A friend of mine recently asked me if Joe Paterno suffers in the waste of moral decay. My initial response was that what Paterno actually suffered was a momentary lapse of reason. Then the day went on, I read a little more, and discovered that Paterno's lapse lasted nearly a decade. Lapses of any sort, by definition, are just that: an ephemeral rupture in the ordinary functions of the machine. Paterno's failure to pursue the Sandusky affair beyond the realm of campus police and university administration is less of a rupture than an open wound into which will rot, for better or worse, what good the man achieved in more than a half-century of work for the Nittany Lions.
Rather than decry the outrageous and wholly predictable cover-up by Penn State University, whose cost on the lives of young people associated with Sandusky is not yet known, students rallied to oppose the university's decision to bluntly end Paterno's career. Although understandable, their response was largely a result of reflexive emotion, and for that reason, misled. While it's absurd to believe that students involved in the impassioned and at-times violent defense of their beloved Joepa would condone Sandusky's alleged offenses, equally absurd is their inability to recognize and act upon the implications offered by the bigger picture: namely, that Penn State University values its image over legal accountability and ethical responsibility. Of course, Penn State's not the only university guilty of covering up or disregarding crimes that potentially tarnish its reputation, but the magnitude of its scandal offers us a unique glimpse into how far universities nationwide will go to protect their image and guard no matter the cost the inflow of cash. On the other hand, the student response at PSU exemplifies how morally topsy-turvy we can become when lacking the critical literacy necessary to distinguish emotion from reason.
Chris Hedges, former NY Times war correspondent and truthdig.com columnist, argues that one consequence of late-capitalism and consumer culture is how reliably we confuse our emotions for knowledge. This confusion is in my view an equalizer of sorts, reducing the manner in which we elect a president to the level of buying a pair of sneakers. "They look nice, I'll buy them;" "He looks nice, I'll elect him." Paterno's fans mistook their support for Joepa as a legitimate pursuit of justice. Likewise, in light of the sexual harassment allegations leveled against him, Herman Cain's supporters, presumably speaking in the name of justice, condemned the accusers as cheap opportunists enraptured by the glitter of fame and the monetary dividends that follow political scandal.
The last two week's haven't been as tasty to the Pizzaman as his pies are to his customers. Fortunately for him, his base's minds have been collectively warped by years of bloated reportage on their sue-happy, earn-a-quick-buck compatriots. Between hot-coffee spills at McDonald's (see last year's documentary on the issue, titled Hot Coffee), Anita Hill, and a decade long push for "Tort Reform" that falsely correlates the rising costs of healthcare with medical malpractice suits, Cain's supporters doggedly refuse to see yet another corporation 'injured' and 'great man' toppled by the unfounded claims of self-described victims. Instead of pausing to reflect on the merits the accusers bring to Cain's alleged sexual harassment, they neither pause nor reflect, dismissing in full the probability that Cain's yet another wealthy and powerful good-ole-boy piece of pig-headed-penis-minded-misogynist shit.
For many months, and under the leadership and expertise of environmental giants like Bill McKibben and NOAA climate scientist Jim Hanson, environmental activists have fought the Obama Administration/ State Department's approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, TransCanada's project to install a 1,702 mile oil sands pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to refineries along the Gulf Coast. The project presents a major threat to our environment. By its very nature, the mining and processing of tar sands is filthy business. McKibben has described it as a "carbon bomb," with Hansen chiming in the potential to push a human-friendly planet over the edge of livable cordiality and etiquette. The stakes for human beings couldn't be higher, and therefore activist groups kicked their campaign to defeat the project into high gear last August when they began marching on Washington D.C.
Their efforts did not go unnoticed. Last week, State Department officials announced that they will delay their decision on the 7 billion dollar pipeline until after the upcoming presidential election, a decision that has environmentalists claiming victory. Articles have begun appearing on progressive websites with titles such as "Activist Leaders Explain How They Beat the Keystone XL Pipeline" (http://www.truth-out.org/activist-leaders-explain-how-they-beat-keystone-xl-pipeline/1321118935). It appears that environmentalists are just plain giddy. Their hope in the possibility of change inspired by the spirit of the commons has been partially restored. The delay, coupled with Bank of America's cancelation of its plan to charge a monthly debit card fee, seem on the surface indications of the power of protest to affect change.
In a sense, both Occupy Wall Street and the environmental activists have very real cause for celebration, if only because the two decisions suggest that the people, in these cases anyway, were heard. But if History is any measure of things to come, Bank of America will find new ways of making up for the potential losses it sustained by rescinding its debit card fee, and the corporations behind the Keystone XL pipeline most certainly will not go gently into that good night. By deferring its decision on the pipeline until after the elections, Obama can reclaim parts of his original base that made his first campaign so vibrantly effective. And you'd be wise to remember Obama's strained past when it comes to living up to the hopes he instills in his base.
So my question is what is there to get so excited about? If Obama goes down to Romney, the project will move forward. If Obama wins, it will be a victory predicated in large part on the contributions of the very corporations that have massive financial interest in the pipeline and will rightfully expect a return on their investment in the incumbent. In other words, what we have here is a clear case on the administration's part of bait and switch, and I can't for the life of me figure out how certain environmental activists are falling for it. Unless, that is, we chalk their cries of victory up to pure, reckless emotion.
It's a natural response to be moved by the gut, but giving into the grumblings is a recipe for dysentery. Just remember the post-9/11 years.
No comments:
Post a Comment