Stop offending us.

We’re all different, right? Right! So it’s no surprise that there are lots of different reactions to climate change. But here’s a new one: offense. Imagine saying it. “I’m offended by climate change.” What does that even mean? Imagine being offended by science. That’s like being offended by chairs, or zippers or sticking plasters. Oh well, there’s no legislating for idiots. The only thing you can really do is laugh. So have a giggle: here are four people who are so offended by the facts of science, and a little helping hand from two people who are not.

Senator Jeff Sessions is offended by climate change.

Senator Barbara Boxer: “…97 to 98 percent of the scientists do not agree with the one to two percent that you’re citing. You know, it’s fine, there’s still probably one to two percent of scientists who don’t believe that lung cancer is associated with smoking.”

Senator Jeff Sessions: “Madam Chairman, I am offended by that.”

John Coleman, founder of The Weather Channel, is offended by climate change.

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM.
Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data back in the late 1990’s to create an allusion of rapid global warming.”

Rush Limbaugh is offended by everything, including climate change.

“The militant environmental movement since the early nineties is simply the new repository for displaced communists after the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union went bye-bye. Anti-capitalist, it’s all they are, just like the feminists, just another anti-capitalist movement, pro-socialist, pro-Marxist, pro-big government, that’s all they are.”

Senator James Inhofe is offended by climate change.

“God’s still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous.”

Stephen Fry is not offended by climate change.

“It’s now very common to hear people say, “I’m rather offended by that,” as if that gives them certain rights. It’s no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. ‘I’m offended by that.’ Well, so fucking what?”

Charlie Brooker is not offended by climate change.

“I hate offended people. They come in two flavours – huffy and whiny – and it’s hard to know which is worst. The huffy ones are self-important, narcissistic authoritarians in love with the sound of their own booming disapproval, while the whiny, sparrowlike ones are so annoying and sickly and ill-equipped for life on Earth you just want to smack them round the head until they stop crying and grow up. Combined, they’re the very worst people on the planet – 20 times worse than child molesters, and I say that not because it’s true (it isn’t), but because it’ll upset them unnecessarily, and these readers deserve to be upset unnecessarily, morning, noon and night, every sodding day, for the rest of their wheedling lives.”

Image: NASA

The post 6 Quotes On Climate Change And The Nature of Being Offended
 appeared first on EcoSalon.

We are embracing social media as a medium to voice our opinions. But are we protesting injustice or promoting hate speech?

A few weeks ago, a small internal announcement by a nonprofit turned into a firestorm, when Susan G. Komen decided to sever ties to Planned Parenthood. When the news broke, the social media response was stunning. The cacophony of online voices overwhelmed the Komen foundation and we all know what happened next – they reversed themselves (to a point), to stem the criticism to popular opinion.

The strength of our voices on social media continues to grow, as we see the effect of ordinary people coming together online from different locations, different situations and different walks of life to protest or champion an issue that speaks to them. Brands have been burned by disapproval and Change.org launches new causes people can rally behind every day. This trend, more than any other, gives amazing insight into how (social media-savvy) members of society think and feel about products, policies, politicians and pundits.

For Good

In many ways, it’s heartening to see people protest fees by Bank of America and support women’s access to affordable health care, go against big corporations and the current political tide. However, it was surprising to see people react so strongly to Komen’s decision, given the landslide of measures limiting women’s reproductive rights passed in 2011. If you went strictly by the political climate, you would think an announcement like that would be greeted with cheers.

GOOD’s Nona Willis Aronowitz commented that in many cases high-profile politicians’ beliefs and agendas were not at all an accurate portrayal of how the majority of America feels. She laments that “When politicians do something that ticks us off, we have a hard time harnessing the kind of public protest we’ve seen this week. Usually, we don’t even try. Politicians, in turn, have noticed. Whereas Komen’s image is everything, politicians assume that, unless you’re giving millions, they can get away with almost anything.”

The latest backlash was against Rush Limbaugh after he called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute” for testifying in favor of employer-supplied health insurance covering birth control. He followed up by saying that if she and other women wanted affordable birth control, they should have to post videos of themselves having sex on YouTube to justify the expense and “pay back” those who are (ostensibly) footing the bill for their raging sex life.

This exchange is double-edged. At a time when words like “slut” and “bitch” are so common and overused and women like the Kardashians and female members of the Jersey Shore cast are more recognizable, and more powerful role models than Sheryl Sandberg or Tina Brown, it seems like just one more assault on women’s health, image, and character.

