how Blippy could become a new form of advertising and why no purchase -- even revealing ones -- should be embarrassing to share."

And here's the purpose of the thingy, in a nutshell:

What's the point of Blippy?

Kaplan: Without getting too philosophical, I'll just start at the beginning. The big answer is: We don't know, which I think is funny but is also indicative of what we're trying to do.

Well, I agree: that wasn't too philosophical.
(Not even a little bit, for that matter.)

But the nasty thing about philosophy is that it tends to reveal itself, whether you intend it or not.

"Fun" is the name of the game.

It is true, however, that once you have lost everything (private)... you have nothing left to fear.
Or to lose.

Exhibitionism is the new spirituality.

An American, (not) pure and (not) simple

On November 2nd, 2007, news of a horrific crime shook the ancient and usually placid town of Perugia, Italy. A British student, Meredith Kercher - one of the thousands of students who attend Perugia's prestigious university and para-universitary courses - had been found dead in her bed, with her throat slit, after apparently being forced to engage in sex.

Soon after the murder, Kercher's roommate, an American student from Seattle, Amanda Knox, and her then-new boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were arrested on suspicion of murder. Weeks later, another suspect, a semi-vagrant African, Rudy Guede, was also arrested on the same charge.

Early today, shortly after midnight (CET), two years and 33 days after the crime, Amanda Knox was found guilty of murder and sentenced to 26 years of prison.
Raffaele Sollecito was sentenced to 25 years.
(Rudy Guede had been sentenced to 30 years a while ago.)

Meredith Kercher, b. 1986 - d. 1. XI. 2007

If you are at all interested in this story, you probably know all about it, anyway (or it should be easy for you to google out anything else you might want to know).
And I am not writing this to rehash the grizzly details of the story, much less to speculate about the motives, or indeed about the trial of the deadly trio.

I just want to register - as shortly and succinctly as I can - my surprise at the coverage of the trial in the USA media and, in some cases, their reaction to the verdict.

It seems that, in the eyes of many American media outlets (exceptions are a given, of course) and the public they feed with news, Amanda Knox is to be presumed innocent even after having been proven guilty, not because of some serious misgivings regarding the presentation of the evidence, but simply because she is - an American.

Of course they didn't put it like that (although some came dangerously close), but all the "circumstantial evidence", if you'll forgive the expression, points to it quite clearly.
For one thing, nobody seems to be hollering against Sollecito's conviction, even though the evidence against him was actually weaker than against Knox. But then, he's an Italian... which, of course, shouldn't matter IF this were really about wrongful conviction. But it is not: it's clearly about nationality.

And, frankly, I am surprised.
If the USA were a geographically small country, with just a few million (or less) inhabitants, I would understand (if not condone) such a bias: after all, each of its citizens is, in a way, an "ambassador" in the eyes of the world.
(Of course, in principle the same goes for the citizen of any country, anywhere - but "big" countries have an immense advantage in numbers, so they shouldn't worry about the occasional black sheep tarnishing the image of the country abroad.)

Amanda Knox is not an "ambassador" of the USA.
She is not even the "ambassador" of that fabulous city that is Seattle.
She only represents herself.

But the USA, after all these years of active participation in an increasingly shrinking world, still appears to have worrisomely parochial-minded media. After all, if the venerable New York Times, respected around the world (whether justifiably or not, I am not entirely sure) for its "liberal", humanistic, globally minded reporting, indulges in (admittedly personal) musings like this... what are we to think about other, smaller, publicly less prominent American media and the image of the world they seem to be presenting to their readership? (And precisely this - not the Kercher murder per se, much less Amanda Knox, is the main point of this writing.)

Most revoltingly (and ridiculously), many reports seem to question the Italian justice system, implying that its investigative methods, technology and judicial system in general are inadequate, primitive, perhaps corrupt - not based on any previous cases, mind you (or if so, they fail to mention those previous cases), but simply because it is not American.
Furthermore, they seem to ignore the fact that Italy is a part of the EU, which is by now much more than just an economic and loosely political framework, and that in many areas the EU's laws are (not always fortunately) much more stringent than those in the USA.

