An Inconvenient Truth

Directed by David Guggenheim, the film deals with former United States President Al Gore's campaign to educate American about global warming. With two Academy Awards won for Best Documentary Feature and Best Original Song and by premiering at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival and opening in New York City and Los Angeles on May 24, 2006, the film was a critical and box-office success.

But was it efficient enough to convince the American and to make them understand the stakes of global warming? What we know is that the film was well-received politically. Beside a survey conducted in July 2007 showed that the film made 89% of the viewers more aware of global warming issues. But you could think this is only theory then. Nonetheless 75% of the viewers said they changed some of their habits after watching the film.


So can a film be efficient enough to change mind and lifestyle?
Even if it would never convince everybody, it does exist. It does show something. It does give a message. It does deliver pieces of advices. It does highlight threats and stakes we don't ordinarily see. As soon as you try something to open people's eyes on how big the danger for our planet is,  you've already achieved something.

Global warming : an increasing awakeness

"Disappearance of some species, melting of the polar ice cap, epidemics and economic recession, global warming could have serious consequences." Planete-energies says. But this is not only about polar bears dying alone on a slowly drifting detached ice block. This is also about deep changes in lifestyle for directly concerned populations. People such as the Inuits in Northern Canada see temperatures reaching up to 31°C. As soon as a community depends on the nature to be fed, the slightest change affect them way more we can imagine.

Bees are disappearing in the world's silence. "Why should I care about bees' disappearance? They're only on earth to bother us". GreenLife website explains : "It is estimated that if the bee population was somehow reduced by at least 30 percent, more than half of the world’s food supply will be adversely affected.  With droughts, earthquakes and other natural and manmade disasters befalling us nowadays, losing the bees is yet another challenge to our survival as the dominant species on Earth."
So now you feel concerned, uh?


If you do, be sure you're not the only one. Nestlé started selling ice cream in cardboard packaging, instead of plastic ones. Is it because of their environmental footprint? Or because of the money they spare doing it? Both solutions have to be considered. But anyway, the most important are the results, whatever the reasons.

Global Warming does not exist

"Global warming is the pussy's way of whining." brainless Paul Frank says on 'Points in case' website. Global Warming doesn't exist. It's been created by the liberals. As an example to make his point stronger, Paul Frank approximately says "Look what happened with the Titanic in 1914! This is the irrefutable evidence that the melting of the polar ice caps was already started!". According to him, our way of living nowadays, our factories, our cars, our televisions, our buildings enlighted all night long, our washing machine, deforestation, drying the rivers, are not as many reasons to explain climate change as we think it is. 


Paul Frank and even one of his 'writingmate' on website 'Points in case', James White don't take it seriously at all. They joke, they laugh, they talk from their empty minds. According to James White, the reason why Al Gore's brillant documentary 'An Inconveniant Truth' is a "mistake" is because of its lack of action and explicit sex. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Even if this kind of graphics is not to be considered on its own as temperatures follow an up and down curve since billon of years (which means we could only be in the up now, so no panic?), this is one of piece of the undoubted global warming puzzle.

Internet privacy, Little Red Riding Hood added me on Facebook!

When it comes to the Internet and our very close and personal information we find ourselves quite worried. How can I protect my personal datas in such an open world as the Internet?
Dominique Wolton remind us that the history of Democracy is the construction of a public space ("espace public"). That is to say the possibility to freely talk about all the problems related to our society. In opposition to this public space is a private space where we'd historically find sexuality, moral or family relations.

But in the last decade gaps appeared on the border between public and private spaces. We wondered more recently how far the exhibition of our private life on social networks, which are public websites composed of personal profiles, could go. What's worth be said and shown, what's not? What should be hidden from who? And most importantly where do all my 'Summer 2011 in Marseille' pictures go as I published them on my Facebook profile? And what about my name, surname, home address, telephone number and hobbies I entered on that website the other day? Where do they all go? Because questions are asked risks might be taken. We now know that some organisations buy our personal information from Google, Facebook and the others. So far to show us targeted ads. So far...

Little Red Riding Hood, Gustave Doré

But the danger doesn't always come from one side. On an lighter side are The Spying Parents! A lot of parents spy their kids. Because they don't know the risks that are taken. Because they actually do know these risks. Or because they want to have an overview of the online activities of their cherub. But then is it spying or parenting? Why should a kid not be allowed to have and develop his own private garden on the Internet?
Because at a young age, they are nothing but Little Red Riding Hood. Naive and curious. Brave but fragile.

Sexual predator Lindsell sentenced to jail

"Whatever unlocked that hitherto hidden side of your character was not the Internet."
The words Judge Richard McGregor-Johnson said to Internet pervert Douglas Lindsell don't show any ambiguity. The human being carries the evil fought by the law. The Internet didn't create pedophilia or rape but has somehow made it easier for perverts to meet their targets. The 64 years-old man from Twickenham, south west London, "was found with a hand-written sexual profile of 54 youngsters from the UK and 19 from abroad." DailyMail says in its Tuesday 27th September edition.

Lindsell was sentenced to "three years for attempted abduction of a girl aged under 14, two years for two counts of stalking under the Harassment Act, and three months for possession of indecent photos of children, all sentences to run concurrently." The Harassment Act, published in 1997 first of all says : "A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other". 

Eventhough Lindsell was not accused of rape, all sentences added go up to 7 years and 3 months.

Which makes me think that sexual predators might be a threat in danger!

The Internet offers a huge experimental field for sexual predators who enjoy the inherent anonimity. How can children detect they are talking to a pervert? How can they even think about it? Never before pedophiles have had the opportunity to directly and freely communicate with the children. That is why this is the Government and Association of Kids Protection duty to educate both parents and children to the Internet threats.

"One step forward and two steps back"

Welcome to you, new blog!

Well, this is it. I created my blog. Not because I desperatly needed to but because I had to! In the next few months I will post articles, videos and audio contents. According to my english teacher this is a perfect way to network and to be connected with all the students of our english class. In addition to that as we will talk about new technologies we obviously have to use it.

Let's take one step back to have a better view on what we do everyday in our communications, thoughts, worries, hopes...

To be continued...