this morning i woke up thinking about germaine greer and the whole steve irwin controversy that she sparked with her newspaper article. i was wondering why it is that so many people hate her. why do we fear the greer?
this is a theme that i visited early on in this blog's life, with a promise that i would write something on it. germaine has long been a prickly figure, who seems to make everyone pissed off when she opens her mouth. i want to explore the reasons why this might be, and why she seems to have the status of someone who's embarrassing and you roll your eyes whenever she publishes. it reminds me a bit of the former saint helen de garner who fell from the pedestal when she published the first stone. it became apparent to me how much vitriolic reaction she was attracting because of it when i was at a party and tried to discuss the book with some friends. they were all most hateful, and totally condemned her, while i said things like, well she tackled a difficult subject, she admitted her weaknesses and was brutally honest, not the least with herself and i love her candour. but no one would give me an inch. and when i asked, none of them had read the book.
i started writing the greer thing this morning, on my laptop in bed, feeling like carrie. then i got out of bed, had some toast and then john returned back from a trip out to get a birthday present for princess (next tuesday everyone. TEN YEARS OLD.) he brought the papers home with him.
i had a quick look at the front page of the age, and wondered why my reaction to peter brock's death has been so neutral verging on not-much-sympathy, in comparison to the croc man's death, where i felt sorry enough to encourage the kids to write cards to bindi.
i can say what the reason was. put simply, brock recently left his partner of more than 25 years. i'm being a hypocrite when i say that i felt sorry for steve because although he was flawed, you could say he had a good heart and was a very authentic "bloke." but why am i more accepting of his flaws (which were kind of in the "tool" basket) than brock's?
we are all flawed human beings, but i guess we tolerate some flaws more readily than others.
then, also on the front page, there's an article, small, bottom left corner, reporting that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM HAD ANY CONNECTIONS TO AL-QAEDA.
let me ask you a question. did you at any time think there were links? why did you think that?
when i disussed it with john a while ago, with me saying, and there's no evidence that saddam was connected to al-qaeda, he said oh, i thought there was.
so people obviously thought there was. because it had been suggested, repeated, by governments around the world, the media dutifully reported what the pollies said, and just like that, with a wave of the wand and a shower of glittery stuff, an idea is planted, and grows in the public's mind. if you read the news thoroughly and follow stories, you can get a glimmer of what might be the truth. but if you rely on talk with others, and reading headlines and/or first paragraph stuff, then you are missing out. likewise if you read the herald-sun. i also think that the australian, being a murdoch paper, is much more tabloidy and less solid than people realise. the australian has the formerly-deserved reputation of being the most high-brow, generalist paper available in melbourne, which i think is bunkum. it's getting more low-brow by the day. look at their selection of images, and their use of headlines and you'll see what i mean.
i couldn't read the article in full, i was already feeling the pain. then i turned the page, and there's an article about a school reference book which contains text about state-sponsored or organised terrorism, with mention of the united states and israel amongst several other nations. and about how the government is demanding it be withdrawn from schools.
if this isn't attempted censorship, then what is?
if this isn't evidence that our government, like all governments around the world, is trying to creating its own history by taking certain perspectives, and by doing this, manipulating us, then what is?
i just had to leave the paper. i can't stand it. i just can't stand it. that people either can't see it, or just cry conspiracy theory when you try to talk about this sort of stuff.
does anyone share my brain ache about all this?