It was more of what Rush gets paid millions to do – be insulting, ignorant, and incite misogynist or (insert offensive –ist word here – racist, sexist. etc.) crowd mentality and fan the flames of listeners’ fears, hatreds and insecurities. The Daily Beast’s Kirsten Powers points out that plenty of pundits on the other side of the aisle are just as guilty of taking tacky personal potshots at high-profile women in the past. And nothing happened then.

So when people actually rose up and protested, it was gratifying. On the other hand, it means that as a society, we’ve become so accustomed to this attitude and language, that Limbaugh probably thought nothing of spouting these sentiments on air. Fortunately, the power the everyday person has (women and men) is still financial. Brands and corporations have learned to take social media opinion seriously, and now there are consequences. Translated, Limbaugh has lost a landslide of advertisers.

For Evil

About a year ago we noted that people, cloaked in internet anonymity, felt free to express vicious and callous sentiments even in the wake of natural disasters, and so goes it today. After these two surprising uprisings, the pendulum swung back. A small, spoiled but vocal subset of our next generation of leaders threw a tantrum, stomping their feet and spewing more hatred online because President Obama declined to speak at Columbia for commencement.

When President Obama chose to speak at Barnard instead, several Columbia students (a university affiliated with Barnard) went online to attack their sister school for being chosen. And this time, the attacks were just as vicious, if not more, from female Columbia students toward the all-women Barnard, and went far beyond “slut.”

“Try using your Daddy’s hard-earned cash in a respectable way if you want to be an ACTUAL role model for women,” wrote one female Columbia student. “Unlike Barnyard financial leeches, I have NO intention of pursuing a Mrs. Degree. I came here to make myself successful, not try to plead at the knees of a Columbia boy to marry her.”

The post Our (Social Media) Voices Have Power: But for Good or Evil? appeared first on EcoSalon.

I am woman. 

Throughout history, women have had plenty of reasons to be upset. From being denied the right to vote, to being robbed of basic civil liberties, to being told what they can and can’t do with their bodies, female oppression has long existed, and it was only relatively recently that women gained the courage to speak up. We’ve come a long way, but as Rush Limbaugh showed us just last week, we still have a ways to go. In honor of International Women’s Day, we take a look back in photos at the issues that have ignited outrage among women over the past century.

(above) 1909: Girls march against child labor at a labor parade in New York City.

1913: Suffrage parade.

1917: Throngs of women charge New York’s City Hall to protest the soaring cost of food.

1917: Woman’s suffrage protest in Washington, D.C.

1917: Suffragists picket the White House in Washington, D.C.

1938: Hosiery workers protest the Japanese Silk boycott in Washington, D.C.

1938: Spanish-born women protest the arms embargo on Spain in Washington, D.C.

1939: Jewish and-Palestine White Paper demonstrations in Washington D.C.

1956: Rosa Parks sits in the front of a bus in Montgomery, Alabama, after the U.S. Supreme Court outlawed segregation.

1962: Women strike for peace at the UN building during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

1963: Woman participating in the Civil Rights March on Washington D.C.

1968: Anti-war demonstrators in support of Eartha Kitt.

1976: Anti-abortion demonstration at the Democratic National Convention in New York City.

2008: Pro-choice Walk for Life in San Francisco.

2008: Save the Seals protest in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

2009: Proposition 8 same-sex marriage protest in Fresno, California.

2010: G-20 Toronto Summit protests.

2011: Slutwalk protest against excusing rape because of appearance.

2011: Occupy Wall Street riles up the 99 percent.

2011: Women across the country stand with Planned Parenthood as funding is cut.

SEE ALSO:

40 Gorgeous Photos of Europe

40 Gorgeous Photos of North America

40 Gorgeous Photos of Latin America

40 Gorgeous Photos of Asia

40 Gorgeous Photos of Africa

25 Photos of Islands Threatened by Climate Change

25 Images of Female Adrenaline Seekers

40 Photos from Flea Markets Around the World

30 Gorgeous Photos of Winter Snowscapes

30 Gorgeous Photos of Farming and Agriculture

15 Hilarious Photos of Interspecies Mingling

30 Photos of the World’s Most Uniquely Designed Buildings

The post 20 Photos of Female Activists Throughout History appeared first on EcoSalon.

