Extremism Normalized: How Americans Now Acquiesce to Once Unthinkable Ideas

Published on Tuesday, July 31, 2012 by Salon.com

Extremism Normalized: How Americans Now Acquiesce to Once Unthinkable Ideas

by Glenn Greenwald

 

Remember when, in the wake of the 9/11 attack, the Patriot Act was controversial, held up as the symbolic face of Bush/Cheney radicalism and widely lamented as a threat to core American liberties and restraints on federal surveillance and detention powers? Yet now, the Patriot Act is quietly renewed every four years by overwhelming majorities in both parties (despite substantial evidence of serious abuse), and almost nobody is bothered by it any longer. That’s how extremist powers become normalized: they just become such a fixture in our political culture that we are trained to take them for granted, to view the warped as normal. Here are several examples from the last couple of days illustrating that same dynamic; none seems overwhelmingly significant on its own, but that’s the point:

After Dick Cheney criticized John McCain this weekend for having chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, this was McCain’s retort:

Look, I respect the vice president. He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not. I don’t think we should have.

Isn’t it amazing that the first sentence there (“I respect the vice president”) can precede the next one (“He and I had strong disagreements as to whether we should torture people or not”) without any notice or controversy? I realize insincere expressions of respect are rote ritualism among American political elites, but still, McCain’s statement amounts to this pronouncement: Dick Cheney authorized torture — he is a torturer — and I respect him. How can that be an acceptable sentiment to express? Of course, it’s even more notable that political officials whom everyone knows authorized torture are walking around free, respected and prosperous, completely shielded from all criminal accountability. “Torture” has been permanently transformed from an unspeakable taboo into a garden-variety political controversy, where it shall long remain.

Equally remarkable is this Op-Ed from The Los Angeles Times over the weekend, condemning President Obama’s kill lists and secret assassinations:

Allowing the president of the United States to act as judge, jury and executioner for suspected terrorists, including U.S. citizens, on the basis of secret evidence is impossible to reconcile with the Constitution’s guarantee that a life will not be taken without due process of law.

Under the law, the government must obtain a court order if it seeks to target a U.S. citizen for electronic surveillance, yet there is no comparable judicial review of a decision to kill a citizen. No court is even able to review the general policies for such assassinations. . . .
But if the United States is going to continue down the troubling road of state-sponsored assassination, Congress should, at the very least, require that a court play some role, as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court does with the electronic surveillance of suspected foreign terrorists. Even minimal judicial oversight might make the president and his advisors think twice about whether an American citizen poses such an “imminent” danger that he must be executed without a trial.

Isn’t it amazing that a newspaper editorial even has to say: you know, the President isn’t really supposed to have the power to act as judge, jury and executioner and order American citizens assassinated with no transparency or due process? And isn’t it even more amazing that the current President has actually seized and exercised this power with very little controversy? That presidential power — literally the most tyrannical power a political leader can seize — is also now a barely noticed fixture of our political culture.
Meanwhile, we have this, from the Associated Press yesterday:

Remember when John Poindexter’s “Total Information Awareness” program – which was “to use data mining technologies to sift through personal transactions in electronic data to find patterns and associations connected to terrorist threats and activities”: basically create real-time surveillance of everyone – was too extreme and menacing even for an America still at its peak of post-9/11 hysteria? Yet here we have the NYPD — more than a decade removed from 9/11 — announcing a very similar program in very similar terms, and it’s almost impossible to envision any real controversy.

Similarly, in the AP’s sentence above describing the supposed targets of this new NYPD surveillance program: what, exactly, is a “potential terrorist”? Isn’t that an incredibly Orwellian term given that, by definition, it can include anyone and everyone? In practice, it will almost certainly mean: all Muslims, plus anyone who engages in any activism that opposes prevailing power factions. That’s how the American Surveillance State is always used. Still, the undesirability of mass, “all-seeing,” indiscriminate surveillance regime was once viewed as undesirable — a view, in sum, that the East German Stasi was a bad idea that we would not want to replicate on American soil — yet now, there is almost no limit on the level of state surveillance we tolerate.

