In July 2000 I was teaching a journalism class at American University Paris and brought my students to Amnesty International for a conversation about genocide. As we were wrapping up, the Amnesty representative ushered us into a room and over to a large cardboard box with a bright blue fabric peeking out. Have you ever worn a burqa before? she asked. As I pulled the tent-like garment over my head and imagined being forced to wear it, I thought about what it would be like to be invisible to the world. That’s when I knew I wanted to produce a film about Afghanistan and help Afghan women to become visible again. The challenge was finding a way for the film to resonate with an American audience.
A year later, after the attacks of September 11th, the ability to draw the connection between Afghanistan and us seemed obvious. Three months later, I traveled to Afghanistan to film the growing humanitarian crisis and the aid workers who were struggling to respond to it. I was looking forward to seeing women shedding their burqas, liberated from the medieval laws of the Taliban. But when I arrived, all the women I encountered were still covered head-to-toe, allowed only a small mesh patch for their window to the world. When the documentary I was working on failed to sell, I vowed to return to this place that captured a piece of me with its beauty, isolation and sorrow.
What I could never have imagined then is that as I was filming in Afghanistan, there were two women living in my own backyard who were opening their eyes to the world in new and profound ways after losing their husbands on September 11th. Four years later I would return to Afghanistan with Susan Retik and Patti Quigley, whose loss gave them permission to shut out the world, but whose compassion forced them to have a leadership role in it.
It was important to me to tell their story because as the world has become increasingly divided by politics, ethnicity and religion, Susan and Patti affirm a common humanity that we all share. From the beginning, they recognize their Afghan counterparts as individuals—women they identify with and feel a connection to—rather than a monolithic, nameless, faceless group, as often happens during the world’s tragedies.
I was struck by Susan and Patti’s ability to recognize Afghanistan for all of its complexities. True, it is the country in which the terrorists trained to kill their husbands, but it is also a place that had been used as a pawn during the Cold War, only to then be abandoned by the international community – sparking a civil war that would last another decade. The effects were especially cruel for women. Banished from public life by the Taliban, they’ve suffered staggering declines in health. (Afghanistan is still one of the only countries in the world where women have a shorter life expectancy than men.) And when we arrived in Kabul in May 2006, the burqa still defined public life for most
women.
Susan and Patti’s mission is simple: to make life better for these women. And so is their message: hatred is the root of terrorism. They aren’t naïve enough—nor do they have enough hubris—to think they can stop terrorism in its tracks. But they do have enough optimism—and enough faith in humanity—to believe that the War on Terror cannot be fought with bombs and bullets alone.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Geralyn Pezanoski talks about the experience of making "Mine"
Like millions across the country I was profoundly affected by the startling images I witnessed during coverage of Hurricane Katrina: people stranded on rooftops, suffering crowds at the Super Dome, and the decimation of one of America’s most culturally vibrant and diverse cities. And like millions of others I was devastated as well by images of the thousands of animals in distress – their helplessness bringing into even greater relief the chaos and overwhelming scope of the tragedy. So when I read about a nascent but quickly growing rescue effort being carried out by animal lovers from across the country and the world, I decided to go to New Orleans to document this incredible undertaking.
During the ensuing six weeks I filmed dozens of intrepid rescue workers, devoted animal rights advocates, and thousands of animals in need of saving - even after they were ‘rescued’. While a few residents trickled back into New Orleans and managed to reclaim their pets, most were displaced and barred from entering the city, so I watched day after day as these unclaimed animals were loaded onto trucks and planes and sent to shelters across the country, their fates uncertain. While the hope was that many of these animals would either be fostered until their owners claimed them, or adopted into new homes, the reality was that many of them would meet the same fate as millions of other animals around the country: being euthanized before the year’s end. It was this horrific thought that lead to my decision to foster (and eventually adopt) a Katrina dog, a pointer mix I called Nola. She was skin and bones when I met her, and she refused to leave my side for more than a couple of seconds. It didn’t take either of us long to bond.
As the months went on, my crew and I began to see an increasing number of residents returning to New Orleans to try to rebuild their lives. It became apparent that legions of them - people who had lost everything – were desperate to find their pets. We heard about hundreds of other cases across the county: people who were still displaced but on the hunt for their animals. But as broad and deep as the story went, there seemed to be strangely little information about it in mainstream media. I had many questions: Why hadn’t people been allowed to evacuate with their animals? Now that these animals were adopted into new homes, who had the authority to decide whether they should be left where they were or returned to their previous owners? Why were original owners running into such resistance in trying to find and reclaim their pets? What would I do if someone came looking for Nola, to whom I had become so attached?
I explored these questions and many more during the three years I spent making MINE. My primary focus was on a handful of extraordinary Katrina victims committed to finding their animals even years after the disaster, but the story extends to rescue workers and new adoptive guardians, who, like me, decided to take in pets left behind and care for them as their own. We met and interviewed hundreds of people over the years, and what emerged was a profound story of the bond between humans and animals, and the power of that bond to ameliorate human suffering. Equally striking, however, were stories both of the continuing prevalence of racism and classism in America, and the incredible power of compassion in the wake of tragedy. All of these stories become one in MINE.
I hope that MINE puts a human face on issues that may seem far removed from the lives of most Americans, but in fact affect us all - and that the film will promote much needed dialogue not just about how we treat our animals, but how we treat each other.
During the ensuing six weeks I filmed dozens of intrepid rescue workers, devoted animal rights advocates, and thousands of animals in need of saving - even after they were ‘rescued’. While a few residents trickled back into New Orleans and managed to reclaim their pets, most were displaced and barred from entering the city, so I watched day after day as these unclaimed animals were loaded onto trucks and planes and sent to shelters across the country, their fates uncertain. While the hope was that many of these animals would either be fostered until their owners claimed them, or adopted into new homes, the reality was that many of them would meet the same fate as millions of other animals around the country: being euthanized before the year’s end. It was this horrific thought that lead to my decision to foster (and eventually adopt) a Katrina dog, a pointer mix I called Nola. She was skin and bones when I met her, and she refused to leave my side for more than a couple of seconds. It didn’t take either of us long to bond.
As the months went on, my crew and I began to see an increasing number of residents returning to New Orleans to try to rebuild their lives. It became apparent that legions of them - people who had lost everything – were desperate to find their pets. We heard about hundreds of other cases across the county: people who were still displaced but on the hunt for their animals. But as broad and deep as the story went, there seemed to be strangely little information about it in mainstream media. I had many questions: Why hadn’t people been allowed to evacuate with their animals? Now that these animals were adopted into new homes, who had the authority to decide whether they should be left where they were or returned to their previous owners? Why were original owners running into such resistance in trying to find and reclaim their pets? What would I do if someone came looking for Nola, to whom I had become so attached?
I explored these questions and many more during the three years I spent making MINE. My primary focus was on a handful of extraordinary Katrina victims committed to finding their animals even years after the disaster, but the story extends to rescue workers and new adoptive guardians, who, like me, decided to take in pets left behind and care for them as their own. We met and interviewed hundreds of people over the years, and what emerged was a profound story of the bond between humans and animals, and the power of that bond to ameliorate human suffering. Equally striking, however, were stories both of the continuing prevalence of racism and classism in America, and the incredible power of compassion in the wake of tragedy. All of these stories become one in MINE.
I hope that MINE puts a human face on issues that may seem far removed from the lives of most Americans, but in fact affect us all - and that the film will promote much needed dialogue not just about how we treat our animals, but how we treat each other.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Johan Norberg, Author of "Financial Fiasco", on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
The Mysterious Ways Of Fannie And Freddie
Johan Norberg, 01.15.10, 05:10 PM EST (re-printed from Forbes.com)
Why aren't any of the companies' agents at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has started its work with a highly publicized two-day hearing in Washington, D.C. The Commission is supposed to find out what caused the financial crisis, but it seems like they are trying to enact Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Among all the bankers and regulators on stage during the hearings, there was not a single representative of the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were major causes of the housing bubble.
The reason for the omission is disturbingly obvious. When Congress created the Commission they wanted a crisis narrative of greedy bankers and passive regulators. In other words, they wanted to put the blame somewhere else. Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ) are creatures of Congress and it was Congress that pushed them to undermine underwriting standards and increase lending to low-income households while stalling reform.
Fannie and Freddie regularly let members of Congress announce large housing developments for low-income earners in exchange for political and financial support; over the past decade the two GSEs spent almost $200 million on lobbying and contributions to both parties, but most of all to Democrats, the present majority. Politicians wanted scapegoats on stage--Fannie and Freddie representatives would have functioned as a mirror.
Fannie and Freddie had an implicit government guarantee that made it possible for them to borrow cheaper than other financial institutions, and with those thousands of billions of dollars they bought mortgages from primary lenders, so that these got their money back and could lend even more to other prospective homebuyers.
In 2004, almost at the peak of the bubble, the Bush administration increased the ambitious targets for GSE lending of the Clinton Administration. It said that within four years, 56% of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgages should go to low-income households and 28% of the mortgages to those with a "very-low income." In plain English this means households that could not afford that mortgage the moment the interest rate returned to a more realistic level. The only thing we ever heard from Congress were demands to increase lending even more aggressively.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pioneered securitization of mortgages, whereby they re-packaged loans and sold them to investors. Increased political pressure to serve low-income households meant that they soon began to buy mortgage-backed securities on an enormous scale themselves. After 2004 the market could make almost any kind of loans, knowing that the government-sponsored enterprises would buy them. About 40% of the loans were junk. "We didn't really know what we were buying," admits a former director at Fannie Mae.