Column“Do you know where you’re going to? Do you like the things that life is showing you?” – Diana Ross

After four luxuriously stupid days off – an epoch for an editor, really – wherein I spent much time, energy and money hurling myself down snowy mountainsides doing what other people call “Tahoe” and I call “please don’t look at me, no seriously, please go over to that other slope,” and less than zero time doing anything of intellectual merit, summoning the synapses has been something of a hurdle. Use it or lose, the saying goes, and is it ever true. When I found myself actually watching The Last of the Mohicans and meaning it this weekend, I decided to seek help.

I found solace in Rush Limbaugh. Rush, issuer of the hilarious little tirade meant to poke some good old fun, has been losing advertisers left and right. As usual, the liberal media, but now I’m being redundant, is having a field day with a couple silly words that Rush used merely to demonstrate absurdity by being absurd. Or is that illustrate? I can never keep it straight.

After initially refusing to say those two magic words (no, not those words), Rush caved and apologized for his use of the infamous two words (in case you’ve been living under a rock, or perhaps lying unconscious on a ski slope, they were “slut” and “prostitute”), presumably because he could no longer say it with flowers. He did not, however, apologize for the 53 associated insults or the tirade generally, which only made things worse, so then he really had to apologize, for real this time, for all of it, sweetheart, if you’ll just listen to me, I can change, I promise:

“This is the mistake I made – in fighting them on this issue last week I became like them, against my own instincts, against my own knowledge, against everything I know to be right or wrong,” Limbaugh said. “I descended to their level when I used those two words to attack Sandra Fluke. That was my error and I became like them. And I feel very badly about that. I always try to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program.”

“What has your cult done for you lately?” Tina admonished me from the pages of Bossypants, after describing how devoting her life to the cult of comedy has resulted in such things as a loving husband, fame, fortune, and creative fulfillment.

It’s a good question. What has your cult done for you, lately? For Limbaugh’s Dittoheads, the withered fruits are a conservative cornucopia: Stubborn irrelevance, delusional insecurity, and so much more! Nuclear marriage to a mean streak. The delightfully jarring pitter patter of screaming slurs. Fear in the garage, desperation in every pot.

Something tells me Tina’s no Dittohead, unless I missed that 30 Rock, but her question is the best one I’ve heard since before I didn’t have snow between my ears because it applies equally to everyone. “What has your cult done for you lately?”

We all have a cult (or two, or even three, if we’re extra slutty), be it politics, sex, sexual politics, food, health, religion, tech, work, fashion.

Green.

And while it’s always easy to point fingers at the colicky cult that is the Grand Old Party, we should also look at our own. Because what has the green cult done for us, lately?

This is the latest installment in your editor’s column, The Insider’s Guide to Life.

Image: Daveybot

The post The Insider’s Guide to Life: The Cult appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnA behind-the-screen look at the consistently ridiculous inbox of a writer.

At EcoSalon, we receive our fair share of email pitches, and we’ve decided to give you a weekly peek at this valuable information inside our inboxes. These products, people, and services are 100 percent real, although we’re not always sure that they should be.

Maxwell Billieon Will Help You Navigate for Yoko Onos!

Who knows why you got married. Mom told you to, your friends told you to, every one made it seem like it was so special and good and…right. Only you knew, deep down inside, that marriage would be the kiss of death for your relationship. The same relationship that was way more hot when you lived in separate apartments. And now? The man you married is cheating on you and courtesy of your competitive streak, you’ll need to call on “Lifestyle Guru” Maxwell Billieon to help. Billieon will do so many things for you, including outlining “key directives that make countless men stop cheating.”

Let’s say his last name again: Billieon.

Here’s the actual pitch:

“Ten years ago when renowned lifestyle guru, celebrity branding expert and business mogul Maxwell Billieon was bound by cheating in his relationships – because no mentors or role models had ever taught him how to function differently with women – he had an epiphany. Driven by an overwhelming desire to stop cheating, he set out on a life-changing journey to undo decades of destructive behaviors. With no experts or instructors to advise him, Billieon quickly realized he would have to draft his own operating manual for learning how not to cheat…”

That is fantastic, Maxwell. I’m glad you saw the light. In Death Of The Cheating Man: What Every Woman Must Know About Men Who Stray, Billieon outlines, step-by-step, what women need to know about how and why men manipulate their emotions.

First tip? Don’t date a man named Maxwell. Other helpful how to’s:

Create the “New Monogamy.”
Know when it’s time to “pull a Yoko Ono.”
The danger of choosing pockets over pedigree.

