War Crimes in Darfur (at the very least)
All over the news, word is spreading about the atrocities occurring in the Darfur region of the Sudan. Below I have posted a link to the BBC that is a good summary of what’s going on there.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm
And if you want to help, here are some sites to look into:
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
http://savedarfur.org/home
On Global news last night, they mentioned the conflict, but I was kind of annoyed by the newstory itself. The reporter said, (paraphrasing) "Thanks to George Clooney’s efforts, the world is learning about the genocide being conducted in Darfur." Clooney has gone out there and documented what’s going on, been on Oprah, etc, to spread the word. Kudos for Clooney, I respect what he’s doing. The news programs are missing the boat, though. Instead of "Genocide in Darfur", the stories seem to be "Clooney documents genocide in Darfur." The reporters credit Clooney with bringing the story out into the open; where the hell have the reporters been for the last few years? This didn’t start happening today. Why did it take Clooney to muck around Sudan before news programs started seriously reporting the issue? I’m sure Clooney’s glad the story is out, but he’s gotta annoyed with the spin.
(and how ironic is this? In my post about Darfur, I end up talking about Clooney. Frickin’ hell)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3496731.stm
And if you want to help, here are some sites to look into:
http://www.darfurgenocide.org/
http://savedarfur.org/home
On Global news last night, they mentioned the conflict, but I was kind of annoyed by the newstory itself. The reporter said, (paraphrasing) "Thanks to George Clooney’s efforts, the world is learning about the genocide being conducted in Darfur." Clooney has gone out there and documented what’s going on, been on Oprah, etc, to spread the word. Kudos for Clooney, I respect what he’s doing. The news programs are missing the boat, though. Instead of "Genocide in Darfur", the stories seem to be "Clooney documents genocide in Darfur." The reporters credit Clooney with bringing the story out into the open; where the hell have the reporters been for the last few years? This didn’t start happening today. Why did it take Clooney to muck around Sudan before news programs started seriously reporting the issue? I’m sure Clooney’s glad the story is out, but he’s gotta annoyed with the spin.
(and how ironic is this? In my post about Darfur, I end up talking about Clooney. Frickin’ hell)
posted by Kris at 9:57 AM
2 Comments:
Don't worry, Clooney is going to be the next American President, with a faithful Brad Pitt as his Secretary of Defense, but really it will be Angelina running the show with her children in tow, as she single-handedly saves the world, one third world country at a time. Now wouldn't that be something. I think she could actually pull it off too. Hell, if Regan did, any movie star can (actually I think Angelina would leave Regan in her African dust...). If Americans are only paying attention to newstories championed by moviestars, well, well I just don't know. But it doesn't bode well for Bush. Doesn't hurt that George (Clooney, not Bush) is one of the best looking men in Hollywood right now, just imagine him standing on the the lawn of the White House giving a presedential address. I can't think of anything more picturesque. Or more American. Just remember that's Angelina hiding in the bushes feeding him his lines. Perhaps we should appoint Matt Damon as Vice President, y'know, Hollywood Rat Pack Washington style.
Damn, you're right! Here I should be focused on the senseless killings in Darfur that the Rest Of The World is just letting happen, and I end up talking about George Clooney. Damn charistmatic, enigmatic moviestars.
Post a Comment
<< Home