In The New York Times yesterday, Elisabeth Bumiller wrote about the very moving and burdensome plight of America’s drone pilots who, sitting in front of a “computer console [] in the Syracuse suburbs,” extinguish people’s lives thousands of miles away by launching missiles at them. The bulk of the article is devoted to eliciting sympathy and admiration for these noble warriors, but when doing so, she unwittingly describes America’s future with domestic surveillance drones:

Among the toughest psychological tasks is the close surveillance for aerial sniper missions, reminiscent of the East German Stasi officer absorbed by the people he spies on in the movie “The Lives of Others.” A drone pilot and his partner, a sensor operator who manipulates the aircraft’s camera, observe the habits of a militant as he plays with his children, talks to his wife and visits his neighbors. They then try to time their strike when, for example, his family is out at the market.
“They watch this guy do bad things and then his regular old life things,” said Col. Hernando Ortega, the chief of aerospace medicine for the Air Education Training Command, who helped conduct a study last year on the stresses on drone pilots. . . . ”You see them wake up in the morning, do their work, go to sleep at night,” said Dave, an Air Force major who flew drones from 2007 to 2009 at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada and now trains drone pilots at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.

That’s the level of detailed monitoring that drone surveillance enables. Numerous attributes of surveillance drones — their ability to hover in the same place for long periods of time, their ability to remain stealth, their increasingly cheap cost and tiny size — enable surveillance of a breadth, duration and invasiveness unlike other types of surveillance instruments, such as police helicopters or satellites. Recall that one new type of drone already in use by the U.S. military in Afghanistan — the Gorgon Stare, named after the “mythical Greek creature whose unblinking eyes turned to stone those who beheld them” — is “able to scan an area the size of a small town” and “the most sophisticated robotics use artificial intelligence that [can] seek out and record certain kinds of suspicious activity”; boasted one U.S. General: “Gorgon Stare will be looking at a whole city, so there will be no way for the adversary to know what we’re looking at, and we can see everything.”

There is zero question that this drone surveillance is coming to American soil. It already has spawned a vast industry that is quickly securing formal approval for the proliferation of these surveillance weapons. There’s some growing though still marginal opposition among both the independent left and the more libertarian-leaning precincts on the right, but at the moment, that trans-ideological coalition is easily outgunned by the combination of drone industry lobbyists and Surveillance State fanatics. The idea of flying robots hovering over American soil monitoring what citizens do en masse is yet another one of those ideas that, in the very recent past, seemed too radical and dystopian to entertain, yet is on the road to being quickly mainstreamed. When that happens, it is no longer deemed radical to advocate such things; radicalism is evinced by opposition to them.

Read the full article with updates at Salon.com

© 2012 Salon.com

Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book "How Would a Patriot Act?," a critique of the Bush administration's use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, "A Tragic Legacy", examines the Bush legacy. His just-released book is titled "With Liberty and Justice for Some: How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful." He is the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism.

How to Tell a Democrat from a Republican

Guest Editorial

How to Tell a Democrat from a Republican

by Leon Felkins

Conservative, n. - A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.
  -- Ambrose Bierce

Many of you have expressed great confusion, in these troubled times, in trying to tell a Republican from a Democrat. Sure, we know what they say they are; most of them have well displayed nameplates. But could you tell one from the other in a blind test? That is, without prior knowledge and access to his/her nameplate, could you determine which was which simply by his/her actions? Probably not. The purpose of this essay is to assist you in making such an identification. In the following paragraphs, I will list the major issues of our times and clearly identify the differences between the Republican and Democrat approaches to these issues.