Investment bankers have been publicly scolded by the Commission for taking on so much risk, with leverage ratios around 30 to 1. Shouldn't they ask how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ended up with a leverage ratio closer to 60 to 1?
As a result of their losses, Fannie and Freddie blew up in September 2008 and were in effect nationalized. The Treasury Department implemented $200 billion caps on government aid to each company, which have just been removed. The worst consequence of removing caps is not potential cost of hundreds of billions to taxpayer, but the effect on the rest of the market. The GSEs showed Wall Street that subprime lending was encouraged by the government; they made it profitable for lenders to make bad loans to sell them; and they pushed up house prices by opening up the market for owning homes to people who had previously rented.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission couldn't care less. Granted, government-sponsored enterprises are mentioned in the 21st of 22 areas of inquiry for the Commission, but even there it is an afterthought: "financial institutions" in general is the object of study in No 21. And, as previously mentioned, no representative from Fannie or Freddie was invited to the hearing.
Today, former executives at the two GSEs say that the firms made so many bad loans because Congress constantly leaned on them to buy more mortgages from low-income borrowers. It is no surprise that Congress does not want anyone to hear that message. But it makes a mockery of their pretention to examine all possible causes of the crisis in an even-handed and objective way.
A former GSE employee recently said, self-critically: "It didn't take a lot of sophistication to notice what was happening to the quality of the loans. Anybody could have seen it. But nobody on the outside was even questioning us about it."
Apparently the outside world still isn't.
Johan Norberg is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation with Home Ownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis.
Johan Norberg, 01.15.10, 05:10 PM EST (re-printed from Forbes.com)
Why aren't any of the companies' agents at the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission?
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission has started its work with a highly publicized two-day hearing in Washington, D.C. The Commission is supposed to find out what caused the financial crisis, but it seems like they are trying to enact Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. Among all the bankers and regulators on stage during the hearings, there was not a single representative of the government-sponsored mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which were major causes of the housing bubble.
The reason for the omission is disturbingly obvious. When Congress created the Commission they wanted a crisis narrative of greedy bankers and passive regulators. In other words, they wanted to put the blame somewhere else. Fannie Mae ( FNM - news - people ) and Freddie Mac ( FRE - news - people ) are creatures of Congress and it was Congress that pushed them to undermine underwriting standards and increase lending to low-income households while stalling reform.
Fannie and Freddie regularly let members of Congress announce large housing developments for low-income earners in exchange for political and financial support; over the past decade the two GSEs spent almost $200 million on lobbying and contributions to both parties, but most of all to Democrats, the present majority. Politicians wanted scapegoats on stage--Fannie and Freddie representatives would have functioned as a mirror.
Fannie and Freddie had an implicit government guarantee that made it possible for them to borrow cheaper than other financial institutions, and with those thousands of billions of dollars they bought mortgages from primary lenders, so that these got their money back and could lend even more to other prospective homebuyers.
In 2004, almost at the peak of the bubble, the Bush administration increased the ambitious targets for GSE lending of the Clinton Administration. It said that within four years, 56% of Fannie's and Freddie's mortgages should go to low-income households and 28% of the mortgages to those with a "very-low income." In plain English this means households that could not afford that mortgage the moment the interest rate returned to a more realistic level. The only thing we ever heard from Congress were demands to increase lending even more aggressively.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pioneered securitization of mortgages, whereby they re-packaged loans and sold them to investors. Increased political pressure to serve low-income households meant that they soon began to buy mortgage-backed securities on an enormous scale themselves. After 2004 the market could make almost any kind of loans, knowing that the government-sponsored enterprises would buy them. About 40% of the loans were junk. "We didn't really know what we were buying," admits a former director at Fannie Mae.
Investment bankers have been publicly scolded by the Commission for taking on so much risk, with leverage ratios around 30 to 1. Shouldn't they ask how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac ended up with a leverage ratio closer to 60 to 1?
As a result of their losses, Fannie and Freddie blew up in September 2008 and were in effect nationalized. The Treasury Department implemented $200 billion caps on government aid to each company, which have just been removed. The worst consequence of removing caps is not potential cost of hundreds of billions to taxpayer, but the effect on the rest of the market. The GSEs showed Wall Street that subprime lending was encouraged by the government; they made it profitable for lenders to make bad loans to sell them; and they pushed up house prices by opening up the market for owning homes to people who had previously rented.
The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission couldn't care less. Granted, government-sponsored enterprises are mentioned in the 21st of 22 areas of inquiry for the Commission, but even there it is an afterthought: "financial institutions" in general is the object of study in No 21. And, as previously mentioned, no representative from Fannie or Freddie was invited to the hearing.
Today, former executives at the two GSEs say that the firms made so many bad loans because Congress constantly leaned on them to buy more mortgages from low-income borrowers. It is no surprise that Congress does not want anyone to hear that message. But it makes a mockery of their pretention to examine all possible causes of the crisis in an even-handed and objective way.
A former GSE employee recently said, self-critically: "It didn't take a lot of sophistication to notice what was happening to the quality of the loans. Anybody could have seen it. But nobody on the outside was even questioning us about it."
Apparently the outside world still isn't.
Johan Norberg is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and author of Financial Fiasco: How America's Infatuation with Home Ownership and Easy Money Created the Economic Crisis.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Director Kevin Tomlinson talks about his film "Back to the Garden"
Back in 1988 I took a road trip that led me on a strange journey. By chance, I saw a funky poster advertising a Healing Gathering in rural Washington State. Curious to meet this community of backcountry hippies twenty years after Woodstock, I decided to go.
Upon arrival, I felt transported, finding myself among magic buses and tepees in a meadow filled with beaded flower children communing with nature. I shot hours of dancing, drumming, singing and celebration. I recorded extensive interviews with some of the most genuine, sincere beings I’d ever met.
With no plans for the material at the time and skeptical how it would be received during the Reagan/Bush years, the project was shelved. But it didn’t sit quietly. The images wouldn’t let go. 18 years later I asked myself, where have all the “flowers” gone?
So I began a new journey, a journey to find what had happened to all the dreams of getting back to the land, setting one’s soul free and environmental utopia. How had they survived living off-grid and below the poverty level for years? Had anyone changed course and gone mainstream? What had become of their dreams of self-reliance, simplicity, and freedom? And how did their children (now in their twenties) feel about their own “Hippie Kid” upbringings?
Not so long ago, those “Hippie” communities and their values were considered way too radical and fringe by the mainstream. Today, the Green Movement, looking to protect the earth for future generations, is wholeheartedly embracing them.
Back to the Garden presents a time-lapse view—twenty years in the lives of a group of idealist baby boomers who rejected and dropped out of the mainstream, who went back to the land, overcoming many personal sacrifices In pursuit of their dreams. It’s also a story about the personal consequences of those radical dreams and choices. Not only is this their story, but ours too, because the counterculture of the sixties affected all of us and forever changed our ideas about how we define love, wealth, spirituality and freedom.
Kevin Tomlinson
Healing Gathering (1988)
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Filmmaker David M. Edwards talks about his film Sprawling from Grace
Sprawling From Grace; Driven To Madness is a documentary feature film about the unintended consequences of suburban sprawl. It illustrates the importance of altering the course of how we develop our nation’s cities. It communicates the dangers of continuing to invest in the inefficient horizontal growth patterns of suburban communities, and details how they threaten to bankrupt the remaining wealth of our nation. It explores how the depletion of fossil fuels will impact this living arrangement, and investigates the viability of alternative energies that are currently available. This film sounds the alarm that the cheap fossil-fuel-dependant suburban American way of life is not just at risk. It is in peril!.
After interviewing close to thirty experts on the subject, one reoccurring theme has revealed itself. We can no longer continue building our cities in the same way we have over the last half-century. The suburbs, while being an integral part of our nation’s maturation, contribute substantially to our problems of air and water pollution, increasing our health risks, and decreasing our quality of life. Suburbia has trapped Americans behind the wheels of their automobiles, as they commute further and further distances to find good paying jobs. Given the inevitable depletion of non-renewable fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas, it’s clear that this 50 year suburban experiment has created a host of unintended, unlivable consequences. Consequences we will have to find solutions for if we want a sustainable future in a post-fossil-fuel world.
This nation and its citizens have been lulled into a false sense of security. We are blissfully unaware of the impending ramifications of continuing the patterns of growth that have locked us behind the wheels of our cars. Like Nero, we are fiddling away, confident that tomorrow will be as promising as today. We don’t realize that with each new suburban subdivision, with each new strip-mall, each new corporate office park, that promise slips further and further away.