Maxwell Billieon has now generated over $100 million in global sales as the CEO of The Billieon Group (TBG), overseeing development of high-end luxury lifestyle goods apparently sold worldwide, making Billieon globally known at the “Lifestyle Guru.”

Still the player…

Hey, Psycho, Stalk Your Date Before the Date!

Dating Our Money: A Women’s Guide to Confidence with Money & Men by Leslie Greenman gives us real insight into how we can put money before things like love or common sense.

Greenman’s PR people tell us that we should remember that our man’s good looks and winning personality aren’t all that matter. “The blunt reality is that money is the #1 cause of divorce in the U.S. And when it comes to matters of not just the heart but money as well, there’s no better time than a first date to find out if your new guy cuts the proverbial mustard!”

That sounds like the makings of a winning first date.

“Hi, my name is Amy and I’m a Libra who loves to save money – say, how’s your credit score?”

(Cue sound of footsteps running for the door).

How does one find out whether a new beau is money conscious, and how does one do so gracefully so early in the relationship? So many questions. Greenman has all the answers:

Check out his wheels. Is your date driving a flashy sports car, but you know he’s in the first job of his career? Is he driving a more modest set of wheels but you know he’s in a leadership position at work? The type of car he drives when taken into consideration with his career can be an indicator of how he spends and budgets his money. It might also indicate that he turns to material objects for fulfillment.

(Writer’s note: What about a guy with a bike?)

Ask about his relationship with his family. Often, he’ll give you the information you want without you having to pry. For example, he might reveal that his divorce from his wife resulted because of money issues. Or he might reveal that he was raised in a middle class family with frugal parents.

(Writer’s note: I can envision it now. The romance. The thrills. The notepad and pages of questions about his financial history! “Excuse me, third date’s mother, are you a frugal family?”)

Check out his phone. On average, people spend $150 on phone apps per year, but some people have bills as high as $900 per year. Is that a luxury you feel comfortable with? If it appears he spends a lot of money each month on something as trivial as phone apps, consider how he might spend money in other areas. On the other hand, if he has an app that helps him manage his monthly budget, that’s probably a good sign.

(Writer’s note: Hey, at least it’s not video games.)

Go online. With all of the information available online, you can find out a lot about someone with a quick search. For example, you can check if a person has paid their property taxes by searching online public records.

(Writer’s note: Because before a first date, you already know if you’re interested enough in a man to need to know his financial profile ahead of time?)

After all this, if you’re sure that this man is 100% perfect – well groomed, has cash, pays his taxes, isn’t posting too many pictures on Facebook, isn’t buying flashy cars, doesn’t have too many apps and still lives with his mother – then get ready to settle down, honey, he’s a keeper!

Kathy Kolbe And Rush Limbaugh say “Stop nagging!”

Say hi to nag expert Kathy Kolbe.

Here’s a great way to start a pitch to a conscious women’s publication: “Last week, the Wall Street Journal sparked a nation-wide debate after reporting that nagging can be a bigger marriage killer than infidelity which was briefly mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh Show as well. The article has generated, not surprisingly, a swath of nagging woman vs. lazy man debates somewhat akin to the chicken vs. the egg variety.”

Hmmm. Rush Limbaugh. Nagging women. Lazy men. This sounds perfect for us. Keep talking PR person!

“Why is there so much nagging and how can you really avoid it beyond neat bullet-point suggestions that don’t really address the root cause?”

Let’s stop right here. We have many choices. We can avoid a relationship with these people. We can stay single. We can take an oath of silence. We can run fast and furious for the hills.

Thanks. Fin.

Image: zabaraorg

The post Better Living Through Publicists: No Wonder Couples Split Edition appeared first on EcoSalon.

Our tendency to post and tweet callous comments reflects a nation lacking in empathy.

As a global community, we have suffered some devastating catastrophes in the past decade: the 9/11 attacks, the 2005 South Asia tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, the Haiti earthquake, the BP oil spill, and the recent earthquake and tsunami in Japan. Along with these catastrophes, we have a steady flow of news stories depicting the cruelty people inflict upon each other every day around the world.

As these tragedies unfold in the media, there is an outpouring of sympathy from the vast majority of people, along with donations, offers to help, and sincere grief for the fallen. But there is also a disturbing number of people who seem to feel no compassion for others at all, and, thanks to the combination of traditional and ever-rising social media, these hateful voices become viral.