Abortion Democrats are generally for abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is -- like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination -- an affliction and therefore needs to be treated by the government. Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details. Animals Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do. Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus.Both think that domestic animals and the raising thereof need massive government support. This often results in an excess of such animals, which are then killed, burnt or buried instead of being shipped off to starving humanity around the world because to do so might upset the local economy. Capital Punishment DemocratsBecause Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death. RepublicansThe Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye. That we are not always completely sure that we have the right dude before we send him on his way to St. Peter is not really all that serious of an issue. "God will sort it out" is their most commonly stated rationale for slaughtering a group of people that from their very looks it is obvious that they are guilty -- of something. Actually God really only gave us a hint as to the real possibilities: how about a lopped head for a mashed finger, for instance? That certainly should work even better. I understand that there are now over 50 offenses for which you can be given a quick dispatch to meet your maker. The Children! Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies. Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan (see Jeremiah 18:21: "So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword.") Crime Democrats know that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay -- in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom. Republicans believe that every person inherently knows right from wrong, whether they were raised by harlot on the mean streets of East St. Louis or by a wealthy Episcopal minister in the ritzy 'burbs of Germantown. They know that the solution to violent crime is to beat the hell out of the perpetrators. Drugs DemocratsDemocrats have no qualms about about recreational drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs highly regulated. RepublicansRecreational drugs are absolutely verboten according to the Republicans. It is rumored that many folks actually have great fun with such drugs, therefore they are opposed, of course, as it is a basic principle of Conservatism that having too much fun is bad for the character. On the other hand, Republicans would allow you to prescribe and buy medicinal drugs without constraint as the drug industry is quite profitable. If you use the wrong drug or a bit too much, then the subsequent repairs to your body will again raise the national income just a bit. Republicans support the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol even though it kills more people by a factor of ten than all the "illegal" drugs combined. This makes sense because while it may get you high and out of control, technically it is not a "controlled substance". The Drug War Strangely, while Republicans oppose the use of recreational drugs and Democrats are much more tolerant, they both support, with great enthusiasm, the so-called War on Drugs (WOD). That is because the WOD has little to do with drugs but is big business with large profits and incentives as well as an expression of political agendas and control.Making a distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the WOD is difficult for several reasons that are fundamental to what government is all about. I list a few: The WOD allowed that time-honored tradition of governments -- the seizure of private property -- to be re-instated (amazingly, with citizen approval!). History tells us that in ancient times, governments satisfied their desire for accumulating wealth by simple and honest plunder and property seizure. As governments got smarter, they organized the theft, provided a stable environment for its culture and labeled it "taxation" (See Mancur Olson's essay, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", American Political Science Review, Sept. 1993). I quote Olson (discussing the successful evolution of Chinese warlords): "The warlords had no claim to legitimacy and their thefts were distinguished from those of roving bandits only because they took the form of continuing taxation rather than occasional plunder." (In these modern times, the plunder sometimes has even more sophisticated titles such as "surcharge" as used by the recently imposed fee on anyone who has more than one telephone line.) The WOD allows the meddling in the affairs of small defenseless countries at will. The WOD provides another great opportunity to collect and spend great quantities of taxpayer's hard earned cash without any serious opposition. The reason for this is that the Drug problem is very close to being a natural disaster -- which governments love as they can spend freely without complaints. That said, there are small but helpful differences: DemocratsThe Democrats, as well as the Republicans, support the WOD, if for no other reason, because to do otherwise would result in the loss of votes. However, Democrats also support the concept as it allows the U.S. to act as the world policeman. Socialism is never going to work without one-world government. RepublicansThe Republicans love the WOD because it allows us to build up the military, throw a lot of people in jail that don't come around to the prescribed religious/moral values, and is very profitable. Education Democrats are for universal government provided education and to make it fair, all educational institutions must be equally bad. Of course that only applies to the general population -- politicians send their own children to private schools so that when they graduate they might actually be prepared to make a decent living and they will not be biased against the values of public education for the masses. Republicans support private education but do not see any reason why the institutions shouldn't be government funded. They particularly like the idea of religious or military schools that are better equipped to teach a state of perpetual obedience. Environment Democrats see the "environment" as another means to control the masses. Even if "Global Warming" only exists in the heads of some out-of-work pacifists, it is certainly a powerful tool to keep the masses towing the line. Further, it is an unbelievable sink hole for public funds. Have you ever looked at what the asbestos scare cost? Republicans were a little late in appreciating the merits of environmentalism and have therefore had to live with some bad press. However, someone finally showed them how much money could be made by simply declaring Freon 12 as the main cause of Global Warming from which billions were made developing and selling a new coolant. This brought them around and now they frantically trying to find the next common household product to ban -- like toilets that use too much water. Government Spending DemocratsDemocrats make no excuses about massive government spending. For the government to provide a happy, healthy, shameless, and even exciting society, for everyone, regardless of their personal means, requires a massive amount of cash from the citizens as well as all you can borrow. Further, to make sure that no citizen gets into trouble and is in bed each night at a reasonable hour, a huge government staff is a necessity. This, in turn, requires every dime the public can spare and just a bit more. RepublicansRepublicans, in their hearts, and especially at campaign time, really would like to cut back on government spending -- especially such luxuries as the social, environmental, and health programs. But there are necessities that it would be irresponsible to avoid. Such things as National Defense, which requires a military budget far greater than any we have had in any major war, can no more be cut back than you can cut back on helping the folks back home that need a superhighway to the new park out in the country. These are essential expenditures unlike the "feel good" stuff of the Democrats. When Iraq threatens our shores by such hostile actions as flying one of their planes over the southern half of their country, we