Wrestling with these emerging realities, state and city governments are finding that they can no longer encourage these patterns of growth by further investing in highway and utility infrastructures. They are now forced to find viable alternatives by investing in public transit in the form of BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), commuter rail, and light rail to serve their community’s transportation needs. Through this process they are gaining an historical understanding of the relationship between land use and transportation. They are rediscovering how well designed, walkable, mixed-use communities, that are served by transit can build and support local economies, aid in defining and creating communities, provide for diversity, improve accessibility, provide transit choices, reduce pollution, and improve health. These many benefits ensure a successful and sustainable solution to the problems associated with their growing populations. In our interview with former Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, he quoted Albert Einstein saying, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and each time expecting a different result." He clarified this quote by adding, "Continuing to develop our cities in these ever increasing suburban sprawl patterns will increasingly diminish our quality of life, both physically and mentally. We simply have to stop building more highways!"
How we build our cities will determine the future of how we live our lives, how we form our values, and will determine what we leave for our next generation. It’s time we answer the wake up call.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Director Paul Lynch comments on the making of his film "Birth of a Movement"
On January 28th 1969, just off the coast of Santa Barbara, oil burst out of the ocean like a black artesian well. The fallout and mishap were disheartening to say the least as residents gathered on the beaches to witness the oil slick coming to shore; there was nothing to stop it.
The Birth of a Movement is a documentary film investigating the 1969 oil blow out in Santa Barbara, which is considered by many to be the birth of the “modern environmental movement.” The activism inspired by this disaster quickly spread across the country and spawned landmark legislation, the first Earth Day, and the Environmental Studies program at UCSB.
The film aims to educate viewers about this important piece of history and motivate present and future generations alike to become good environmental stewards. Yet, this goal is unachievable without drawing connections between oil-development and the global financial crisis, climate change, and social injustice. Here we look 40 years back so as to look 40 years forward.
One of the greatest challenges of the 21st Century is how to deal with the dual-threat of global climate change and the inequities created by a capitalist dominated economy. We believe the solution is in merging the movements. Increased consumption, peak oil, polar caps melting, wars, pollution, and inequality reveal only one side of the story. The other side is the rise of grassroots movements redefining environmentalism in the 21st Century; it is The Birth of a Movement.
Board of Advisors
Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club
Marc McGinnes, J.D., Senior Lecturer Emeritus Environmental Studies, UCSB
Prof. Richard Appelbaum, Director MA Global & International Studies, UCSB
Paul Relis, Founding Director CEC, Executive Vice President for CR&R, Inc.
Monique Sonoquie, Founder, Indigenous Youth Foundation
Charlie Eckberg, Environmental Consultant & SB Environmental Leader
The Birth of a Movement is a documentary film investigating the 1969 oil blow out in Santa Barbara, which is considered by many to be the birth of the “modern environmental movement.” The activism inspired by this disaster quickly spread across the country and spawned landmark legislation, the first Earth Day, and the Environmental Studies program at UCSB.
The film aims to educate viewers about this important piece of history and motivate present and future generations alike to become good environmental stewards. Yet, this goal is unachievable without drawing connections between oil-development and the global financial crisis, climate change, and social injustice. Here we look 40 years back so as to look 40 years forward.
One of the greatest challenges of the 21st Century is how to deal with the dual-threat of global climate change and the inequities created by a capitalist dominated economy. We believe the solution is in merging the movements. Increased consumption, peak oil, polar caps melting, wars, pollution, and inequality reveal only one side of the story. The other side is the rise of grassroots movements redefining environmentalism in the 21st Century; it is The Birth of a Movement.
Board of Advisors
Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club
Marc McGinnes, J.D., Senior Lecturer Emeritus Environmental Studies, UCSB
Prof. Richard Appelbaum, Director MA Global & International Studies, UCSB
Paul Relis, Founding Director CEC, Executive Vice President for CR&R, Inc.
Monique Sonoquie, Founder, Indigenous Youth Foundation
Charlie Eckberg, Environmental Consultant & SB Environmental Leader
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Patty Greer talks about the experience of making "The Wake Up Call"
Re-printed from pattygreer.com:
I entered my first Crop Circle in Wiltshire England in 2006 and my life hasn’t been the same since. There’s no doubt in my mind that I experienced a DNA shift that day. As I walked up the tram lines (tractor tracks) toward the Crop Circle my heart was pounding and goosebumps rose all over my body. The energy was something I had never felt before. I was totally drawn in. It was raining pretty hard that day and the wet wheat was up to my thighs. It got pretty cold after a while but it didn’t seem to matter. The formation was precise and immaculate, breathtaking really. I felt my body light up and re-align energetically, it was the strangest feeling. I rarely talk about that first year because it wasn’t until 2007 that I returned to Europe on a Crop Circle mission. For 9 weeks I entrenched myself in the Crop Circle mystery.
Beginning in Italy I carried 14 photos of Italian Crop Circles that I had found on the internet. I mapped out the train routes and went for it. I spoke some Spanish but it was a challenge to find specific farm fields in remote villages in Italy on my own. I found 3 Italian Crop Circles in different areas and sadly they were all dry, dead, unattended and buzz free. Even my pendulum went limp. I was exhausted and disappointed by my Italian Crop Circle experience.
Arriving in England, the farm fields were strewn with exquisite Crop Circles. They had been appearing almost every day since late April. I spent 8 weeks in the UK Crop Circles studying the wheat for signs of unusual activity made apparent by the blown nodes (bubbles) in the stalks of the grain, and just ‘Being’ in the fields. I spent late nights on the hillsides with my hard core Croppie buddies, watching the skies for the anomalous Balls of Light. We had some amazing sightings….
I went back to the UK in 2008 and filmed 2 more movies in the Crop Circles, Stone circles and Faerie glens. These two movies, “2012-We’re Already In It” and “Crop Circles-2010 Update-The Wake Up Call” both won the 2009 and 2010 EBE Awards for ‘Best Feature Film-UFO or Related’ at the prestigious International UFO Congress Convention. They are Ascension based movies richly loaded with beautiful Crop Circle, Orb and UFO visuals.
I entered my first Crop Circle in Wiltshire England in 2006 and my life hasn’t been the same since. There’s no doubt in my mind that I experienced a DNA shift that day. As I walked up the tram lines (tractor tracks) toward the Crop Circle my heart was pounding and goosebumps rose all over my body. The energy was something I had never felt before. I was totally drawn in. It was raining pretty hard that day and the wet wheat was up to my thighs. It got pretty cold after a while but it didn’t seem to matter. The formation was precise and immaculate, breathtaking really. I felt my body light up and re-align energetically, it was the strangest feeling. I rarely talk about that first year because it wasn’t until 2007 that I returned to Europe on a Crop Circle mission. For 9 weeks I entrenched myself in the Crop Circle mystery.
Beginning in Italy I carried 14 photos of Italian Crop Circles that I had found on the internet. I mapped out the train routes and went for it. I spoke some Spanish but it was a challenge to find specific farm fields in remote villages in Italy on my own. I found 3 Italian Crop Circles in different areas and sadly they were all dry, dead, unattended and buzz free. Even my pendulum went limp. I was exhausted and disappointed by my Italian Crop Circle experience.
Arriving in England, the farm fields were strewn with exquisite Crop Circles. They had been appearing almost every day since late April. I spent 8 weeks in the UK Crop Circles studying the wheat for signs of unusual activity made apparent by the blown nodes (bubbles) in the stalks of the grain, and just ‘Being’ in the fields. I spent late nights on the hillsides with my hard core Croppie buddies, watching the skies for the anomalous Balls of Light. We had some amazing sightings….
I went back to the UK in 2008 and filmed 2 more movies in the Crop Circles, Stone circles and Faerie glens. These two movies, “2012-We’re Already In It” and “Crop Circles-2010 Update-The Wake Up Call” both won the 2009 and 2010 EBE Awards for ‘Best Feature Film-UFO or Related’ at the prestigious International UFO Congress Convention. They are Ascension based movies richly loaded with beautiful Crop Circle, Orb and UFO visuals.
I interviewed fascinating people from all over the world and hiked into places most film makers would never haul their gear. Always outdoors, keeping it real. Wearing the movie camera around my neck I shot from under a hooded plastic tarp if it was raining. Nothing stopped me.
The military helicopters hovered 50′ above as I conducted interviews in the Crop Circles a few times. It became annoying after 20 minutes or so…
Still I kept my focus on the true majesty of the Crop Circles and waited patiently. They are one of the greatest gifts today and they are accessible to everyone wanting to see them.
I came home with a complete documentary and had no previous interest, training or experience whatsoever in film making. The first movie made itself through me! I feature devoted Croppies who had muddy boots and dirty knees, the passionate folks who were in the fields day after day like me. This is intense ART spoken through Nature. Important messages perhaps?
When I brought the footage back to America, I completed the movie in no time. While editing I made an incredible discovery within the famous footage of 2 Balls of Light creating a Crop Circle in seconds. For no apparent reason I asked my editor to slow the footage down and play it backward. What we found was a direct and visible line of communication between the 2 Balls of Light just before the wheat lays down! This discovery is featured in “Crop Circles-2010 Update-The Wake Up Call” and “The Wake Up Call-Anybody Listening?”