Heartless in the face of natural disaster
Even in the wake of a natural disaster, some people found a way to ridicule, dismiss or even blame the victims. Some high profile figures even seem to feel compelled to make shocking comments and jokes in the wake of tragedy using Twitter where they have thousands of followers. 50 Cent, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck, among others posted now-famous comments and jokes in extremely poor taste about the disaster and its victims.

50 Cent joked about having to evacuate his “hoes” from L.A., Japan and Hawaii, while Rush Limbaugh laughed with a caller about the irony that the tsunami hit a nation known for its leadership in recycling and hybrid cars. Glenn Beck not only laughed about the Japanese victims, saying it was a message from God, but in the past he has called Hurricane Katrina victims “scumbags” and mocked the residents who were unable or unwilling to leave before the storm.

These men are known for their “shock value,” but that does not excuse cruelty.

Whom does it hurt?
Clearly, cruel speech hurts the victims who have to endure their suffering being made light of, and despite the outpouring of aid from the U.S., the backlash from these incidents makes us, as a nation, look like selfish, over-privileged fame-seekers. Does it hurt the ones who made the comments? It’s doubtful that 50 Cent, Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck gave their comments a second thought. They won’t be hurt professionally or lose their seething audiences. And, as Robert Elisberg mused, that’s troubling. As he pointed out, fans will continue to idolize Beck and Limbaugh, but there is no evidence that even one of them protested and said that in this instance, any of these comments were out of line.

Therein lies the danger. That this shock value is accepted. That this attitude of casual cruelty seems normal and is emulated. Was there backlash? Thankfully, yes. Many people denounced their comments. But, plenty of non-celebrities got into the act of making jokes and calling it, inexplicably, karmic payback for Pearl Harbor, killing whales and dolphins, or other senseless justifications. Hundreds of Facebook statuses and Twitter feeds echoed similar thoughts.

In a rant heard around the world, UCLA student Alexandra Wallace posted a video on YouTube complaining about Asian students in the library disrupting her studying when they called home to check on their loved ones. She mocked the way they spoke and criticized them for not having “American manners.” Looking back, she might be choking on that characterization right about now.

While the hatemongers of social media can only be identified by having their statuses reposted in incredulous news pieces, Wallace’s video went viral. It was the biggest 2 minute 52 second mistake of her life. Unlike the mostly untouchable 50 Cent, Limbaugh and Beck, Wallace has effectively ended her college career at UCLA, destroyed her reputation, and most likely will have torpedoed her entire professional career as that video is destined to live on the internet forever.

In a time where connectivity is bringing us closer together as a global community, we shouldn’t forget that our international neighbors have a front row seat to the insensitive and insulting remarks of the vocal few that overshadow the concerned many.

Unfeeling toward crime victims
Vicious comments aren’t limited to victims of natural disasters, crime victims are fair game, too. In a recent piece, we discussed the public reaction to Lara Logan’s sexual assault in Egypt. Public figures made light of it, a journalist lost his job over it, and the less-than-sympathetic public seemed divided between racist comments about her Egyptian attackers and blaming a woman professional for being there in the first place. In this public poll, more than half of the voters felt that Logan is to blame for her own attack.

Looking back to the 9/11 attacks in 2001, there isn’t a wide electronic trail of negative public opinion. But then, this was pre-Facebook and Twitter. Apps and smartphones make it all too easy; just a decade ago, people didn’t have an instant outlet to broadcast their every vicious thought. There was certainly some anti-Muslim sentiment from the cable news punditry, but save for Ann Coulter lambasting widows and Glenn Beck pronouncing his hatred for some of the “whining” 9/11 families, our nation seemed to join together in dignity and offer support to the victims.

Whether we have coarsened as a people, or whether social media simply provides a more visible mirror, is unclear. Are we teaching the next generation that shock value, even if it’s cruel, is a justified outlet for pain, entertainment, attention? Is that the way our society really feels toward others? In a time where vast numbers of people continue to give to others, despite still-challenging economic conditions, a vocal slice can undo all the good with thoughtless spewing.

image: Rego

The post Shouting Down Compassion appeared first on EcoSalon.

I’ll never forget the history professor who was a former Marine and almost certainly shaved with a hunting knife. Equally fluent in Latin and rifles, a class never went by without some outrageous bon mot, leaving us stunned, angry…and often delighted. There were the wildly inappropriate comments about women, women’s gams, whiskey, American cars, and vegans, but the finest insults were reserved for what he called “boys in the big club”: the super-rich or, the people who tell our Congress what to do.

