Lunacy

Well, the Republicans (or Conservatives, depending on whether they want to distance themselves from the Right by redefining terms to their advantage) have finally gone over to the dark side--the dark side of the moon. Our word lunatic comes from the French word for moon because it was once believed that crazies were under the moon's influence (as in police blotters go nuts during a full moon). It would seem there has been a lot of full moons lately, the largest of them presiding over the apology to BP for making them set up a fund to compensate people who lives and livelihoods have been damaged by the oil spill.

Just in case someone has been lost in the woods somewhere, Representative Joe Barton of Texas apologized to BP before starting a Congressional hearing on the Gulf spill because the US Government forced the company to create an escrow account of $20 billion to compensate the damage they caused by cutting corners on safety in regard to deepwater drilling. The said Rep. Barton, a well-known stooge for the oil industry from which he has received lavish funding, is all the the more dangerous because he has been (there's a move afoot to remove him) the ranking Republican on the house energy committee. In other words, he's supposed to be protecting our national interests while being in the pockets of those he is supposed to be regulating. Apparently he sees no conflict.

The uproar over his lunacy has been ferocious, particularly from those living along the Gulf coast, and the Republican party has forced into damage control by making him aplogize for apologizing, something he did grdugingly, sort-of, and half-heartedly. He's a good little paid-for politician who knows where his bread is buttered.

I once blogged on how corporations are not governments. Corporations are for profit; governments (theoretically) are for people. This is a huge difference and one that the Republican party has long forgotten. Corporations have no memory, are incapable of gratitude or regret, and when faced with accountability are prepared to declare bankruptcy, dissolve themselves, and reform with another name. Look at what happened when the head of BP came to testify to Congress: he said he had no knowledge of anything and once the hearing was over left his job. I am left wondering why--if he knew nothing--he didn't bring someone with him who did. Answer: he was sent to stonewall before the company moved him out of harm's way. New leadership can't be held responsible, don't you know--when appointed, the new CEO can claim the same ignorance. Another definition of inanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome: did anyone really expect to get satisfaction from a corporate CEO who rakes in millions in salary for cutting corners?

As someone born outside the US I have always been fascinated by a certain group within the US (see, George, I didn't say America to mean the US) who loudly proclaim their prejudice against education (except as a route to a good job). Perhaps it's the egalitarian part of democracy that trips them up--I suspect they confuse equal rights with equal talents. These folk deny what they can't understand, and, judging from the ignorant letters to the newspapers, I'm inclined to say there is plenty they don't get or even want to. It's much easier to mouth slogans than think, and if there is a group of likeminded around, well, then prejudices and ignorance become truth.

Recently, Professor Frank Fenner, emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University, and no slouch at science (he worked on eradicating smallpox) predicted that the human race will be extinct within the next 100 years, the result of overpopulation and overconsumption. Outside of adding self-centered stupidity to his causes, I would say we have brought it on ourselves. Unfortunately, when we go, we'll probably take all forms of other life with us. But then, I suppose, the planet can shake of our dust and start again.

Helen Thomas and the Big Hypocrisy

When I was younger, the two looming female forces were Bella Abzug and Helen Thomas (Betty Freidan--whom I once met--was much too ladylike to be one of the abrasive forces although she was indisputably influential). Bella and Helen were out "there" in any number of ways--speaking out, confronting, visible. At that time, they were challenging what a paternal society "knew" about women. Not so fast, they were saying, don't underestimate us or we will use it against you. Way to go, ladies.

Bella, of course, was Jewish, while Helen is of Lebanese descent, an interestsing contrapoint that nevertheless shows how much they had in common rather than what separated them. They worked together to form a national association for women.

Bella died in 1998, her dream of a zionist state long realized. Helen kept going, a rambling dinosaur of a woman who could still make a difference at going on 90. Along the way she made numerous enemies, as anyone would with the capacity and opportunity to challenge and embarass presidents--ten of them no less. She asked the same impolite questions of them all and never hid her own preferences or as many would say--prejudices. As she grew more elderly, she let her feelings be more open, as in the way of people who have reached an age where pretense seems a waste of precious time. So in a moment of complete exasperation she said what many felt but were too circumspect to say.

I will admit it. I have felt completely fed up with Israel's hogging the role of victim. While I would never say (or think) anything quite as awful and over the top as wishing anyone back to the holocaust, I have frequently said I would like to bang
Israeli and Arab heads together--a point I have made more delicately in this blog by saying a plague on both their houses because both of them are playing the game of "I'm a bigger victim than you are."

Helen Thomas committed the apparently unforgivable sin of bringing her frustration out into the open--in probably one of the stupidest ways I can imagine. As a result, Hearst newspapers, in a move worthy only of the glorious hypocrisy of William R in his heyday (find me a war or we'll start one of our own), dumped her. Had Hearst been in a better mood, they would have scolded her--which leads me to think there were other reasons (probably a lot) why this was a good time to move her on out.

What sticks particularly in my craw, though, is the subtext to her retirement--the hypocrisy of the journalistic profession in maintaining that they can be absolutely neutral in news reporting. There's no such thing. Just by choosing what to report and including or leaving out particular details, the news is slanted one way or the other. Look at the coverage of the Israeli detention of the Turkish ship. Leaving out or not stressing the fact it was in international waters is an editorial decision, as is reporting on the weapons wielded by those on board: it ranges from armed thugs with weapons to relief workers with slingshots and knives. Details are everything. I used to teach this to my freshman students; I can't believe that journalism profs teach anything different unless they are totally incapable of introspection. All I can say is God help us all if that's the case.

I shall miss Helen Thomas. I shall not miss the sinking feeling I get when I read our newspapers and wonder how reliable they are. In the meantime, I will try to find balance by reading (eat your heart out Sarah Palin) the UK newspapers on line, the Economist, and the Wall Street Journal, and by listening to the BBC as well as keeping an eye on the news headlines from papers around the world. By doing that, the only thing I will miss is who is divorcing whom in Hollywood.