In case you’ve stumbled on to this post from an outside source, Here’s the context: a blogger at 66witches says why she thinks George Clooney’s humanitarian efforts are moot because he associates himself with Nestle–a crap corrupt corporation to the core (responsible for 1.5 mil infant deaths in Africa) while endorsing Nespresso–an environmentally degrading machine nobody in their right minds ever freaking wanted. I explained the whole thing about what the fuck is wrong with George Clooney endorsing Nespresso in the previous article.
Though an year too late, here’s my response for the article in 66witches:
Well, you can see me as clooneyfan here and I am not ashamed of being one even after reading your articles, many points of which I agree with.
In his defense George Clooney never claimed he was an environmentalist because he flies in private jets. He ‘publicly’ prefers convenience over all else.
But that is no excuse to prefer/endorse Nespresso’s machines. Surely anybody who had more than one cup of real coffee wouldn’t want such vacuum cleaned automated crap called coffee. I don’t. But since when have consumers world-wide started demanding products which they only absolutely need? Surely you’ve lived long enough to have heard people say they did not need computers!! And had the activism prevailed we would’ve been in a different world, wouldn’t you say? Definitely the Information Age, we so love right now would never have surfaced.
So if the generations to follow decide to prefer shiny aluminium (or hopefully some other Environmentally friendly packaging material) pods to coffee beans, could you hold it against them when you have given up on the sensibility of handwritten mails to the automated signatures of e-mails?
Pardon me, but this is how I would like to justify the existence of those wretched pods to myself, because at the end of the day, rant as much as I want, I would have control over my preferences alone and no one else’s.
(I would ask you here to think as a normal person who’s choices are based on ‘likes’ and ‘conveniences’ rather than an activist who’s choices are based on ‘what is right’)
So whether it is ‘necessary’ or not, George Clooney’s endorsement of the Nespresso machine is justified as far as the functionality of it is concerned.
So, those are my thoughts on 2 of your points:
1. The Environmental issue which I don’t have a stand on as long as George doesn’t proclaim himself to be an out and out Environmentalist.
2. The issue of whether we need the machine or not which I cannot summarize but you get the point.
Coming to Nestle’s widespread corruption, you are bang on. It’s nothing new, all these allegations on Nestle and I heartfully wish for the damn corporation to go down the drain. I have been an activist for Greenpeace’s campaign against Nestle “Ask Nestle to give rainforests a break” myself and have done a whole lot of reading regarding the same.
I also agree with you on the assumption that George Clooney knew all about Nestle’s wrongdoings having read Baby Milk Action’s press releases among other justifying reports. He was definitely in the wrong in associating himself with a company like Nestle and I really hope George Clooney would stop endorsing the company’s products soon.
<Interruption from my original response at 66 witches>
As great (Oscar Winning) an actor George is, I can tell when he’s acting and when he’s not. In this video, for example, he is so not. You can see in every utterance, the earnestness to get the people in UN to hear. George is a smooth actor. When he’s acting he doesn’t stutter. SO PLEASE, HE IS NOT PRETENDING TO CARE
<Done fuming. Let’s go back to where we were.>
On the other hand, advocacy is the right of every concerned individual. And by individual I mean the simplest definitions of it which does not include multi-million-dollar-corporate-representations or a thirty-million-fanbase. I’ll come back here, but first consider this.
You might just be wrong that George Clooney ‘does not need the money’. It is estimated that 90% of his income originates from his endorsements. So, it would be a considerable dent in his earnings if he lost his biggest endorsement, wouldn’t it? You might not agree with me, but I’m sure his personal finance manager does and so would his investment partners and advisors.
Which is why I ask you to consider him as an individual alone and not what he represents or the finer (minuter) points of his income generation and its usage. It is a completely personal choice and it is utterly ridiculous and communist to discuss ‘how much he should earn’.
In a gist, about Nestle all I’m saying is, in addition to mouthing ‘Hollywood Whore’ I might also want to add ‘Business is Business’. Just to be fair.
So if such an individual who is moved by a cause dons the role of an advocate and dares to go against a lot of forces in voicing the troubles of an obscure nation of sufferers, I would totally support him despite what his lackings are.
At the end of the day, people in Darfur have been benefited, the situation in Chad had been enlightened and victims in Haiti have received relief! And what did George Clooney get from that except a felicitation here and there and a lot of flak because the way he earns his money is not 150% pure?
Someone who only ‘claims to care’ would not take off unassisted and unprotected to Chad with Pulitzer winner Nick Kristof. Someone who could be defined by the word ‘whore’ would not sacrifice the so-called personal gain for more than five years working for a losing cause, even while accepting he is losing it. Someone who ‘does not need the popularity’ and ‘is not running for president’ would not do what all George Clooney is doing unless he/she genuinely cares about a cause.
So please do not undermine his efforts where they directly matter just because he erred elsewhere along with some thirty-thousand-odd people also earning from the same place.
PS: No, I am not doing this to profess my undying love for George Clooney
and I might or might not have done this for some other personality. But, I just wanted to throw some light on the positive aspects of his humanitarian efforts because a.I knew all about it and b. I am a bigger fan of reason than of George Clooney.
So I’d like to see if you can reason me out of this one 😛
<back to fuming, my fav pastime :D>
Just because he looks nice and suave doesn’t mean he’s slick or insincere.
Maybe you’d like him more if he’s not his usual absolutely-terrific self. Throwing a beard on and some sad eyes good enough?
Ok, fine, here’s One Hundred percent grungy! Let me know your thoughts.