Don't get me wrong: God knows that the justice system of Italy is faaaaar from being perfect.
Sadly, the same goes for the USA justice system.
Even more sadly, the same goes for the justice system in any country.
However, in the Kercher murder case there is little evidence that anything substantial went amiss at any point of the investigation an the trial itself.

But no, certain USA media outlets - and, unsurprisingly, a sizeable part of the public - seem to prefer to view Italy in the light of a moth-eaten stereotype born out of Hollywood-spawned flicks on "Little Italy" (New York, USA).
And Amanda Knox's performing cartwheels during interrogation (yes, you read correctly) is presented not as possible indication of a deranged mind (brought on by severe stress, if you will), but by her being - an "athlete"... (In other words, a healthy young all-American gal in distress, faced with stuffy Italian policemen and corrupt members of the Italian judicial system.)

Let me tell you: such biased reporting has the potential of "tarnishing" the image of the USA much more than Amanda Knox and her wrongdoings ever could. Specifically, it presents the USA public as close-minded, provincial and blissfully (or not) unaware of the reality in other countries around the world. Heck, I am starting to suspect that even many of the NYT readers still think the USA are "the best country in the world" (whatever that means)! And how could they not if their media feeds them distorted images of the world?

No: Amanda Knox was not on trial - or convicted - because of her behaviour. Not even cartwheels - no, not even the cartwheels! - brought her to where she is today.
(Although they might have been a good reason for psychiatric treatment...)

It was holding the knife with which Meredith Kercher was killed.
It was her covering her ears to block out Meredith's screams.
It was the fact that her defence - and she did have more than decent, high profile representation - couldn't demonstrate anything that would counter the all too damning evidence against her.

What very few, if any, American media seem to mention is the fact that had Knox been tried and found guilty in the USA, she could easily face the death penalty.
Not so in the EU.
And so, there is hope, after all.
If she really is "not an assassin", as she claims, then in time proof may be found and justice will be (re)done.

Meanwhile, she can do cartwheels in her cell.
And she can breathe air, drink water, eat, think, read, feel love, feel hope.

None of which Meredith Kercher can do ever again.

Funky Finch Finds Film F*** Filth

There was an article in the Times Online recently, which called to my attention the scandalet brewing among the cinematic community (and presumably affecting the none-too self-sufficient minds of Oscar voters), following a denunciation of the film The Reader by an American critic, Charlie Finch.

Finch attended the first advanced screening of the film (based on the famed novel by Bernhard Schlink, published in 1995), which opened on December 10th.

Like the book, the film includes explicit sex between a woman, who turns out to have been a prison guard in a Nazi concentration camp (and she is illiterate, to boot), and a teenager half her age.

You may or may not like nudity or explicit sex on film, you may or may not like the book itself - but the fact is the book does contain sex, and it does so for a very valid reason.

(You'll have to read it to understand. Or try this study guide written by Schlink himself.)

But Finch disagrees.

What is especially repellent about The Reader is the use of Kate Winslet's nubile body to create sympathy for a repellent character, whose triumph over illiteracy somehow mitigates unspeakable crimes that are never actually depicted on screen.

(You can read the rest here: The Personal is not Political.)

So, we learn that Finch finds Winslet's body nubile, therefore attractive.

And we learn that said body moves Finch to almost-sympathise with her character.

We also learn that he considers (understandably so) the main female character to be "repellent" - and that he finds that her triumph over her illiteracy somehow (how, exactly?) mitigates "unspeakable crimes".

One suspects he may not have read the book - and, in all fairness, he doesn't claim to have read it. Furthermore, one suspects it would have not made much difference if he had.

What Finch seems to want is that a "repellent" character be as de-humanised as possible.

