Speak Out: The tradegy at Penn State

Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 11:25 AM:

One of the largest criminal cover ups in modern day history is unfolding at Penn State. Penn State takes in 116 Million Dollars annually in total revenue and of that 72 million is brought in my the football program. What has happen at Penn State just goes to show you that the sports programs has actually superceded the school itself and what it stands for. Basically greed created this massive criminal cover up greed on behalf of the school officials, local prosecutor, coaches. Football was more important and let's just sweep it under the rug and everybody keep quite so we can keep the embarrassement down. This goes on everyday with our colleges and public schools throughout this country where the greed comes in to play. Be interesting to see how much the weak knee NCAA knew about this and took no action because you see they are greedy also. It is time to clean the swamp out with these sporting programs on these campuses and get the corruption out of here they got to big and the money consumed them. Right here explains why we are ranked 26th in the world in education. These young victims of this monster assistant coach lives will be affected forever. This guy needs the maximum sentence and he should have never been let out on $100,000.00 dollar signature bond he should be locked up he is a danger to society. I hope they get to the bottom of this and people are sent to jail for what has happen here.

Replies (364)

  • Swamp, I've never seen any educational reason to have big sports programs. Some may argue that monies generated by sports bolsters the financial resources for education.

    As far as trying the accused in public forums with consenus of guilt and punishment, I don't see any reason in that either.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 11:34 AM
  • Old John: The public needs to get involved look at all of the years of cover up here and this guy is still allowed to walk the streets, these are serious crimes here many young kids lives are affected. There is no doubt people will go to jail and they should this thing is to big and has been allowed to go on for years because some choose to cover it up.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 11:38 AM
  • I thought of one thing recently as this has developed. On another thread we discussed what constituted leaveing the scene and the lawful requirements of reporting a crime or wrongdoing. Looks like we'll know more about that due to this.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 11:45 AM
  • Rick: The education programs in this country have been going down for years. I feel we concretrate more on sports than we do the actual education of our kids you see it every day just look at coporate america pouring billions in to the national college sports programs, we would really be ranked high if they would pour that much money in to the actual education of our children. As far as the ranking of our educational programs world wide those ranking have been on every news network for the past week, including Fox news.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 12:15 PM
  • Rick: You hit the nail right on the head. To much federal government intervention such as the Department of Education which really serves no purpose. Bob Dole once said this Department needed to be elimnated because it serves no purpose. The control should lie in the hands of the States and local school districts.

    Rick, I did some research and the firm that came out with these stats was "Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development". The rank for the U.S. is actually 18th out of 36 nations and not the 26 as reported by all news outlets this past week.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 12:33 PM
  • Old John: The public needs to get involved look at all of the years of cover up here and this guy is still allowed to walk the streets, these are serious crimes here many young kids lives are affected.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 11:38 AM

    Also they need to follow up on the catholic priests instead of letting the church bail them out.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 10:59 PM
  • Being pompous at times the coaches wrongly believed they could be above laws and be forgiven if caught. No one is so important that conditions like this could happen and be no consequences.

    I feel bad about the innocent young victims. This is tragic.

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 6:38 AM
  • Folks: This whole cover up is about the almightly dollar (72 million dollars football) which apparently in there minds were more important than those children. They intended to sweep this under the rug or they would have brought it to the attention of the proper law enforcement authority when it first surfaced and the prosector from the prior incidents would have done his job and locked this monster up, but he didn't.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 7:13 AM
  • I asked about this over in another thread, but I guess no one wanted to answer the tough questions.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 9:53 AM
  • Rick**

    I added it as an addendum to the 'Beating' thread, becuase I thought the discussion regarding the reporting requirement tied in nicely with a portion of that discussion. My question regarded the randomness with which we apply the requirements of Misprision of a Felony (the requirement that a person observing a felony report it to lawful authority). When it involves sex with minors, it becomes a 'moral imperative' and failure to report becomes a 'coverup'. In other matters it seems only to garner a shrug of the shoulders. I am curious to understand where this moral obligation is written, so that I may understand it further. I find it entirely arbitrary.