better be ready for action. Individual Liberty DemocratsDemocrats are great believers in the concept of Liberty for all of humanity. It's just that individual humans need to be restrained -- for their on good of course. It would be irresponsible to let an individual endanger their health by eating greasy theater popcorn or drinking water from a mountain stream that some fish has peed in (and hasn't been tested by a government agency). Sadly, when you face the reality, every aspect of human activity must be controlled by the superior knowledge of the government bureaucrat. That government bureaucrats themselves are sometimes accused of being human is a fallacious argument as their holistic association results in superior knowledge. RepublicansRepublicans would like to give people lots of freedom especially those that are economically active such the officers of large corporations and farmers. However, some aspects of human nature just cannot go unpunished. There must be law and order. Violence must be stopped if we have to kill every one of the sorry bastards. Republicans feel that they have the monstrous responsibility of enforcing God's word. It is not a matter of public vote. People who have unapproved sex, get high on anything (including testosterone) except approved drugs such as alcohol, cigarettes, and caffeine, don't regularly go to an approved church, allow their kids to kiss before they get married, and talk smart to policemen that are dutifully beating the hell out of them, must receive appropriate punishment. Military Democrats are very fond of the military as it is a vast receptacle of funds and the defense industry has the reputation of being basically a giant welfare program for mostly engineers and scientists, without which millions of them would have to get a real job. Republicans also love the military for its capacity to absorb unbelievably large quantities of money. Even more they appreciate the importance of importing American Justice to sometimes unreceptive countries by means of our military. Privacy Democrats believe in the sacred right of privacy as guaranteed by our Founding Fathers. Unless, of course, it involves money, children, or your conversation on the phone (it is well known that phones are sometimes used by terrorists). Republicans see no particular reason why you would want privacy. What's the matter: You got something to hide? If you are not doing anything criminal, then privacy should not be a concern, according to them. Too much privacy is a real hindrance to getting every one in jail that ought to be there. Private Property Democrats believe that all property should be shared equally among the people and enough to the animals to ensure their welfare (which they can't do for the people as there is just not enough). To insure the proper usage of property, the government, of course, must be the actual custodian of the property. What you think is yours is actually only on loan to you and may be recalled at any time. The whining of property owners that lose up in the millions of dollars when the government declares that a piece of property is needed for R&R for traveling geese is misplaced as it never belonged to these so-called property owners in the first place. Republicans, on the other hand, definately believe in the right to private property as clearly enunciated by our Founding Fathers. But there is one small catch: The Bible is older than the Constition and trumps it. The bible points out very clearly, "When an ox gores a man or a woman to death, the ox must be stoned; the flesh may not be eaten. The owner of the ox, however, shall go unpunished", Exodus 21:28. That means that if your house or your car or your bank account is in any remote way associated with a crime, then it must be "stoned to death". The modern translation of "stoned to death" is "given to the government".Surprizingly, an amazing amount of property is in someway related to a crime. For example, let us say that some pot dealer is driving down the street and decides to turn his car around using your driveway. It is obvious that your property has now aided in a crime for if it had not been there, the druggie's auto would have fallen into a bottomless pit. Case closed. Racial Issues Democrats believe all "minority" races to be "disadvantaged" and to need government help. An exception is made for the Orientals because they stubbornly insist on doing quite well for themselves and refuse to suck up. They see minorities mainly as large block votes at bargain prices. Classes should not be encouraged to mix as we need to retain each of their cultures. Republicans have always been fond of the people of color as they have been very well behaved house servants every since Lincoln freed them from slavery. Classes should not be allowed to mix as an inferior offspring will result. Some claim that hybrids in the animal world are usually superior to their parents but this is easily answered as humans obviously are not animals! Religion Democrats think religion is cool especially if it is "New Age", ancient Native American superstitions, Far East shamanism, or African witch doctors. What they can't stand are the low class, red neck religions like Church of God and Southern Baptists. Republicans are in full support of religion and see it as every citizen's duty -- as long as it is "main line". The definition of "main line" is left up to the politicians, of course. Sex Democrats are in full support of sexual activity, especially if it is a little kooky. The concept of the old fashioned "male-female" sexual interaction is best left to the lower animals. Republicans know that the purpose of sex is for procreation and not pleasure. If you must have pleasurable sex, which by definition would be outside of the marriage, then for God's sake have the decency to lie about it! Smoking Democrats consider any form of smoking of tobacco that is produced by the large corporations to be evil. The only material acceptable for smoking is marijuana or Native American ritual tobacco. If you are invited to the home of one of your cool friends and are handed a joint, do not think you have to eat it just because there is a sign on the wall that says, "Thank you for not Smoking". Republicans think smoking is fine as long as it provides the opportunity to ship large quantities of money to the subsidized tobacco farmers and producers. Of course the smoking of any "controlled substance" is not permitted even if tobacco kills far more people. Because, it is the law, you idiot. Republicans are for law and order. Lots of both. War and other "World Cop" Activities Democrats, the "Peace Party", are strongly against war and other police actions and will attempt to create legislation to limit presidential powers and to influence public opinion -- during Republican administrations. Of course, if the Democrats happen to be in charge, then such activities are OK because their purpose is to stop violence and to "prevent further suffering and bloodshed". Republicans, on the other hand, have no hesitation in bombing any recalcitrant country (those that refuse to accept aid in return for submission to U.S. control) "back to the stone age", unless, of course, the Democrats are in power. In that case, they are opposed to such acts because Democrats rarely have a decent "exit strategy". ("Exit Strategy" is a term often used in discussions of sexual activity. It is sort of the opposite to "foreplay".) Wealth Democrats believe in the concept of "equal distribution of wealth" even if they happened to be hoarding quite a pile of it. They justify this by the fact that to do their job requires that they live in a certain high class style that allows them to associate with the influential. Republicans believe that hard work and the economic "invisible hand" will make sure that anyone who deserves it gets it or the reverse as the case may be. By definition, if you are broke and living off the street, you deserve it. Leon Felkins is a coordinator for FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights), a national nonprofit organization dedicated to reform of federal and state asset forfeiture laws. Got a suggestion for Leon's dictionary? Drop him a line at leonf@magnolia.net! For more guest commentary in American Politics Journal, click here. Copyright © 1999, Leon Felkins All rights reserved

