How Bad Was The Deepwater Horizon Explosion?

by Conor Friedersdorf

Horrific:

Crew members were cut down by shrapnel, hurled across rooms and buried under smoking wreckage. Some were swallowed by fireballs that raced through the oil rig’s shattered interior. Dazed and battered survivors, half-naked and dripping in highly combustible gas, crawled inch by inch in pitch darkness, willing themselves to the lifeboat deck.

It was no better there.

That same explosion had ignited a firestorm that enveloped the rig’s derrick. Searing heat baked the lifeboat deck. Crew members, certain they were about to be cooked alive, scrambled into enclosed lifeboats for shelter, only to find them like smoke-filled ovens.

Humans Distance Their Own Tribe From Shame

by Conor Friedersdorf

A Dish reader passes on extended thoughts about Haley Barbour and how he relates to the history of his hometown:

As a Southerner born in the late 1960s, I've always struggled to understand what happened in the civil rights era back home. To be precise, I've struggled to grasp how my people — white people — understood events.  I'm from an extremely minor part of the Deep South, so insignificant that to my knowledge, it hasn't been accounted for in the major histories of the era. The thing is, you can't really ask older white folks what happened. If they're willing to talk about it at all — which most aren't, a reticence that may come from a reasonable certainty that they will be judged unfavorably by their children and grandchildren — it's usually in a defensive, dismissive way. When Haley Barbour said the other day that he doesn't remember things being all that bad in Yazoo City, where he grew up, I heard the voice of my parents' generation. How many times in childhood did I overhear those people talking about how decently "we" treated "our nigras." It may be hard for people not raised in this culture to understand it when I say that this kind of thing was not said with conscious malice (though it was obviously malicious in its content, not only because it constituted a denial of history, but shows the lingering sense of white paternalism and indeed ownership of black folks). When I was younger, I used to think this was evil, uncut. I don't think that anymore. I think it instead speaks to the human capacity to distance oneself and one's "tribe" from atrocity and indelible shame.

A few years ago, when I saw "The Sorrow and the Pity," Marcel Ophuls' great 1969 documentary about the disgrace of the citizens of a small French city, re: their collaboration with the Nazi occupiers, it gave me insight onto the collaboration of the white people of my town and county with what amounts to apartheid — and also the role their selective memories play in absolving themselves without repentance and accountability. This is not just what white people do; it's what people do. The savage treatment of the American Indian is ameliorated in our collective historical memory by the national myth (similarly, the savage treatment many Indian tribes dealt to settlers is ameliorated by a different kind of myth). One way to deal with one's personal, or communal guilt, in the face of collective moral collapse, is to claim victimhood, displacing the blame onto others and renouncing one's moral agency. This, I believe, is a strategy many African-Americans employ today to avoid squarely facing their own responsibility for the many disasters their communities live with. Another way is to deny that whatever happened was all that bad to begin with, or if that's unfeasible, then to believe that the bad behavior was carried out by others of our kind, not our little tribe. This is the way many whites, especially of Barbour's generation, choose to deal with guilt over what they (we) did to blacks, and, for that matter, our partial responsibility for the moral collapse underclass black America is suffering today.

My point, re: Barbour's controversial remarks, is that I am neither surprised by them, nor do I hold him in as much contempt for them as many pundits seem to. I don't mean to defend his remarks, but for me, I can place them in context. I don't think he's bullshitting, frankly. I think he's wrong, absolutely; but I'd bet money that Haley Barbour is just like his contemporaries in my hometown, including my parents: they have genuinely convinced themselves that things were Just Fine Here, because it's a way of dealing with extremely painful history without having to deal with it. And it's a way of being able to look on all the nice older folks you grew up loving and respecting without having to reckon with the fact that they did horrible things to their black neighbors, either actively or by standing passively by. I remember what a shock it was to me as a teenager who was starting to read about the Civil Rights movement, to look upon the faces of older white people in church, men and women I had grown up loving and respecting, and to know (because I had been told) that that kindly gentleman there had been a Klansman back in the day, and that this one in the third pew on the right had participated in a lynch mob decades earlier. You think: "These are not the kind of people who do things like that." But they did! Yet it's easy to follow this emotional logic: "I wouldn't be friendly with people guilty of such moral horrors, but obviously I am friends with these people (and even love and respect them) — therefore, things couldn't have been as bad as the history books say, at least not here."