    In the matter of Penn State, I see two people at fault: Mr. Sandusky for perpetrating the offenses, and Mr. McQueary for observing the offense and not lifting a finger to come to the aid of the child. The reports I've read say he waited until the next day to report it to Mr. Paterno. Now, it seems to me that such a delay would have logically led Mr. Paterno to believe that, whatever was observed, it was not so serious as to warrant follow-up to the reporting. After all, the man who witnessed it went home and went to sleep, only reporting it well after the fact, did he not.

    Is it a cover-up, or a miscommunication? Are all the firings and resignations justified, or is it a witch-hunt? Are they seriously seeking 'justice', or just looking for a high-level scapegoat so they can appease the bloodlust of the mob?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 11:12 AM
  • Me thinks Shapley should be banned from any contact with minor. Takes a sick dude to justifies beatings and child molestation.

    -- Posted by hello7777 on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 11:33 AM
  • I've neither justified beatings nor child molestation. I've questioned the logic of taking the punishment beyond the actual offenders.

    As is typical of the 'left', fair 71 attempts to deflect fair and reasonable discussion by making unreasonable suggestions regarding the person with whom they are tryingn to avoid debate. Can we not stick to the issue instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 12:04 PM
  • In this case it was not 'suspected', he was reportedly punishing her for downloading music from a pirate website.

    18 U.S.C. § 4:

    "Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 4, 2011, at 1:52 PM

    rules apply only when Shap wishs them to

    -- Posted by ziggie on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 1:08 PM
  • Here we go the left and right fad enters the picture once again which has nothing to do with the crimes that have been committed upon these children. I wish people for once would get this liberal and conservative crap out of there heads and concentrate as a citizen of this country on what went on here serious violations of the law of the land. This was nothing but a criminal cover-up to protect the almightly 72 million dollars coming in for the football program.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 1:43 PM
  • Spaniard: I agree, you should read the indictment which is available to the public, unbeleivable something like this went on for so many years and it was kept quite internally they all knew about this guy the board of trustees, AD, coaches, prosecutor, police and still allowed to come on the school property they all knew what he was doing and what he was capable of they turned a deaf ear because of dam greed.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 4:18 PM
  • On another thread we discussed what constituted leaveing the scene and the lawful requirements of reporting a crime or wrongdoing. Looks like we'll know more about that due to this.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Nov 12, 2011, at 11:45 AM

    Here that scenario is in the media so Shapley comments only to be ridiculed.

    Maybe we won't learn more about that on this thread.

    imaged, What rules?

    Theorist, Who is they and where were they left?

    Spaniard, I agree.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 4:40 PM
  • hit a few nerves eh?

    -- Posted by hello7777 on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 4:50 PM
  • He had to go.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 5:12 PM
  • "Wow Shap, you must be omniscient. Where did Fair 71 say they were "left"?"

    I did not say that Fair71 is on the 'left', I said the tactic was typical of the 'left'.

    Spaniard,

    No, Joe Paterno was not the "most powerful man at Penn State". When he was notified of the incident that was witnessed by Mr. McQueary, he reported it to his superiors. That he had superiors indicates that there were more powerful people than him.

    By the accounts I've read, Mr. Paterno did the right thing, and is being punished for not doing enough of the right thing. He reported to his superiors that which was reported to him (although some accounts indicate he may have altered the description of events to be somewhat more vague, though I have not seen confirnation of that).

    I have said elsewhere that Penn State has the authority to fire him as they see fit (also indicating that he is not the most powerful person there), and they are within their rights in doing so. My questions regarded the reasoning that led to this.