“The Wake Up Call-Anybody Listening?” premiered at the 2008 International UFO Congress Convention a month after completion and was well received. As I headed to the convention my editor handed me his movie camera and said, “Do it by yourself!” So I shot my second documentary that week, “UFOs-ETs-Abductees and Brilliant Minds” which features 29 brilliant speakers at the UFO Congress Convention, up close, back stage and personal. It brings the viewer the best of this 10 day (14 hours per day) event with the brightest minds in the world on the subjects of UFOs and advanced technologies. I was blown away by what I heard. It was a crash course in UFO realities!
With all the changes happening in the world today and energies shifting as they are, movies that are POSITIVE and UPLIFTING are more important than ever. Our thoughts, feelings, words and actions ripple out across the world, so watch your thoughts.I have great hopes for the shift we are Already In.
Enjoy the ride!
Monday, May 17, 2010
From the makers of 'What Babies Want' and 'Water Baby"
Debby Takikawa reveals her motivations for making the film What Babies Want:
"I have always been fond of children and as I was growing up I was a willing babysitter of any little creature who needed company, help or protection. It was natural for me then professionally as a chiropractor to be interested in children. I ran a process-oriented practice that included the body mind and emotions equally in healing. However I was completely taken by surprise when a woman with a chronic whiplash neck injury spontaneously remembered her birth as I was gently holding her head at the end of a session. Over a period of a few years, there were other unexpected and amazing memories that seemed to surface from the very tissue essence of my patients, and I became more intrigued by the phenomena of body memory.
At the same time it seemed natural that my practice should be filled with babies and children. Over the years I developed my practice into work with attachment therapy with mothers and babies to support them to deepen their connection and overcome stresses and traumas that interfered with that connection. In 2000 I opened a nonprofit public clinic (Beginnings Inc.), took on interns and developed a public outreach program. The film What Babies Want is part of that outreach. It started out to be a short educational video and ended up with a creative life of its own, becoming an award winning documentary film, with Best Documentary, Audience Choice and Special Recognition from various film festivals. It has been shown in many countries and in many theaters as well as in homes, offices and in a variety of centers for healthy birth. I have since written a book and am developing a What Babies Want Parenting Series TM of films and books."
As an independent filmmaker interested in health subjects, cutting edge topics and social issues, when the opportunity to film a waterbirth presented itself, I happily took it. The things I learned in the course of filming amazed me, and I knew I had to make a film for expectant parents and healthcare providers, to teach them what I'd learned. That led to expanding the filming of just one waterbirth, initially for curiosity, to producing an in-depth feature documentary, and to following the story to France and Russia to film with the world's leading waterbirth pioneers. Ultimately, by bringing this vital information out, WATER BABY catalyzed the waterbirth method in the USA, and the families who have experienced waterbirth have been greatly enriched by it."
"I have always been fond of children and as I was growing up I was a willing babysitter of any little creature who needed company, help or protection. It was natural for me then professionally as a chiropractor to be interested in children. I ran a process-oriented practice that included the body mind and emotions equally in healing. However I was completely taken by surprise when a woman with a chronic whiplash neck injury spontaneously remembered her birth as I was gently holding her head at the end of a session. Over a period of a few years, there were other unexpected and amazing memories that seemed to surface from the very tissue essence of my patients, and I became more intrigued by the phenomena of body memory.
At the same time it seemed natural that my practice should be filled with babies and children. Over the years I developed my practice into work with attachment therapy with mothers and babies to support them to deepen their connection and overcome stresses and traumas that interfered with that connection. In 2000 I opened a nonprofit public clinic (Beginnings Inc.), took on interns and developed a public outreach program. The film What Babies Want is part of that outreach. It started out to be a short educational video and ended up with a creative life of its own, becoming an award winning documentary film, with Best Documentary, Audience Choice and Special Recognition from various film festivals. It has been shown in many countries and in many theaters as well as in homes, offices and in a variety of centers for healthy birth. I have since written a book and am developing a What Babies Want Parenting Series TM of films and books."
"I've always been motivated by balance, fairness, sensitivity and the personal empowerment of individuals. Yet, I've noted that American culture fails us in many of these, and childbirth is especially problematic. As I've observed how traumatized women and babies often are at birth, I was troubled by the lack of control by, or respect for, the mother's wishes, which has been too common. I've also been concerned about the exclusion or minimization of the father's role at one of the most important events in his life. I knew a great deal of improvement was needed, and I wanted to contribute to it.
As an independent filmmaker interested in health subjects, cutting edge topics and social issues, when the opportunity to film a waterbirth presented itself, I happily took it. The things I learned in the course of filming amazed me, and I knew I had to make a film for expectant parents and healthcare providers, to teach them what I'd learned. That led to expanding the filming of just one waterbirth, initially for curiosity, to producing an in-depth feature documentary, and to following the story to France and Russia to film with the world's leading waterbirth pioneers. Ultimately, by bringing this vital information out, WATER BABY catalyzed the waterbirth method in the USA, and the families who have experienced waterbirth have been greatly enriched by it."
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Farm Facts
Farm Facts
Re-printed from Miranda Productions.com
Only 0.2% of U.S. population is producing most of its food. The average age of U.S. farmers is currently fifty-six.
US Census Bureau
We suffer a net loss of 32,500 farms a year. 88% of average farm household income is derived from off-farm.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
U.S. farmers apply nearly 45 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers each year. From 1990-1994, food processors and manufacturers showed an annual average return on their investment of 17.9%. Farmers during the same period showed a 1.98% return on their investment.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In 1971 a new tractor cost $20,000 and wheat was $1.71 a bushel. In 1994 a new tractor of the same horsepower cost $100,000 and a bushel of wheat was $2.66.
Des Moines Register 7/16/94
Soil loss costs the U.S. economy around $44 billion a year. Worldwide, the number is well over $200 billion.
Dr. David Pimentel, Science magazine
Every pregnant woman in the world today has chemicals in her body that disrupt the endocrine system. These are transferred to the fetus as it grows. She also has measurable concentrations of endocrine disruptors in her milk that are transferred to the infant.
ERICE Statement 5/30/96
The World Resources Institute reports that, measured by traditional methods, the average farm shows an $80 per acre profit. If we calculate in all the costs of soil loss, water contamination, and environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average farm would show a $29 per acre loss.
Food in supermarkets travels an average of 1300 miles between production and consumption.
Out of every dollar Americans spend for food, ten cents goes to Phillip Morris, and six cents goes to Conagra.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In a USDA study of twelve common food crops, from 35% to 80% of all samples tested had residues from one or more pesticides. This was after the samples had been washed, peeled and cored. In these residues were 12 different carcinogens, 17 different neurotoxins, and 11 different endocrine disruptors.
Environmental Working Group
Tree bark gathered from ninety sites around the world, from the tropics to the treeline, bears traces of chemicals related to DDT, lindane, chlordane, aldrin, and to 18 other pesticides and fungicides. Some chemicals used decades ago are still affecting the environment, often thousands of miles from where they were sprayed.
Associated Press 9/30/95
4.7 billion pounds of pesticides are annually applied to food crops worldwide. 1.25 billion pounds of pesticides were used in the U.S. in 1995, an all-time high.
EPA draft document June 1996
Assault rifles kill an estimated 250 people each year and pesticides kill an estimated 10,400 people each year, yet assault rifles have been banned while the use of pesticides is expanding.
Environmental News Weekly
Every spring, 18,000 pounds per day of herbicides wash down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental Working Group
Between 1950 (the beginning of the Chemical Age) and 1988, the incidence of all forms of cancer increased by 43.5%, adjusted for age. Mortality rates from cancer rose by 2.9%.
Environmental News Weekly
In the United States, despite the use of pesticides, 35% of potential crops are lost to insects, diseases, and weeds. In 1945, before synthetic pesticides came into use, crop losses were 33%.
Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University
Sales of U.S. organic products increased from $2.31 billion in 1994 to $2.8 billion in 1995. This is a 22% increase, and the sixth year in which sales have grown by more than 20%.
Natural Foods Merchandiser survey, June 1996
The USDA states that total organic cropland is approximately 1,127,000 acres in 1996, up from an estimated 550,267 acres in 1991. The number of organic farmers almost doubled between 1991 and 1994, increasing from 2,841 to 4,060.
Re-printed from Miranda Productions.com
Only 0.2% of U.S. population is producing most of its food. The average age of U.S. farmers is currently fifty-six.
US Census Bureau
We suffer a net loss of 32,500 farms a year. 88% of average farm household income is derived from off-farm.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
U.S. farmers apply nearly 45 billion pounds of synthetic fertilizers each year. From 1990-1994, food processors and manufacturers showed an annual average return on their investment of 17.9%. Farmers during the same period showed a 1.98% return on their investment.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In 1971 a new tractor cost $20,000 and wheat was $1.71 a bushel. In 1994 a new tractor of the same horsepower cost $100,000 and a bushel of wheat was $2.66.
Des Moines Register 7/16/94
Soil loss costs the U.S. economy around $44 billion a year. Worldwide, the number is well over $200 billion.
Dr. David Pimentel, Science magazine
Every pregnant woman in the world today has chemicals in her body that disrupt the endocrine system. These are transferred to the fetus as it grows. She also has measurable concentrations of endocrine disruptors in her milk that are transferred to the infant.