One strikingly sober evening in class, he pitched his cowboy boot on the seat of an empty desk, stroked his jaw thoughtfully, and said, “Let me tell you something. If you want to break the law and avoid jail, break the law big. The more you cost, the more they want to keep you out of there. The lesson is: Go big, really big!”

Darth Madoff notwithstanding, this theory looks to be true. For here, today, we have elected representatives like Joe Barton of Texas outraged, positively seething with impotent fury by the oil spill destroying the economic and environmental viability of millions of…er, scratch that. They’re outraged by President Obama’s “shakedown” of British Petroleum (BP) for a $20B escrow account to begin to address the horrific damage to the Gulf. Nevermind that Team Oil hasn’t even stopped the leak yet or that criminal charges would surely be many times that sum. This nervy move is Chicago-style politics, whatever that is, and did you hear Obama wears fancy pants called khakis? Oh. Em. Gee. We are so not texting him anymore. And you just know he’s personally going to buy even more fancy pants with that undeserved largess.

Mr. Barton: Truly, farts are more useful.

As far as I can tell, “shakedown” in this case appears to mean “being held accountable for your actions,” and if corporations are persons as our Supreme Court holds, why shouldn’t they be? Please to enlighten, Mr. Barton. What you mean?

Perhaps it’s because they aren’t small enough. After all, BP chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said, as quoted in The New York Times, “I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don’t care. But that is not the case with BP. We care about the small people.”

Welcome to press conferences with Carl. How charitable of him, right? It got me thinking about small people and frankly, feeling kind of embarrassed, especially for all those pajama-pants bloggers freaking out. Facepalm! Small people just don’t get it. We don’t understand that oil is a natural thing. Because it’s from the earth! Also, accountability is mean and gross.

Carl must wonder what the small people are doing these days. Obviously not much, or they’d be big.

The main problem with the small people is that they are kind of ungrateful. All they do is take, take, take. They take the bus because gas is too darn expensive, they take being fired because they took six hours off to take their hormonally-imbalanced plastic-gumming toddler to the emergency room because their HMO doesn’t take these kinds of cases…see the theme here? Taking. Versus HMOs, which don’t take. Which makes sense, because HMOs are corporations!

It’s an intelligence gap. We small folk don’t understand that corporations are the best thing for us, and therefore should not have to take actual responsibility for bad things that happen as a direct result of their existence, unlike me and the tickets that were a direct result of some adventurous parking choices this spring. You could say I need heavy regulation. And you know what? It works!

But it’s different for the big people because corporations give us arrrrr jobbbbbs! Super awesome jobs with health insurance and vacations to keep us off Prozac and out of drive-throughs but most of all, the jobs from corporations that give us clear water and clean air and edible shrimp. Because this spill? It is a fluke! In the perfect world we don’t actually live in at all, this just doesn’t happen. The corporations and the rules are totally great just the way they are because, again, in the world we don’t live in, they work perfectly! And anyone who says differently is a Rush Limbaugh parody song.

Oh, me. If only my small-people brain were a big-people brain, it could comprehend these multiple universes and find the one where the Gulf is still clean.

Today, after initially complaining that he just wants his life back and subsequently being heavily shushed so Small People Svanberg could handle company communications, BP CEO Tony Hayward expressed his devastation live before Congress. That is terrific. As a small person, I could only feel more satisfied if it came with an order of fries. Give me empty words, or give me American Idol!

Not surprisingly, this whole mess is the fault of the engineers or something, and Hayward didn’t have any dealings with those people. Wait a minute. Engineers are small people! It’s just too easy.

Per his usual, Jon Stewart does the media’s job this week, with his team digging up archived footage of not one, not two, not three but eight U.S. Presidents – going back to Nixon – thundering on camera that energy independence is a priority and will be achieved by 1980 1985 1995 2004 2025…

It’s painful.

“Fool me once, shame on you,” Stewart said. “Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me eight times — Am I a f–king idiot?”

There’s a wonderful line in the song “Backwards Walk” by the Scottish band, Frightened Rabbit, that goes: “You’re the sh*t and I’m knee deep in it.”

Indeed.

EcoSalon will be publishing a picture a day of the Gulf oil spill, every day, until the leak is fixed.

Submit pictures to us: spill at ecosalon dot com

Image: AOL News

UPDATE 2:21 PST: That was fast. Joe Barton formally retracts his apology to BP.

UPDATE 1:33 PST 6/21/10: Hayward spent the weekend on a yacht. Racing it.

The post I Wonder What the Small People Are Doing! appeared first on EcoSalon.