    ______________

    "-- Posted by imaged on Sun, Nov 13, 2011, at 1:08 PM "

    I asked the question. Apparently no one thought the rule should have applied in the case of the illegal downloads (which is a federal crime, and the USC Code applies to federal crimes), but a lot of people think it should be applicable in this case (which is a State issue, and I have no idea if Pennsylvania has a law concerning the Misprision of a Felony).

    I clearly stated that both the perpetrator (Mr. Sandusky) and the person who actually had first-hand knowledge of the action (Mr. McQueary) should be held accountable. My question concerns the issue of how far up the chain this goes, and what determines such culpability.

    Mr. McQueary saw the incident, and did not intervene to stop it. He did not report it to the law, but waited until the next day to report it to Mr. Paterno. Mr. Paterno, in turn, reported it to his superiors. That much is known.

    Now, in retrospect, it seems to me that Mr. Paterno should have taken Mr. McQueary with him when he went to report it to his superiors, so he could relate exactly what was seen (Mr. Paterno's knowledge being only hearsay). But, his superiors had the capability of calling both Mr. McQueary and Mr. Sandusky into the office to hear from them without Mr. Paterno's involvement, and he likely had no reason to believe they didn't or wouldn't.

    My question concerns how it is that Mr. Paterno incurred an obligation to do more than report the information that was reported to him, and how he incurred that obligation. It seems to me that some on here don't know the answer, so they want to tarnish me for asking it.

    It's not even a question about the rightness or wrongness of molestation or beating, I've never questioned that (although I questioned whether the 'whoopin' in the video rose to the level of a 'beating'). It's about moral and legal obligations and how they are incurred.

    All of the news reports and editorials I've read say that Mr. Paterno met his legal obligation when he reported it to his superiors. Many, however, seem to think he had a 'moral obligation' that rose above that. I have questioned wherefrom that obligation is codified. Does anyone care to anwer that?

    I don't know how I can make this any more clear but, here is a simple synopsis of who I think is culpable, and of what:

    Mr. Sandusky - guilty of molestation (based on the evidence - though he has not been tried as of yet)

    Mr. McQueary - probably guilty of misprision, or whatever form of it the State of Pennsylvania carries, for not reporting in a timely manner. Also guilty of moral weakness for observing the abuse of a defenseless child and failing to intervene on the spot. He could have, at the least, stopped the act, even though it may have cost him his job.

    Mr. Paterno - appears to have met his legal and (by my thinking - moral) obligation by reporting it to his superiors

    Mr. Spanier (fired Penn State President) probably guilty of failing to follow through on the reported incident. I do not know at this time how many other incidents were reported to him through other channels, but his obligation (as Spaniard noted) as senior man at the University was to follow through on the report and determine if a criminal act was committed.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 8:14 AM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "Who is trying to shift the discussion here? I think Fair 71 pointed out how your posts are painting your personality, and methinks you didn't like it."

    What does my personality have to do with the discussion? It's a question on legal and moral obligations, and the codifying of such obligations. In a nation in which we hear so often that we are not supposed to 'impose our morality on others', I'm curious how it is that we interpret and impose these 'moral obligations'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 8:28 AM
  • Theorist:

    "If you were told what happened as was witnessed, what would you do?"

    Didn't I answer that? I would probably have done the same as Mr. Paterno and reported it up the chain. Whether or not I followed up would probably depend on a lot of factors - the nature of the incident as reported, my assessment of the character of the person involved, the person reporting, and whether or not I trusted my superiors to pursue it thoroughly.

    "What do you think the correct thing to do was?"

    I've also answered that. Mr. Sandusky should not have done the act. Given his failure, Mr. McQueary should have intervened when he saw the act in progress.

    "Are you satisfied with the way it was handled?"

    No.

    "If so, quit dancing and say so."

    I did. If you and/or Fair71 can't read that, it is your failing, not mine.

    "...heads should roll".

    That's where you lose me. Why should heads, other than the two I've mentioned, roll? What is the criteria, either by pay scale or general duties, that determines where the buck stops? More than a handful have mentioned the amount of money paid to the Penn State President and to Mr. Paterno. Is this another of those 'punish the rich' things? I find the fact that money is mentioned so often to be telling. It leads me to believe that it's not about justice, but about envy.