Intro To Political Stockholm Syndrome

MASON SCOTT

Thoughts From A Rogue Progressive

Intro To Political Stockholm Syndrome

             If people were to blame the fire department for the fire a group of arsonists had set, we may find such an occurrence befuddling.  But when those same people then proceed to call in the arsonists to put out the fire, we know we’ve gone down the rabbit hole and entered bizarro-world.

            Some people may feel that the fire-fighters aren’t putting out the fire fast enough.  If one is under the impression that fire-fighters who’ve arrived on the scene aren’t working diligently enough, it’s seems reasonable to entreat them to work more diligently.  However, it seems odd to actually blame THEM for the fire… especially when the reason they aren’t extinguishing the flames more expediently is that the arsonists not only set the house of fire, but sabotaged the fire-engines, forced the fire department to use smaller hoses, and set up road-blocks on every street between the fire station and the burning building. 

Many have duped into voting for G.O.P. candidates. Some of those people are now complaining about the slow recovery—the recovery, that is, from the economic catastrophe of 2008 (the economic catastrophe the G.O.P. itself caused).  Such people are suffering from the political analogue of Stockholm Syndrome.  

Other metaphors are illustrative.  Imagine: After burning himself on a hot stove-top (when the oven-mitt had been removed from his hand), that the victim is convinced by the gas company that the answer is to turn up the gas on the stove while blaming the burn on the oven-mitt…and not to worry about the hot surface.  

That more people may continue to get burned is no deterrent to the gas company, who stands to make yet more money due to the higher gas-bills resulting from the augmented gas-usage.  Convincing people to do more of the dysfunctional activity that got them into trouble to begin with seems not to be as difficult a feat as one would think.  Propaganda can do marvels.  “Right-wing economic policy caused this disaster, so if you want to remedy your problems, listen to those peddling MORE right-wing policy, and blame all your woes on those offering left-leaning remedies.”  The ridiculous logic is swallowed hook, line and sinker by many of the victims of the fall-out from Neoliberalism.

In listening to the absurd ranting of those taken in by right-wing propaganda, we’re reminded of an abuse victim becoming enamored with her assaulter—even as she channels her resentment at those trying to help her.  This misguided attachment and misguided blame are typical of those who are somehow disoriented, confused, or experiencing some kind of neurosis.  Blaming the left-wing for the sluggish recovery of ’09-’10 is analogous to blaming the fire-fighters who’ve arrived on the scene of the burning building.  Deciding to vote Republican as a result of this gripe is analogous to hiring the arsonists to put out the fire instead of keeping the fire department on the scene.