ERICE Statement 5/30/96
The World Resources Institute reports that, measured by traditional methods, the average farm shows an $80 per acre profit. If we calculate in all the costs of soil loss, water contamination, and environmental degradation caused by conventional farming practices, the average farm would show a $29 per acre loss.
Food in supermarkets travels an average of 1300 miles between production and consumption.
Out of every dollar Americans spend for food, ten cents goes to Phillip Morris, and six cents goes to Conagra.
PrairieFire for Rural Action
In a USDA study of twelve common food crops, from 35% to 80% of all samples tested had residues from one or more pesticides. This was after the samples had been washed, peeled and cored. In these residues were 12 different carcinogens, 17 different neurotoxins, and 11 different endocrine disruptors.
Environmental Working Group
Tree bark gathered from ninety sites around the world, from the tropics to the treeline, bears traces of chemicals related to DDT, lindane, chlordane, aldrin, and to 18 other pesticides and fungicides. Some chemicals used decades ago are still affecting the environment, often thousands of miles from where they were sprayed.
Associated Press 9/30/95
4.7 billion pounds of pesticides are annually applied to food crops worldwide. 1.25 billion pounds of pesticides were used in the U.S. in 1995, an all-time high.
EPA draft document June 1996
Assault rifles kill an estimated 250 people each year and pesticides kill an estimated 10,400 people each year, yet assault rifles have been banned while the use of pesticides is expanding.
Environmental News Weekly
Every spring, 18,000 pounds per day of herbicides wash down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico.
Environmental Working Group
Between 1950 (the beginning of the Chemical Age) and 1988, the incidence of all forms of cancer increased by 43.5%, adjusted for age. Mortality rates from cancer rose by 2.9%.
Environmental News Weekly
In the United States, despite the use of pesticides, 35% of potential crops are lost to insects, diseases, and weeds. In 1945, before synthetic pesticides came into use, crop losses were 33%.
Dr. David Pimentel, Cornell University
Sales of U.S. organic products increased from $2.31 billion in 1994 to $2.8 billion in 1995. This is a 22% increase, and the sixth year in which sales have grown by more than 20%.
Natural Foods Merchandiser survey, June 1996
The USDA states that total organic cropland is approximately 1,127,000 acres in 1996, up from an estimated 550,267 acres in 1991. The number of organic farmers almost doubled between 1991 and 1994, increasing from 2,841 to 4,060.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Interview with Evgeny Morozov about Twitter and the Iran elections
Iran elections: A Twitter Revolution? Blogger, Foreign Policy Magazine and Fellow, Open Society Institute
(Re-posted from washingtonpost.com)
Evgeny Morozov
Wednesday, June 17, 2009; 3:00 PM
Evgeny Morozov: It's very hard to say with absolute certainty if the government is trying to ban certain Web sites, Twitter included. The problem is that Iran's Internet infrastructure is not very advanced to start with; the connection could often be slow, even in normal times. When millions of people are suddenly trying to get online at the same time, it's logical that resources may simply become unavailable or take too much to load. On top of that, some Web sites are under server cyber-attacks, which slows down access to them as well; cyber-attacks also slow down the Iranian internet in general. So, when a Web site doesn't load, it can mean quite a lot of things, and it might take us some time to have conclusive answers as to whether there has been any manipulation/censorship.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: There's been a lot written about the coverage in Iran this past weekend and that the U.S. news organizations didn't really carry their weight but that Twitter and other similar Web sites did spread news and let people know around the world what was going on in Iran. Comments?
Evgeny Morozov: We saw quite a few citizen journalists doing an excellent job of taking photos and videos of protests in Tehran almost in real-time. They have, indeed, filled an important niche. Networks like Twitter, similarly, have played a great role in attracting people's attention to this user-generated content. So, Flickr provided great photos -- and Twitter provided great attention to these photos. There has, indeed, been a lot of criticism of the lack of Iran-related coverage on CNN; Twitter users have even organized an entire campaign to deal with this called #cnnfail. I think they have been successful: CNN executives/reporters eventually had to answer questions about it.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: It seems like this is maybe the first time that technology has played such a role, with text messages and pictures on Twitter and other sites plus the use of cell phone cameras too. Is it a first? What is the Iranian government doing to try to stop information from coming out?
Evgeny Morozov: It's definitely not a first time. Technology has traditionally played a very important role in facilitating protest; remember that the early anti-communist protests in Poland were facilitated with the help of the Xerox machines! In the last decade, we have seen technology play a crucial role in helping people gather and, most importantly, get heard. Some of it was with the help of SMS technology; some -- with the help of blogs. You can look at the protests in the Philippines, Ukraine, Belarus, Burma, Moldova in the last decade and see that technology has been playing a very strong role in all of them! This, however, doesn't mean that the authoritarian governments themselves would not be exploring this technology for their own benefits; we have seen examples of that in Russia and China, to name only a few. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that technology favors only pro-Western and pro-democracy activists; it could easily favor the extremists too. Remember that the 1979 Iranian revolution was facilitated and brought about by tape recorders and video cassettes. So we definitely need to keep a sense of historical perspective here.
_______________________
Bel Air, Md.: Is there a danger with the new technology of unqualified people "reporting" the news? Citizen journalists? Is there value in this? It's a Web generation that's out there doing reporting skills, etc. Is this where the world should get its news?
Evgeny Morozov: There are definitely dangers involved and we have to be very careful about what we read on blogs and Twitter. I know of many efforts where platforms like these have been deliberately abused to spread misinformation and cause panic. There are, however, also some very interesting new initiatives that can help us separate trustworthy content from what seems like government propaganda. In the case of Iran, for example, there have been several initiatives to compile the online names of Twitter users who appear to be working for the government or spreading misinformation. One such list is available at a Web site called TwitSpam. While their data is definitely not very authoritative, it could still helps us navigate this brave new world of user-generated content. I think we are at a point where we don't really have a choice: if the Iran succeeds in banning foreign reporters from doing any real work in the country, all we'll be left with would be Twitter and blog reports, so we'd better figure out ways in which we can prioritize and authenticate this information.
_______________________
Chantilly, Va.: Social media is really stepping out. Technology is king. Voices are being heard. What's next?
Evgeny Morozov: I would caution against such an openly cyber-utopian perspective. As we have seen in the last few days, cyber activism without context could actually be extremely harmful as well. For example, we saw a lot of calls for Twitter users to participate in cyber-attacks on pro-government Web sites in Iran. While this seems nice in theory -- wouldn't it be nice to help the opposition there by shutting down government's propaganda channels? -- it also has had a negative effect on the overall Internet connectivity in the country. Simply put, attacking the Web sites of Ahmadinejad supporters has made life worse for everyone else, including their opponents. This is the kind of cyber-activism we'd rather avoid.
Another similar instance has been a campaign to publicize lists of so-called "proxy servers" that could help bypass some of the restrictions imposed by the government. Many Twitter users were posting links to them. However, by publicizing them too much, they also destroyed the value of such proxy servers, simply because the government and its loyalists also obtained access to them and proceeded to ban them.
So, it's very important not to get too starry-eyed about it and try to be as strategic as possible. Also, if you are not fully sure about the impact that your act of online support might have on the situation on the ground, you'd better think twice about engaging in it.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: How do we know that what winterers in Iran write is true? How do we know that the regime is not having "hired winterers" to spread confusing info?
Even Morose: See my earlier response about lists prepared by Twit Spam. In most cases, we don't know who is who and we should be extremely cautious. Many other governments have already developed capabilities to manipulate new media space; they have created their own "spinneret" -- an Internet full of spin and propaganda. They have also learned how to do it in ways that would not be easily detectable. Even in the case of the much-discussed "Twitter revolution" in Moldova in April, we saw attempts to spread misinformation and lies -- and most of these lies came from newly created accounts on Twitter. Thus, we have to be extremely careful and apply our best judgment. If we are not entirely sure about the truth of the information we are reading, we'd better not spread it around by reposting it to Face book, emailing it to our friends, etc
_______________________
Minsk: What's the advantage of using Twitter for Iranians? Why not use "safer" channels (e.g., closed discussion groups, etc.)? Is Twitter so popular among Iranian youth, in other words, to be actually useful for mobilization and broadcasting purposes?
Evgeny Morozov: You are right: in my opinion, there are VERY FEW advantages of using Twitter in Iran in order to plan protests (or even the revolution itself, if it's in the plans). The key thing to understand about successful political protests is that they rarely succeed if the government has the ability to monitor them from the very beginning. By discussing the organization of such protests on Twitter and other public forums, young Iranians probably hurt their effectiveness. I am yet to see evidence that Twitter is, indeed, being used on a mass scale to plan protests.
What IS definitely happening is that Twitter is used to publicize protests that are already going on -- and bring the world's attention to the acts of violence committed by the regime. Twitter's open platform and excellent ability to quickly spread information in decentralized fashion are perfect for this; this is why we see so many references to Iran there at the moment.
Another problem is that we don't really know how many people ARE actually using Twitter in Iran today. This has to do with the fact that many Twitter users who are not in Iran decided to set their online location to Tehran in order to protect those who are twittering locally. This may have helped some of Iranian Twitter users avoid persecution but it has made it impossible for us to find out the real impact of Twitter on the situation on the ground. My hunch is that this impact could be much more limited than we expect.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Do we know anything about the extent to which the authorities have sought to interfere with mobile telephony in Iran?