    There is one person that seems to be clearly guilty of molestation. That is to whom the anger should be directed. There is another that appears to be guilty of failing to intervene. He deserves some share of wrath. Then, there is the failure of the very top to act. If it is as it appears, he should also be held accountable. However, to punish every middleman who did his legal duty simply because there is a desire to see blood is wrong.

    I am not sure if Mr. Paterno reported it directly to Mr. Spanier, or whether there were other 'middle-men' involved. Was anyone else on hand when it was reported? What of them? What determines whose head 'rolls' and whose does not?

    I've asked a very clear question, and you answer with more questions. Fair71 answers by impugning my character. Yet, you accuse me of dancing. Are you afraid to answer the question?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 9:22 AM
  • Rick**

    The question involved the response to the actions of the child, not the response to the beating.

    The father had evidence of his daughter engaging in criminal activity. He opted to give her a 'whoopin' instead of reporting the crime to police. Most likely, he deleted the illegal downloads, though that is not reported. If so, he covered up the crime. In that case, there seems to be no outrage, either against the girl for breaking the law or against her father for failing to report the crime.

    In the other instance, we have a crime witnessed by a third party, who reported it to his senior who, in turn, reported to it to his. Along the line, no one reported it to police, and that is where the bulk of the outrage is directed. The question to me regards where the onus lies. Does Mr. McQueary have the ability to pass on his own responsibility, or to expand it, by telling others? If he told his wife, some guys in the bar, and the janitor what he saw, do they also incur an obligation to report it? What determines who and how a person incurs the obligation?

    The Church is mentioned often in this discussion, and I mentioned a while back the sanctity of the confessional. It strikes me that, if you go the Church to report a problem, you are looking for a Church solution. If you go to a parent to report the actions of a child, you are looking for parental intervention, and if you go to an adminstrator to report an issue, you are looking for an administrative response.

    If you want to report a crime as a crime, you are supposed to report it to the police. Methinks the person with first-hand knowledge of such is the one to make such a report. I do not think that obligation is transferable, however. To the person receiving such information in a secondary or tertiary manner, the reporting requirement seems to be optional, based on their own judgement of the report and the reporter. Only the person with first-hand knowledge retains the obligation. The superior can, and should, encourage them to go to the police, but they cannot do their duty for them.

    That, at least, is my opinion of the matter.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 9:54 AM
  • From much of the coverage I have seen, Mr. Paterno reported what Mr. McQueary witnessed to his supperiors, including the head of the campus police.

    I would assume if I had been Mr. Paterno this would have been the right move to make as I would feel notifying the cheif law enforcemnet officer on campus would help get to the bottom of the situation.

    I believe if proven guilty the offender should suffer the harshest penalty. Anyone involved in a cover up should go down also. I personally would severely punish the so called man who witnessed this attack and did nothing to immediately intervine.

    That being said, maybe there is more to all this than we are being told. Maybe Mr. Paterno knew more than we are led to believe. Maybe the board fired their most high profile employee in this scandal to save their own skin. Whatever the reason, that is the boards decision to make and their right to do so.

    -- Posted by Joe Dirte on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 10:25 AM
  • Greed, corruption, and a sex scandal with a cover up operation in a public institution financed and controlled but the goverment? Oh my! Say it ain't so!

    -- Posted by jadip4me on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 10:42 AM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "This debate is irrelevant. The Board fired him. I happen to agree the board."

    No. The board acted, but they did not settle the debate. The question regards how 'moral responsibility' is determined, and the board did not address that. They merely responded to a popular outcry.

    Unless, of course, that is your response to the question: 'Moral Responsibility' is determined by mob action - if the mob wants blood then there must be blood'. True Democracy at work. What actions we take must be based on how we think the mob will respond if they hear of it. Not a very good basis for morality but, if you're comfortable with it, I'll accept that as your answer.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 11:14 AM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "I would have expected him to be outraged."