I am sure - I may be wrong, of course - that he would have much preferred an old hag playing the main character. (For obvious reasons I couldn't possibly advance any specific casting suggestions in this direction.)

More importantly, it sounds as if he would have preferred the sex to be omitted not only for aesthetic reasons but to avoid presenting the woman as a sexual being.

Why?

Because presenting her as an asexual being would further de-humanise her: it would further remove her from the common human experience.

It would make her a non-human.

But she is not a non-human.

She is inhuman.

She is all too human.

And herein lies the danger of such treacherous sacred indignation: by considering inhuman people to be non-human, one implicitly (and blindly) denies the ever-present danger of inhumanity among even the most "civilised" societies.

I am not going to say that everyone is potentially inhuman.

(I dislike demagogy and "truisms" - with a passion! - in case you haven't noticed.)

But there is no doubt that very many people can be inhuman - sometimes, with eerie ease. 

Or else, how could have so many atrocities happen so many times, in so many places, to so many millions of people - over and over and over again?

How could the Maos, the Stalins, the Hitlers (and their petty epigones a la Pol Pot or Milosevic) of this world prevail, if it weren't for the millions of people - pretty or not, sexy or not, tall or short, fair or dark, sociable or unsociable, highly sexed or virgins or impotent, music lovers or tin-eared, elegant or shabby, rich or poor, cultured or illiterate - who found reason in their leaders' words? 
Or who simply didn't find it necessary to expose themselves and their families to the potentially dire consequences of disagreeing with the regime? 

OR, indeed, those who found a certain pleasure in the misery of others, or who had been victimised themselves to the point of becoming blind to other people's pain?

There are as many core reasons for inhuman behaviour as there are people who perpetrate inhuman acts.

But being non-human is not one of them.

Such people may commit monstruous acts, but they are not "monsters", as they are often ridiculously called.

And it is precisely this delusion - that only "monsters", i.e. non-humans, can act monstruously - what perpetuates the possibility of atrocities. Over and over and over again.

Did Finch, writing his review, really think it through, I wonder?

I may be wrong - of course - but I don't think so.

I suspect voicing his impressions, as loudly and as conspicuously as possible, is really his first priority.

(I am not about to judge him for that. I understand; after all, I am writing this to express my opinion - even though there is much more pressing work awaiting my attention...)

And in doing so, I suspect he knows which c(h)ords to play to elicit the maximum attention from the breed best described as the aspiring intellectual in haste.
(That's the crowd who graduated from the entire "... for Dummies" series and who rest easily in the satisfaction of being able to distinguish Monet from Manet - sometimes, even visually!)

Consider this rather typically titled offering:

Dubious Dumas

(Oh yeah: alliteration works every time, in nursery rhymes as in art critique. It might not gain you the respect of your peers - or your subjects, unless your rhymes are flattering to them - but it will attract the attention of the notoriously ADD-afflicted "masses" in search of a cultured facade. Aliteration makes things easy to remember and gives even the most pedestrian word combinations a certain rotundity that compensates the lack of substance by sheer verbal force. Oh, and by the way: I don't like Dumas' work either.)

I am all for abandoning the pretense of "objectivity" (which is a sham, anyway) and critiquing works - and, eventually, people - from a blatantly subjective view.

I don't even mind the alluring antics of alliteration - as long as people are aware of its aims: to beguile, to razzle, to dazzle... To conceal.

But that's just it... Are they?

Some are. Many are.

Very many aren't.

But there will always be those who'll find the means to talk their way to the head of the herd. 

They are the ones who know that the blind don't really mind another blindman leading them - as long as s/he does so loudly and proudly, with confidence, concealing ignorance and fear.

Ignoring ignorance and fearing fear.

And I am not talking about film.
Or about Finch, for that matter.

See Jane go mad. See Dick chop head.