The fall-out from the economic collapse—a collapse caused by the right wing—is thereby attributed to the deeds of the LEFT wing.  After suffering from the horrible consequences of right-wing economic policy, some people have become infatuated with that same right-wing economic policy.  They’ve been duped into embracing their assailant.  They’ve become enamored with the very things that caused their plight—as if a rape victim seeking refuge with the rapist after the attack.

            Observing the flames of the still-burning building, the right-wing segment of the electorate channels their anger at the firemen who’ve arrived on the scene to save the building.  Their solution: Call in the culprits who SET the fire, and depend on THEM to put out the fire.  Thus, more gasoline and less water is seen as the solution.  

How could such an outlandish thing come to pass?  We come to find that the cabal of arsonists have convinced the most credulous and ill-informed victims of the fire that all blame should be placed on the fire department, and that it is only the ARSONISTS who can save the burning building now.

            Preposterously, some people believe this fraudulent account.  How?  Why?  When we are frustrated, angry, disoriented and ill-informed, we NEED someone to blame—a direction to channel our resentment.  But we won’t necessarily know who SHOULD be blamed.  We will thus be susceptible to being persuaded to blame the wrong people—even those who offer solutions—while running right back into the arms of those who caused our tribulation.

The explanations all seem to boil down to one factor: lack of information and/or simply being under the impression that false things are true.  In other words, it is some combination of being UN-informed and being MIS-informed.  The former can be attributed to lack of education and cognitive lethargy.  The latter can be attributed to the mentally lazy and the credulous being taken in by right-wing propaganda.

One is reminded of a patient dying of lung cancer, caused by smoking, who has gone to the medical doctor—a doctor who is trying to help his dire situation by prescribing treatments for his ailment.  Imagine that he is somehow convinced (by the cigarette companies) that the cigarette companies offer the best solutions to his problem.  He thus resuming his smoking, even as the medical doctor insists that he wean himself off of the nicotine.  The doctor is subsequently blamed by the patient for his cancer…simply because the treatments haven’t cured the cancer…which continues as his lungs continue to be filled with tar.

“More smoking!” the Millerites insist, “…is what will solve your problems.  Behold, the doctor hasn’t eliminated the cancer, so blame HIM for the lung damage.”  It never occurs to the patient that he needs to STOP SMOKING in order for the doctor’s prescriptions to be effective.  He’s too busy being angry about the cancer that he simply yearns for someone to blame.  The cigarettes are fulfilling, and the medical doctor—who is prescribing all these un-enticing-sounding things—is standing before him, ready to be blamed for the medical problems.  He temporarily cut back on the cigarettes, but blames the continuation of the cancer to the cut-backs—and attributes the ailment to the treatment.  He will thus look for the enticing solutions offered by his new friends: the cigarette companies.

The parallels with the right-wing movement’s sentiments regarding their economic woes couldn’t be more salient.  The corporatists have seduced them.  A case-study is the reaction on the “right” to Obama’s Keynsian stimulus after his election.  The stimulus, it was clearly shown, WORKED…and, if anything, should have been much larger (a larger stimulus would have worked even better).  YET…strangely, certain people have been convinced by right-wing propaganda that the stimulus DIDN’T work.  They are thus persuaded to advocate for a resurgence of Neoliberalism: more of the very thing that caused the problems in the first place.

If this is not an analogue of Stockholm Syndrome, then nothing is.

Glossary

About

Contact

Contribute

The Shocking Truth About Joe Paterno, Penn State and Governor Tom Corbett

AlterNet.org

CULTURE  

The Nation / By Dave Zirin

The Shocking Truth About Joe Paterno, Penn State and Governor Tom Corbett

After 7 months, 400 interviews and the review of more than 3.5 million documents, Louis Freeh has completed his report on the dark underside of Penn State University.