    Not everyone has the same level of outrage, nor finds the same things to be outrageous.

    "I am disappointed that he didn't do more to investigate and/or protect the kids."

    I am not aware that investigating was part of his duties. I'm not sure what responsibility he has to protect the kids since, being a college-level coach, I'm not sure how much contact he has with them. Mr. Sandusky enacted some sort of youth-sports camp, but I do not know if Mr. Paterno had any involvement with it.

    "I wonder why some are so flippant about this entire affair."

    I don't think I've seen anyone on this board being flippant about it. But, as I said, some peoples' outrage levels may different from your own.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 12:18 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "I would think this would weigh very heavy on Paterno's shoulders, and I would think it would be unbearable to support."

    I kind of felt that way about John Kerry's admission that he had committed atrocities in Vietnam. And yet, many felt that he was qualified to lead our nation. Again, I find our approach to morality, responsibility, and outrage to be inconsistent.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 12:23 PM
  • Spaniard, What does Rust Limbaugh say about all this?

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 12:23 PM
  • Oh now the Democwats want to stick their nose into the NCCA. Like those people don't have enough serious issues to deal with with our country going downhill (because of their action)they want to be involved in this.

    http://thehill.com/video/house/193401-house-democrat-slams-ncaa-over-penn-state-...

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 12:48 PM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "This scandal is not going to redefine morality for the nation by leaving such determinations to the mob."

    I haven't suggested that it will. Quite the contrary, I have asked how morality has defined the nature of this scandal.

    "Give it a rest."

    No one wants to answer my question, and now you insist that I stop asking it. That is curious.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 1:02 PM
  • The break-down was with the original witness to the crime, Mr. McQueary. Sometimes it's not easy, but scarey, to do the right thing.

    But when he saw what was happening, he should have taken immediate steps. Literally, call 911 and step-in and take the child from the situation. The assault would've been in the hands of the authorities; the coach/president would never have had to deal w/ the dilemma.

    But for McQueary's poor judgement & lack of action, more lives have been unnecessarily ruined.

    -- Posted by commonsenz on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 1:06 PM
  • coach/educate and protect" Is that some kind of oxycleanmoron?

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 1:24 PM
  • Not all of the facts are known yet. But I'll say this much about some of the posts here.

    At any large organization I've worked at there are policies and procedures that must be followed. Just because I'm a manager doesn't mean the company wants me to deal with sexual harassment in my department. I have a responsibility to report it but I don't deal with it (assuming I'm not the one being accused). Usually HR steps in and follows company policy. I MUST report it, but I'm neither trained/allowed to deal with it. What, IF, all of the accusations against Sandberg were false and Paterno stepped in, berated him, accused him, called the police - all outside the University policies?

    It's easy to second-guess but we'll have to wait for the final report. The firing, IMO, appears to be premature IF Paterno followed Penn State policy and reported it to the proper University officials. An NCAA coach - even a good one - is not a divorce counselor, sexual harrasment expert or child sexual abuse expert. He is also not a judge.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 1:29 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "Why are you trying to make this a political thing, Shap? Why are you trying to shift the emphasis and bring in something about someone who is not connected at all?"

    It is all connected. My question, which no one seems to want to address, concerns the 'moral responsibility'. If such a responsibility exists, there has to be some sort of standard which determines it. From my viewpoint, it appears to be entirely random - subject only to the fickle nature of the mob. If the mob wants blood, we have to give them blood. If the mob yawns, we let nature run its course.

    The mob wanted blood after the Rodney King beating verdict, so we we gave them a second trial. The mob wanted blood after the O.J. Simpson acquittal, so we gave them the civil suit. The mob wanted blood in this case, so Mr. Paterno's head had to be served them on a platter. Never mind legal proceedures, those were met but did not satisfy. What the mob wants, the mob gets. Panem et circenses.