Being somewhat familiar with human psychology - and with the inner works of the media - I always found it profoundly irritating when I heard self-important "pundits"and "media experts" (even some "psychology experts") deny any lasting impact of behaviours - particularly recurring patterns* of violence and/or graphic gratuitous sex - depicted on TV and in cinema (and now the internet) on the viewers, especially those in the formative stages of their development.

I found them either disingenuous - which would inevitably lead to rather sinister conclusions regarding their intentions - or... well, stupid. There is no other word for it.

In either case, such "experts" had no business lecturing the public - even overtly mocking those who were concerned.

But, interestingly enough, I have noticed such opinions becoming more and more muted, less and less prominent in the past few years - in the first years of this not-so-brave new millenium. (BTW, do you know anyone who loves the new millenium so far?)

What made them pause?

Was it the many school shootings, in the USA and other places of the globe?

Or would those "experts" still insist and perhaps attribute the swift spread of this cultural phenomenon (yes, we are at a point when we actually have to call school shootings a "cultural phenomenon") to some sort of virus?
A contagious insanity? 
What spreads it? Rats? Pigeons? What?
And I wonder how would those same people respond to the same question today.

Because this is today's news:

Skinheads plan killing 88 people and beheading 14 African-Americans


Beheading?
My, it's becoming quite a fashion, isn't it?

I haven't been really counting, but it strikes me there has been a remarkable increase in the popularity of this practice, which was once upon a time, not so long ago, considered (and often misinterpreted) in modern Western societies as an especially gruesome, culturally alien - "barbaric" in the true meaning of the word - way of terminating someone's life.

I am not going to count them even now, but I can think of at least three or four cases of people parading someone else's detached head - in public - in the past few months alone.

But, interestingly, no such cases occurred prior to the early 2000's, which brought to our TV screens the infamous, gut-rending sight of kidnapped individuals in orange jumpers, with their abductors wielding sables in the proximity of their necks - and more than that, FAR more than that, on internet sites that feed on morbid curiosity.

(Not that it matters - not one bit - but yours truly has never watched such a video, nor do I intend to.)


This is not the place to discuss the reasons for and against airing such videos. Some other time, perhaps.
But I would like one - just one! - of those anything-goes apologists of yore to come and tell us that the media does nothing to desensitise the viewing public, that people do not imitate what they see on their screens; that the media does not influence people's view of what is acceptable - and what is shocking.

Would they still have the dubious guts of looking people in the eye and claiming that there is no such influence?

I am not sure they would. And, frankly, I don't care.

The damage has been done. Thresholds of tolerance have been breached - long ago - and there is no going back.

"Shock value" is more than a term. In a society that craves notoriety at all price, even "shock value" really is a - value. We see that every day, in seedy pictures everywhere. Only, starlets publicly displaying their very private parts and other such cultural "icons" is just the tip of an iceberg. And tastelessness is the least dangerous of the shocking "values" currently in use.

Now, confronted with an increasingly global culture of violence, we have to find a way of radically healing the minds, of young people especially (and I don't know how this could be done) - or else, the world as we once knew it will sink in its own violence.

Who needs "terrorists" to bring down the "Western civilisation"?

This civilisation will behead itself.With its own sword, by its own hand.

***

For a somewhat more sedate - and coherent - expose on the same subject, go here:

The media doesn't influence us... except when it does

(and related articles)


NOTE (*)
When there are no recurring, systematically observed - i.e. memorable and thus easily mimicked - patterns, when gratuitous violence (and other excessive behaviours) is dispersed in a variety of "random" manifestations, any excesses are much more likely to remain outside the frame of the common cultural code of expression (In every group or society there are thresholds, progressively transgressed, of behaviour - i.e. of what "we DO" and what "we do NOT do". Even destructive, "negative" behaviour has its code of general acceptability.)

They are still potentially damaging, but at least they don't spread as easily - and they are far less alluring to would-be "copycats".

RELATED CONTENT:
The Right to Violence and Cynicism