Evgeny Morozov: Once again, we can't tell it for sure. If we look at other similar protests outside of Iran, yes, authorities have been quite eager to turn off mobile coverage, particularly in areas where protesters are likely to congregate (this happened in Belarus and Moldova in the last few years, for example). I have seen reports that mobile networks were down in Iran too, but it's very hard to say whether it was due to interference by the government or by simply because of heavier-than-usual use by mobile phone users. Logically, during times of turmoil, there is always more demand for the scarce mobile resource as people start checking in on their friends and beloved ones. So, not every network outage is necessarily an act of the government, even though there are good reasons to suspect them of intervention.
_______________________
Arlington, Va. : What is the risk like for false information being spread and picked up by the media through this cyberweb of news?
Evgeny Morozov: The risks are certainly great and Twitter's 140-character-only environment makes them even greater. While Twitter may be great for sharing links to Web sites, articles, and blog posts that may be very long and elaborate, it's very hard to make a good argument in 140 characters or less. Thus, there is a very big risk of someone misinterpreting of what you are trying to say -- after all, there is very little room for context. Similarly, there is a lot of confusion about the authorship and, thus, the credibility of some reports: if I repost someone else's update from Tehran, but remove that person's name for space considerations, are my Twitter "followers" likely to understand that this is NOT me reporting it? Those are all questions that we need to answer before we jump to conclusions about "Twitter" reports from Tehran.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Some reports have said that not that many people in Iran were twittering, that it came from outside the country and the internal numbers were negligent. Do you have any proof of this?
Evgeny Morozov: See my earlier response to a similar question. I am afraid we are not going to find out an answer to this question any time soon. In addition to thousands of people who have now listed their location at Tehran as an act of solidarity/support to the protesting Iranians, there is a huge Iranian diaspora that, in my understanding at least, is using social media even more actively than their peers back in Iran. So, if the person's name sounds Iranian, they have some content in Farsi on their blog, and are posting a lot about events in Tehran - how do we know if they are in Tehran or, say, Los Angeles? This might take quite a lot of time to investigate and figure out for sure, and I am afraid that we are jumping to conclusions too soon.
_______________________
Wilmington, N.C.: Has anyone interviewed the founders of Twitter? I bet they had no idea their seemingly frivolous site would amount to such an important role in the almost violent-free changing of an authoritarian government. I'm almost disappointed, though, that the State Department had to ask them not to do maintenance work on a crucial daytime hour. But all in all it is still really great . Thank you for taking my comment and question.
Evgeny Morozov: I think we should give more credit to Twitter's founders (who have, indeed, been interviewed on the matter). As they said -- and I have no idea to doubt their words -- they would have postponed the maintenance even if the State Department didn't contact them. This was a very easy decision to make, as the Twitter community was really ready for a rebellion if there was no postponement. Yes, I think they may not have expected how Twitter would be used in places like Iran or Moldova. However, I think this only highlights how good this service is; most great technologies have several uses -- and the most interesting uses are never anticipated by their founders.
However, I think we should also be a bit critical of the State Department. Instead of just going after Twitter for wanting to carry out maintenance, they may have as well gone after their colleagues in the U.S. Treasury who have instituted some draconian measures on the export of U.S. software to Iran. Instant messaging software like MSN Messenger, for example, is no longer available in Iran, since Iran is on the list of embargoed states. The Twitter Revolution in Iran could have been much different if the U.S. government was not taking away with one hand what they give with another: allowing Iranians to access all reasonable online and offline tools should be the objective of the U.S. government policy here.
_______________________
Potomac, Md.: Has all the tweeting and blogging mostly been from the opposition side of Mousavi supporters? Have there been tweets from the Ahmadinejad side of things? Whose hands is the technology in, just the university students?
Evgeny Morozov: There have definitely been blogs posts and tweets from both sides. However, if you look only at English-language content on Twitter, you may get a different impression -- most of the posts there look as if they have been posted only by supporters of Mousavi. This, however, is only because they do so in English and have a much bigger support base among English-speakers.
However, we should also understand that there are few incentives for supporters of Ahmadinejad to use Twitter; they would not succeed in converting most American or European users of Twitter to their side. Thus, I assume they are relying on other online platforms that may actually help them reach out the local population -- and it's the local population that is going to determine the outcome of this battle. So, to really understand how new media tools have been used by both sides, we need to look at Farsi-language Internet forums and blogs-- something that is simply beyond most Twitter users at the moment, for language reasons. I suspect that if we carried out a full analysis of all content, we would see a very different picture.
_______________________
D.C.: Sorry to post this late and without reading the rest of the chat. I don't know if you've responded to this question yet. If you haven't -- a friend recommended changing Twitter settings to location = Tehran and time zone for Tehran. I did this, but is that effective for confusing Iranian "security" types? Meaningful? Widespread?
Evgeny Morozov: I mentioned this in passing while responding to an earlier question but let me elaborate. I think it's not going to confuse the Iranian authorities. Nor do I think that they are going to lock up the entire Twitter population of Iran. They will most likely go after very visible and high-profile Twitter users; those, I think, are already well-known to them and they certainly keep an eye on what those are writing. We have seen that the Iranian authorities are capable of jailing bloggers - they have do so many times in the past. I think they may eventually start intimidating bloggers and Twitter users once the protests quiet down (if they do). In other words, I don't think it's the lack of candidates for arrest that stops them from doing this at the moment.
One inadvertent consequence of this cyber-campaign to change users' location settings to Tehran was to inflate the number of real Twitter users in Iran. Right now, it's impossible to tell for sure how many users Twitter really has in the country; consequently, we can only speculate about the real role that it played. The documented low number of Twitter users in Moldova (i.e. those who chose Moldova as their location), for example, was one of the arguments against calling those events a "Twitter revolution". I am not sure we would be able to make the same argument with Iran anymore.
_______________________
Santa Barbara, Calif.: Is the Iranian government aware that outsiders have launched DDOS (denial of service) attacks on their servers? If so, do you think there will be any repercussions either domestically or internationally because of such attacks?
Evgeny Morozov: It's very ironic but I think the Iranian government hugely benefited from these DDOS attacks. I've already explained this in an earlier answer, but, in short, these DDOS attacks have made Internet in Iran very slow, thus thwarting people's ability to get pictures and videos and even blog post out of the country. I am not sure that the Iranian government really needed much of a Web presence; they, after all, control much of television and radio and can influence their domestic audience through those (much more powerful) means. Thwarting their citizens' the ability to communicate to the outside world, however, has been one of their key objectives -- and I think that DDOS attacks have inadvertently helped them achieve it.
_______________________
Evgeny Morozov: Thank you all very much for very informed and challenging questions. I've enjoyed responding to them. I'll continue blogging about the role of social media in Iran on my Foreign Policy blog, so please tune in!
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Foreign Policy: Evgeny Morozov's Blog
Evgeny Morozov: It's very hard to say with absolute certainty if the government is trying to ban certain Web sites, Twitter included. The problem is that Iran's Internet infrastructure is not very advanced to start with; the connection could often be slow, even in normal times. When millions of people are suddenly trying to get online at the same time, it's logical that resources may simply become unavailable or take too much to load. On top of that, some Web sites are under server cyber-attacks, which slows down access to them as well; cyber-attacks also slow down the Iranian internet in general. So, when a Web site doesn't load, it can mean quite a lot of things, and it might take us some time to have conclusive answers as to whether there has been any manipulation/censorship.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.: There's been a lot written about the coverage in Iran this past weekend and that the U.S. news organizations didn't really carry their weight but that Twitter and other similar Web sites did spread news and let people know around the world what was going on in Iran. Comments?
Evgeny Morozov: We saw quite a few citizen journalists doing an excellent job of taking photos and videos of protests in Tehran almost in real-time. They have, indeed, filled an important niche. Networks like Twitter, similarly, have played a great role in attracting people's attention to this user-generated content. So, Flickr provided great photos -- and Twitter provided great attention to these photos. There has, indeed, been a lot of criticism of the lack of Iran-related coverage on CNN; Twitter users have even organized an entire campaign to deal with this called #cnnfail. I think they have been successful: CNN executives/reporters eventually had to answer questions about it.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: It seems like this is maybe the first time that technology has played such a role, with text messages and pictures on Twitter and other sites plus the use of cell phone cameras too. Is it a first? What is the Iranian government doing to try to stop information from coming out?
Evgeny Morozov: It's definitely not a first time. Technology has traditionally played a very important role in facilitating protest; remember that the early anti-communist protests in Poland were facilitated with the help of the Xerox machines! In the last decade, we have seen technology play a crucial role in helping people gather and, most importantly, get heard. Some of it was with the help of SMS technology; some -- with the help of blogs. You can look at the protests in the Philippines, Ukraine, Belarus, Burma, Moldova in the last decade and see that technology has been playing a very strong role in all of them! This, however, doesn't mean that the authoritarian governments themselves would not be exploring this technology for their own benefits; we have seen examples of that in Russia and China, to name only a few. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that technology favors only pro-Western and pro-democracy activists; it could easily favor the extremists too. Remember that the 1979 Iranian revolution was facilitated and brought about by tape recorders and video cassettes. So we definitely need to keep a sense of historical perspective here.