July 15, 2012  |  

“It is very simple: Joe Paterno was a criminal.”   —Jeff Passan, Yahoo Sports

After seven months, 400 interviews and the review of more than 3.5 million documents, Louis Freeh has completed his report on the dark underside of Penn State University, and it will stun even the most cynical among us. The former FBI director was given, we were told, “free rein” to investigate the institutional failures that compelled school President Graham Spanier, Athletic Director Tim Curley, director of campus police Gary Schultz and legendary football coach Joe Paterno, to cover up allegations that revered former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was a serial child predator. In the immediate wake of Sandusky’s conviction on forty-five counts of various acts of child abuse, Freeh’s 267-page report is shocking for what it reveals and shocking, frankly, for what it doesn’t reveal. The report constitutes nothing less than a death blow to the school’s reputation. Its conclusions, that those in positions of power at Penn State showed a “total disregard” for the safety of vulnerable children, will echo for years. We can reasonably expect this school with a $4.6 billion budget, a $1.8 billion endowment and 96,000 students to be inalterably crippled for the foreseeable future. Civil lawsuits, criminal lawsuits and hot pressure on the NCAA to shut down the lucrative football program will all result from this report. It also, as suspected, constitutes a death blow to what was left of the reputation of the most successful, respected coach in the history of college football, Joe Paterno. There were many cynical about the report before its release, saying, “We’ll learn that Joe Paterno covered up Sandusky’s child abuse to protect the football program. We already knew this.” But there is so much in the report we didn’t know. We didn’t know, as Freeh writes on page 39, that “several staff members and football coaches regularly observed Sandusky showering with young boys” before May 1998.

We didn’t know that there was evidence Joe Paterno knew about formal allegations against Sandusky as far back as 1998, four years before his assistant Mike McQueary walked in on Sandusky raping an 11-year-old boy in the Penn State showers, and then reported it to the coach. A supposedly shocked Paterno told Washington Post reporter Sally Jenkins shortly before his death that he didn’t know what to do upon hearing McQueary’s story because he’d “never heard of rape and a man.”

We didn’t know that when Sandusky was forced into retirement in 1999, he received in Freeh’s words, “an unusual lump sum payment of $168,000” as well as full use of team facilities.

We didn’t know that Paterno, well aware of every sick allegation, wanted Sandusky in 1999 to stay as “Volunteer Position Director–Positive Action for Youth.”

We didn’t know that Sandusky had the gall to ask the school to open, in his name, a football camp for middle school boys.

And most criminally, we didn’t know, according to Freeh, that in 2001 Schultz and Curley agreed to go to authorities but changed their mind after Curley discussed their plan with Paterno. At one point, Spanier said that if Sandusky quietly sought help, they’d turn a blind eye.

As Freeh commented, “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims. The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”

He also accuses Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno of “opting out” of complying with the Cleary Act, the federal law that mandates colleges report crime. That criminal accusation in plain black and white will become a staple of lawsuits for years if not decades.One Penn State alum tweeted this morning, “If you want to take a picture with a Joe Paterno statue, you had better do it now.”
But the report is also striking for what it doesn’t discuss, mainly the role of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett. Louis Freeh is someone who has always been a proud lieutenant of institutional power, and with this report he doesn’t disappoint. As I wrote after the Sandusky verdict,

The Governor is far from an innocent bystander. As the state’s attorney general in 2009, Corbett headed a state investigation into accusations against the revered former coach. Although his office denies it, there are multiple confirmations that Corbett assigned no one from his office to follow up on the charges: just one state trooper, a state trooper “not authorized to bring charges against Sandusky.” In addition, when Corbett was sworn in as governor in 2011, he still had not informed Thae Second Mile Foundation that their founder was under investigation. Instead, as a candidate for governor, he took $650,000 in donations from members of the Second Mile’s unknowing board, even allowing their chairman to hold a fundraiser for his campaign. Upon being elected, Corbett then moved deftly from doing nothing to immediately try to deflect the entire weight of the scandal onto Joe Paterno and Penn State itself, using his recently appointed position as a member of the school’s Board of Trustees (an automatic appointment for all Pennsylvania Governors) to do so.

As bracing as the Freeh report is, it confirms what we long suspected and Penn State will pay the price. But it’s also bracing that the dead and the indicted get the blame, while the sitting governor gets to have press conferences and praise Freeh for his efforts. I hope that Sandusky’s victims leave room in their deserved litigious appetites for Governor Corbett. We should all hope he has to answer for the banality of his own evil. If that’s difficult for Corbett to handle, maybe he should take the advice he gave to women upset about his support for mandatory vaginal ultrasounds and he can just lie back and “close his eyes.”

Dave Zirin is the author of "What's My Name Fool? Sports and Resistance in the United States." Read more of his work at Edgeofsports.com.