It’s worth mentioning that AMC is soon to be the second-largest U.S. theatre chain after its merger with Loews Cineplex. So, while the documentary will open at Loews theatres next month, AMC’s acquisition of Loews can only foreshadow the kind of censorship endemic to media consolidation, a symptom of the same disease that now plagues the airwaves. ThinkFilm President and Chief Executive Jeff Sackman said:

“You’re going to have two theater circuits dominant in the country, and they’re going to say, ‘We don’t think you should see this movie.’”

But what’s most interesting to this moviegoer (or “consumer,” as they refer to us) is that, while a documentary without violence or nudity has been deemed too rich for AMC’s blood, the company remains more than happy to peddle a staggering amount of commercial tripe in the form of music and video “advertainment.” Your typical AMC experience includes pop contemporary hits blaring from every speaker, provided by AMC partner Movie Tunes (“Advertiser Benefit: Low clutter, no tune-out – captive audience”). And then, the crown jewel of AMC’s monetization blitz, the “Pre-Show Countdown,” brought to you by AMC’s commercial subsidiary National Cinema Network.

AMC and Regal announced, in March 2005, that they were combining their cinema advertising divisions into one company, which will produce a shared pre-show. At least we know who to boycott.

» Share on Facebook

When New London, Connecticut (pop. 25,000) officials decreed they would destroy residents’ homes in order to make room for an office complex on its so-called “revitalized waterfront,” working-class citizens filed suit. The city’s official site states, “New London, Connecticut is not just willing, it is eager to assist with the development of new businesses, help to grow and retain our existing businesses and create jobs!” No kidding. New London’s city government stated that private development plans outweighed the property rights of mere homeowners, and quick to agree were Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Apparently, wealthy developers with plans to build another shopping mall now need only convince local governments that such projects will generate delicious tax revenue. Minority Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed however. Wrote O’Connor, “Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.”

Country resident William Von Winkle was optimistic in spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling. “I won’t be going anywhere,” he said. “Not my house. This is definitely not the last word.”

» Share on Facebook

Historians, philosophers, political scientists and sociologists cite many reasons for the decline of an ethic of responsibility in America over recent decades, including:

• A culture of narcissism or self-absorption;
• The rise of celebrity worship and entitlement;
• The distractions of the war on terrorism.

Examples are appallingly abundant, from the fundamentalist’s sense of divine righteousness (e.g., nature is a resource to be exploited (see resourcism)), to the happy consumer’s oblivious ignorance of the hidden cost of cumulative indulgence.

In the article, Rev. John Staudenmaier, a historian at the University of Detroit Mercy, says, “You take your eye off the ball and you get bad behavior.” Sounds more like the consequences of rule by the lowest common denominator.

» Share on Facebook

Information gathered from the biological, seismic and geological studies was used to complete a Legislative Environmental Impact Statement (LEIS) that described the potential impacts of oil and gas development. … The report concluded that oil development and production in the 1002 Area would have major effects on the Porcupine Caribou herd and muskoxen. Major effects were defined as “widespread, long-term change in habitat availability or quality which would likely modify natural abundance or distribution of species.” Moderate effects were expected for wolves, wolverine, polar bears, snow geese, seabirds and shorebirds, arctic grayling and coastal fish. Major restrictions on subsistence activities by Kaktovik residents would also be expected.

But we don’t have to rely on mere studies and theory, since there’s already a precedent. The Prudhoe Bay oil field (near the arctic preserve) has been in production since the 70s, and has been an incredible success, if, by success, you mean making an absolute a mess of things.

Drilling proponents say that “only” 2000 acres would actually be used for a new facility, but other studies have argued this to be fallacious. In the New York Times Paul Krugman wrote:

…that picture is a fraud. Development won’t be limited to a small enclave: according to the U.S. Geological Survey, oil in ANWR is scattered in many separate pools, so drilling rigs would be spread all across the coastal plain. The roads linking those rigs aren’t part of the 2,000 acres: they’re not “production and support facilities.” And “surface acreage covered” is very narrowly defined: if a pipeline snakes across the terrain on a series of posts, only the ground on which those posts rest counts; bare ground under the pipeline isn’t considered “covered.”

Finally, let’s look at the proponents’ other projections: The time it would take to set up a production facility–around 10 years–as well as the minimal yield–around 2% of demand–all point to this being more of a short-sighted political move than an effort to mitigate our need for foreign oil.

» Share on Facebook