_______________________
Bel Air, Md.: Is there a danger with the new technology of unqualified people "reporting" the news? Citizen journalists? Is there value in this? It's a Web generation that's out there doing reporting skills, etc. Is this where the world should get its news?
Evgeny Morozov: There are definitely dangers involved and we have to be very careful about what we read on blogs and Twitter. I know of many efforts where platforms like these have been deliberately abused to spread misinformation and cause panic. There are, however, also some very interesting new initiatives that can help us separate trustworthy content from what seems like government propaganda. In the case of Iran, for example, there have been several initiatives to compile the online names of Twitter users who appear to be working for the government or spreading misinformation. One such list is available at a Web site called TwitSpam. While their data is definitely not very authoritative, it could still helps us navigate this brave new world of user-generated content. I think we are at a point where we don't really have a choice: if the Iran succeeds in banning foreign reporters from doing any real work in the country, all we'll be left with would be Twitter and blog reports, so we'd better figure out ways in which we can prioritize and authenticate this information.
_______________________
Chantilly, Va.: Social media is really stepping out. Technology is king. Voices are being heard. What's next?
Evgeny Morozov: I would caution against such an openly cyber-utopian perspective. As we have seen in the last few days, cyber activism without context could actually be extremely harmful as well. For example, we saw a lot of calls for Twitter users to participate in cyber-attacks on pro-government Web sites in Iran. While this seems nice in theory -- wouldn't it be nice to help the opposition there by shutting down government's propaganda channels? -- it also has had a negative effect on the overall Internet connectivity in the country. Simply put, attacking the Web sites of Ahmadinejad supporters has made life worse for everyone else, including their opponents. This is the kind of cyber-activism we'd rather avoid.
Another similar instance has been a campaign to publicize lists of so-called "proxy servers" that could help bypass some of the restrictions imposed by the government. Many Twitter users were posting links to them. However, by publicizing them too much, they also destroyed the value of such proxy servers, simply because the government and its loyalists also obtained access to them and proceeded to ban them.
So, it's very important not to get too starry-eyed about it and try to be as strategic as possible. Also, if you are not fully sure about the impact that your act of online support might have on the situation on the ground, you'd better think twice about engaging in it.
_______________________
New York, N.Y.: How do we know that what winterers in Iran write is true? How do we know that the regime is not having "hired winterers" to spread confusing info?
Even Morose: See my earlier response about lists prepared by Twit Spam. In most cases, we don't know who is who and we should be extremely cautious. Many other governments have already developed capabilities to manipulate new media space; they have created their own "spinneret" -- an Internet full of spin and propaganda. They have also learned how to do it in ways that would not be easily detectable. Even in the case of the much-discussed "Twitter revolution" in Moldova in April, we saw attempts to spread misinformation and lies -- and most of these lies came from newly created accounts on Twitter. Thus, we have to be extremely careful and apply our best judgment. If we are not entirely sure about the truth of the information we are reading, we'd better not spread it around by reposting it to Face book, emailing it to our friends, etc
_______________________
Minsk: What's the advantage of using Twitter for Iranians? Why not use "safer" channels (e.g., closed discussion groups, etc.)? Is Twitter so popular among Iranian youth, in other words, to be actually useful for mobilization and broadcasting purposes?
Evgeny Morozov: You are right: in my opinion, there are VERY FEW advantages of using Twitter in Iran in order to plan protests (or even the revolution itself, if it's in the plans). The key thing to understand about successful political protests is that they rarely succeed if the government has the ability to monitor them from the very beginning. By discussing the organization of such protests on Twitter and other public forums, young Iranians probably hurt their effectiveness. I am yet to see evidence that Twitter is, indeed, being used on a mass scale to plan protests.
What IS definitely happening is that Twitter is used to publicize protests that are already going on -- and bring the world's attention to the acts of violence committed by the regime. Twitter's open platform and excellent ability to quickly spread information in decentralized fashion are perfect for this; this is why we see so many references to Iran there at the moment.
Another problem is that we don't really know how many people ARE actually using Twitter in Iran today. This has to do with the fact that many Twitter users who are not in Iran decided to set their online location to Tehran in order to protect those who are twittering locally. This may have helped some of Iranian Twitter users avoid persecution but it has made it impossible for us to find out the real impact of Twitter on the situation on the ground. My hunch is that this impact could be much more limited than we expect.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Do we know anything about the extent to which the authorities have sought to interfere with mobile telephony in Iran?
Evgeny Morozov: Once again, we can't tell it for sure. If we look at other similar protests outside of Iran, yes, authorities have been quite eager to turn off mobile coverage, particularly in areas where protesters are likely to congregate (this happened in Belarus and Moldova in the last few years, for example). I have seen reports that mobile networks were down in Iran too, but it's very hard to say whether it was due to interference by the government or by simply because of heavier-than-usual use by mobile phone users. Logically, during times of turmoil, there is always more demand for the scarce mobile resource as people start checking in on their friends and beloved ones. So, not every network outage is necessarily an act of the government, even though there are good reasons to suspect them of intervention.
_______________________
Arlington, Va. : What is the risk like for false information being spread and picked up by the media through this cyberweb of news?
Evgeny Morozov: The risks are certainly great and Twitter's 140-character-only environment makes them even greater. While Twitter may be great for sharing links to Web sites, articles, and blog posts that may be very long and elaborate, it's very hard to make a good argument in 140 characters or less. Thus, there is a very big risk of someone misinterpreting of what you are trying to say -- after all, there is very little room for context. Similarly, there is a lot of confusion about the authorship and, thus, the credibility of some reports: if I repost someone else's update from Tehran, but remove that person's name for space considerations, are my Twitter "followers" likely to understand that this is NOT me reporting it? Those are all questions that we need to answer before we jump to conclusions about "Twitter" reports from Tehran.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.: Some reports have said that not that many people in Iran were twittering, that it came from outside the country and the internal numbers were negligent. Do you have any proof of this?
Evgeny Morozov: See my earlier response to a similar question. I am afraid we are not going to find out an answer to this question any time soon. In addition to thousands of people who have now listed their location at Tehran as an act of solidarity/support to the protesting Iranians, there is a huge Iranian diaspora that, in my understanding at least, is using social media even more actively than their peers back in Iran. So, if the person's name sounds Iranian, they have some content in Farsi on their blog, and are posting a lot about events in Tehran - how do we know if they are in Tehran or, say, Los Angeles? This might take quite a lot of time to investigate and figure out for sure, and I am afraid that we are jumping to conclusions too soon.
_______________________
Wilmington, N.C.: Has anyone interviewed the founders of Twitter? I bet they had no idea their seemingly frivolous site would amount to such an important role in the almost violent-free changing of an authoritarian government. I'm almost disappointed, though, that the State Department had to ask them not to do maintenance work on a crucial daytime hour. But all in all it is still really great . Thank you for taking my comment and question.
Evgeny Morozov: I think we should give more credit to Twitter's founders (who have, indeed, been interviewed on the matter). As they said -- and I have no idea to doubt their words -- they would have postponed the maintenance even if the State Department didn't contact them. This was a very easy decision to make, as the Twitter community was really ready for a rebellion if there was no postponement. Yes, I think they may not have expected how Twitter would be used in places like Iran or Moldova. However, I think this only highlights how good this service is; most great technologies have several uses -- and the most interesting uses are never anticipated by their founders.
However, I think we should also be a bit critical of the State Department. Instead of just going after Twitter for wanting to carry out maintenance, they may have as well gone after their colleagues in the U.S. Treasury who have instituted some draconian measures on the export of U.S. software to Iran. Instant messaging software like MSN Messenger, for example, is no longer available in Iran, since Iran is on the list of embargoed states. The Twitter Revolution in Iran could have been much different if the U.S. government was not taking away with one hand what they give with another: allowing Iranians to access all reasonable online and offline tools should be the objective of the U.S. government policy here.
_______________________
Potomac, Md.: Has all the tweeting and blogging mostly been from the opposition side of Mousavi supporters? Have there been tweets from the Ahmadinejad side of things? Whose hands is the technology in, just the university students?
Evgeny Morozov: There have definitely been blogs posts and tweets from both sides. However, if you look only at English-language content on Twitter, you may get a different impression -- most of the posts there look as if they have been posted only by supporters of Mousavi. This, however, is only because they do so in English and have a much bigger support base among English-speakers.
However, we should also understand that there are few incentives for supporters of Ahmadinejad to use Twitter; they would not succeed in converting most American or European users of Twitter to their side. Thus, I assume they are relying on other online platforms that may actually help them reach out the local population -- and it's the local population that is going to determine the outcome of this battle. So, to really understand how new media tools have been used by both sides, we need to look at Farsi-language Internet forums and blogs-- something that is simply beyond most Twitter users at the moment, for language reasons. I suspect that if we carried out a full analysis of all content, we would see a very different picture.
_______________________
D.C.: Sorry to post this late and without reading the rest of the chat. I don't know if you've responded to this question yet. If you haven't -- a friend recommended changing Twitter settings to location = Tehran and time zone for Tehran. I did this, but is that effective for confusing Iranian "security" types? Meaningful? Widespread?