That, I think, probably accounts for Haley Barbour's selective memory. Again, I'm not trying to justify it, but I am trying to understand it. It was amazing to me how much more I was able to learn about the place I'm from when I finally stopped judging it, and instead tried to see it as an anthropologist might.

It Matters Who Decides

by Conor Friedersdorf

If the people's representatives won't pass climate change legislation, the Obama Administration may just go it alone:

In a statement posted on its website late Thursday, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it is moving unilaterally to clamp down on power plant and oil refinery greenhouse emissions, announcing plans for developing new standards over the next year. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said the aim was to better cope with pollution contributing to climate change.

James Joyner has the same reaction that I do:

Presidents have, since the days of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, made unilateral decisions arguably outside the scope of their Constitutional power and dared Congress or the Courts to stop them. The  practice has increased over time and been made easier by Congress having delegated much of its power to Executive agencies. The consequence is an administrative state where the elected representatives of the people have a mostly reactive role, acting to check these agencies, rather than making affirmative decisions on national policy.

Regardless of how Congress acts, I'd prefer if for that body to determine how the US responds to the real phenomenon of climate change caused by greenhouse gasses. Of course, I'm an extremist who thinks that the legislature should even decide which countries our military drones are permitted to drop bombs on.

In both cases, when I hear what amounts to "the Constitution is not a suicide pact," I think to myself, "but disregarding its separation of powers might be."

Art Anarchists

The-storm-of-White-House-(1)

by Zoë Pollock

Marlon Dolcy interviews (link has a NSFW image) members of the Russian art anarchist group Voina, to whom Banksy just dedicated the proceeds of his current show, about their work and the atmosphere in Russia:

Voina (or “War” to give them their English name) are a radical art group concerned with challenging the Russian establishment on important political issues such as attitudes towards homophobia, race, and the totalitarian actions of the state, through creating outrageous and provocative art performances in Russia. Two of their members; Oleg Vorotnikov and Leonid Nikolayev have been detained for more than a month at St Petersburg Prison on false allegations.

(Photo caption: "Storm of the White House where-in a giant skull and crossbones was projected on the Russian White House")

Should Critics Use Social Networks?

by Zoë Pollock

James Panero unloads on the art critic Jerry Saltz, a social media star:

[Saltz has] flipped the traditional critic’s role from peripheral character to central actor. His comment writers, many of them wayward artists, are now the critics, while he has become the new art star around which they circulate. Jerry Saltz has become “Jerry Saltz,” a socially networked performance piece of art criticism.

The material intimacy of direct artistic experience—seeing paint, sensing the artist’s hand—does not emerge from social networking. Rather, great art offers a necessary alternative to an over-mediated culture.

A Poem For Sunday

by Zoë Pollock

Clare Stein teaches English to French children and realizes the importance of sound in language. She quotes Alexander Pope’s poem Sound and Sense:

True ease in writing comes from art, not chance,
As those move easiest who have learned to dance.
‘Tis not enough no harshness gives offense,
The sound must seem an echo to the sense:
Soft is the strain when Zephyr gently blows,
And the smooth stream in smoother numbers flows;
But when loud surges lash the sounding shore,
The hoarse, rough verse should like the torrent roar;
When Ajax strives some rock’s vast weight to throw,
The line too labors, and the words move slow;
Not so, when swift Camilla scours the plain,
Flies o’er the unbending corn, and skims along the main.
Hear how Timotheus’ varied lays surprise,
And bid alternate passions fall and rise! …

The dexterous language dance is a three-pronged waltz– physical, auditory, cognitive: our mouths form sounds that mirror the idea. In the best cases, sound can make language musical. Sometimes the music surpasses the words.

“Thank You For Calling Me Dragon Lady”

by Zoë Pollock

Tom Junod talked with Yoko Ono:

What is teaching me is the fact that we have to learn how to turn around negative energy into positive energy. On a very small scale, for instance, people used to call me Dragon Lady. And I didn't answer that one. And one day I said, Thank you for calling me Dragon Lady, because the dragon is such a powerful animal. And thank you for thinking I'm so powerful. From then on nobody called me Dragon Lady.