Evgeny Morozov: I mentioned this in passing while responding to an earlier question but let me elaborate. I think it's not going to confuse the Iranian authorities. Nor do I think that they are going to lock up the entire Twitter population of Iran. They will most likely go after very visible and high-profile Twitter users; those, I think, are already well-known to them and they certainly keep an eye on what those are writing. We have seen that the Iranian authorities are capable of jailing bloggers - they have do so many times in the past. I think they may eventually start intimidating bloggers and Twitter users once the protests quiet down (if they do). In other words, I don't think it's the lack of candidates for arrest that stops them from doing this at the moment.
One inadvertent consequence of this cyber-campaign to change users' location settings to Tehran was to inflate the number of real Twitter users in Iran. Right now, it's impossible to tell for sure how many users Twitter really has in the country; consequently, we can only speculate about the real role that it played. The documented low number of Twitter users in Moldova (i.e. those who chose Moldova as their location), for example, was one of the arguments against calling those events a "Twitter revolution". I am not sure we would be able to make the same argument with Iran anymore.
_______________________
Santa Barbara, Calif.: Is the Iranian government aware that outsiders have launched DDOS (denial of service) attacks on their servers? If so, do you think there will be any repercussions either domestically or internationally because of such attacks?
Evgeny Morozov: It's very ironic but I think the Iranian government hugely benefited from these DDOS attacks. I've already explained this in an earlier answer, but, in short, these DDOS attacks have made Internet in Iran very slow, thus thwarting people's ability to get pictures and videos and even blog post out of the country. I am not sure that the Iranian government really needed much of a Web presence; they, after all, control much of television and radio and can influence their domestic audience through those (much more powerful) means. Thwarting their citizens' the ability to communicate to the outside world, however, has been one of their key objectives -- and I think that DDOS attacks have inadvertently helped them achieve it.
_______________________
Evgeny Morozov: Thank you all very much for very informed and challenging questions. I've enjoyed responding to them. I'll continue blogging about the role of social media in Iran on my Foreign Policy blog, so please tune in!
_______________________
washingtonpost.com: Foreign Policy: Evgeny Morozov's Blog
Monday, January 18, 2010
Interview with James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch, the directors of Food Matters
(Re-printed from an article in Common Ground Magazine)
Food Mattersdocumentary inspired by love of family
interview by Joseph Roberts
October 2008
Joseph Roberts: What inspired you to produce Food Matters?
James Colquhoun: The biggest single motivator for us was personal experience. My father was quite unwell at the time. He was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, anxiety and depression and not responding well to a raft of medications. He was suffering quite severely from the side effects. That spurred our personal interest in sourcing alternatives for healing and looking at the source of the problem, as opposed to masking symptoms which medications often do.
That led us to study at the Global College of Natural Medicine. We were quite surprised that many others are familiar with the concept that you can eat well to prevent illness. We also discovered that nutritional therapy and detoxification processes can reverse illness – heart disease, diabetes, depression, cancer and mental illness. That was a really big turning point for us and we were quite motivated to inform as wide a population as possible.
JR: Which basic principles did you discover?
JC: Metabolic illnesses play a part in just about every illness that exists – you have an over-toxicity and a lack of nutrients. These can be caused by any number of things, but in order to reverse these illnesses, we need to look at detoxifying the body and replenishing nutrients. Those concepts basically facilitate our bodies to create balance and self-heal. Everyone is familiar with how your body heals itself when you cut yourself or if you have some sort of scar. It’s not such a different concept whether you have a cut on your arm or heart disease or diabetes and so forth. Once you restore balance to the body and give it the environment that creates optimum health and balance, it will regenerate and self-heal.
 |
| James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch |
Laurentine ten Bosch: Our society has become so used to instant gratification as a way of life that we always look at the symptoms first – how we can tackle them and the quickest way to overcome them. The pharmaceutical industry knows how to approach the instant gratification society very well. Many of the teachers in our film, however, are looking at how we can resolve the underlying cause, rather than just fixing the symptoms.
JR: How did you get interested in these issues?
LB: A lot of our family was overcome by illness and we’d both been working in fields where we regularly dealt with a lot of people. I was working in the food service industry and we realized that we weren’t really looking at what we were putting into people’s mouths.
JR: In 2000, Studio D of the National Film Board produced the documentary The Genetic Takeover. Common Ground rented a theatre and showed the film to hundreds of people. Following the film, we had a Q & A with a panel of spokespeople from Greenpeace, the Society Preventing Environmental Conservation, Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Sierra Club and others.
LB: People are hosting screenings of our film all over the world through the Brave New Theatre platform. We’ve teamed up with this company and people everywhere can register to host a screening, anywhere – in their living rooms or a community centre or a cinema or a church. [See www.foodmatters.tv/]
JR: That helps build community too.
LB: We’ve got a lot of screenings in America – all over the East and West coasts –in Canada, even Australia and New Zealand are really coming along. Even places we haven’t marketed to like Norway and Tel Aviv and Israel.
JR: What do you feel passionate about nowadays?
JC: We’re as passionate as ever about having this message heard by as many people as possible. We believe that if one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population watch this film, we can create a shift in conscious awareness surrounding nutrition and natural healing. We would really love our message to be so widely heard that it can create that shift. We’d love to see our film used in conjunction with other media and information sources as a means to shift regulatory bodies and governments. If individuals demand nutritional therapy and ask for these approaches to healing, we can essentially shift the industry away from a sickness-based model to a wellness-based model. It’s extremely fulfilling for us to be a part of that process and that message.
JR: Why did you call the film Food Matters?
JC: We had a number of other titles for the film, but it actually originated with a comment from David Wolfe, the raw food commentator in the film. During our interview with him, he said that we now realize that food does matter; food matters.
JR: What is your position on Frankenfoods?
JC: Our stance on genetically modified foods is similar to that of Arnaud Apoteker, the head of the anti-genetically modified foods campaign for Greenpeace. He says that this manipulation of the environment and of food is a huge biological experiment on a global scale that cannot be controlled and is extremely dangerous. It’s a risk we should not be taking. The single most important thing that each country should adhere to is the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. If people had the choice of organic, all-natural foods versus genetically engineered, heavily processed foods and the labels delineated the two, I’m certain they would veer away from Frankenfoods.
LB: We have the same issue in Australia. We’ve just been notified that our country is now more open to genetically modified foods, which is a big shame for the farmers who are growing organic food and trying to promote it. Although we would have loved to, we weren’t able to focus on it in our film; it would have made for a very long film.
JR: Is the government in Australia similar to Canada, in that it is run by very large corporations with a lot of clout?
JC: Every governmental body globally is lobbied by interest groups and the more effective they are, the more they can change legislation in their favour. The most effective ones are those with the biggest pockets, and the companies with the biggest pockets seem to be the agro-chemical companies and pharmaceutical companies. That’s why the decisions that are made predominantly support the multi-nationals, whose interests are not necessarily for the health of the general public.
As individuals, we have an opportunity to shift consumer choices. Laurentine and I like to talk about “flirting with your shopping trolley.” If people support sustainability, organics, biodynamics, sustainable farming and foods that support health, corporations will quickly shift to make sure there’s enough supply. Hopefully, we can create change from the bottom up instead of from the governmental level down. Our focus is on intellectual distribution. We’re concerned with distributing good, solid information to as wide an audience as possible. People contact us every day saying this has changed their lives or they’ve used the information in conjunction with a holistic practitioner to be able to correct their depression or their other illnesses. These sorts of responses are very gratifying.
JR: You provide a forum for many different groups in the film with various approaches to diet – vegetarians and non-vegetarians, vegans, people into raw food. The common thread is that people can improve their health and recover from diseases caused by poor food and lifestyle choices or toxic, environmental poisoning.
JC: Our message is to spread the good news that there are other opportunities for healing outside of the conventional realm for people who are suffering from illness or pain. The more this knowledge spreads, the more people will have access to life-saving information, which is the most fulfilling role we can play.
We’re really excited about people taking our message to the world through the platforms we’ve set up on our website; people can purchase a copy of the film and hold screenings in their local communities. They can also purchase wholesale copies for families or friends. We’ve had so many wonderful people step up and help with this. We really hope this will continue to create a shift in consciousness about how we interact with nutrition and wellness.
LB: I’d like to add that we started from a grave concern for people who are ill and who don’t know where to turn. In America, you get bombarded by advertising. It’s a capitalist society and marketing goes on everywhere. We were quite concerned for people who are ill. Doctors don’t have time to talk about nutrition and opportunities. They don’t have enough time to teach and hold hands.
We looked at the opportunities for people from a truth-seeking perspective – what really works and which modalities are getting results. That’s why we’re very lucky to have studied at the Global College of Natural Medicine, an independent organization with no government funding so you don’t see the influences of the meat and dairy boards and pharmaceutical companies. We were lucky to have these teachers speak to us through the college.
JR: How do people find out about the college?
LB: It’s online at www.gcnm.com, based out of Santa Cruz, California. You can study their programs from all over the world. We were fortunate to be able to learn from them. It was these teachers who inspired us.
________________________________________________________________________
Also check out the official Food Matters film blog at:
http://www.foodmattersblog.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