    ____________

    "Part of his duties? Really? He was hired to coach/educate and protect the welfare of students. I think this qualifies...."

    http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/college/penn-state-scandal-timeline-sex-abuse-...

    According to this timeline, Mr. Sandusky was retired at the time of the incident. It also notes that Mr. Sandusky brough 'Victim 1' to a game although he had been barred from bringing boys to Penn State activities following the 2002 incident (that would be the one that was witnessed by McQueary, according to the timeline).

    Now, if such a prohibition was put in place as a result of the incident, then it seems that Mr. Paterno's superiors must have acted in some manner against Mr. Sandusky.

    Nor do I find any reference to Mr. Paterno being involved with the Second Mile project, Mr. Sandusky's charity which put him in contact with the victims.

    http://www.thesecondmile.org/welcome.php

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 2:36 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "I am starting to agree with fair71"

    Why does that not surprise me?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 2:53 PM
  • Uh oh, could Theo be classified as a "fair71" worshipper?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 3:12 PM
  • Dug; Any time a citizen has reason to believe or knowledge that a crime has been committed he is obligated as a citizen to report the alledged crime. These crimes were at a very serious nature and as a citizen I would have picked up the phone and called the criminal division at the law enforcement agency within the venue where the crime/crimes had took place and met with detectives and disclosed what I knew, regardless what H/R says half the time that goes in one ear and out the other with the H/R people.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 4:21 PM
  • I'm jumping on the fair71 bandwagon. Gots to wonder about those who take the side of blatant pedifiles, child abusers and those who look the other way while these horrific crimes take place. Sick.

    -- Posted by ziggie on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 4:30 PM
  • imaged wrote:

    "Gots to wonder about those who take the side of blatant pedifiles, child abusers and those who look the other way while these horrific crimes take place."

    No one on here has done that. Methinks you're having trouble with your reading comprehension.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 4:47 PM
  • And my question remains unanswered...

    Are none of those who hide behind pen-names and sock puppets brave enough to try to answer it?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 4:50 PM
  • swamp - agreed. What, exactly, did Paterno know at the time? Who, exactly, did he contact? What, exactly, was he told when he contacted them?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 5:10 PM
  • Theorist - who is defending these men? Another liberal "straw man"? Are you defending them? Makes about as much sense as your post.

    This, Rick, is why Theorist is not someone I can agree with or "cherish" dearly. She is a far-left liberal that will get personal and toss her "sweet" cuts at people who disagree politically yet let liberals have a pass. For her, it IS all political.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 7:33 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "We can discuss that if you like, but a moral issue is not the question here, and I think you could start a new thread if it is bothering you.

    This is/was an unlawful act, harmful, sick and witnessed!

    Why would Shap think it boils down to morality?"

    Why? Because Mr. Paterno met his legal responsibility, so the only 'charges' against him involve his 'moral obligation' to do more than the law required.

    What, exactly, do you think was Mr. Paterno's offense? Why was he fired? Certainly not for any legal offense. It is all an issue of morality.

    Have you not followed any of this discussion?

    "I am really wondering why you are defending these men?"

    Who have I defended? I've asked questions regarding the actions taken against Mr. Paterno. I very clearly stated that I consider the charges against the others to be valid. No one here has yet to explain why Mr. Paterno had to be terminated, except to (correctly) say that the University had the right to do so.

    You have danced all around the issue. I answered your questions, yet you avoid mine.

    _________

    Spaniard wrote:

    "When there isn't, we (individuals, corporations, public universities) are free to make their own decisions. We aren't required to agree to those decisions.

    There is the answer to your "question."

    Apparently, we are. Mr. Paterno was fired for failing to fulfil a 'moral obligation', since he met the legal one. The University has decided, ex post facto, that this violation is a terminable one.

    But, I accept your answer, which is that it is entirely arbitrary.

    _________

    Rick wrote:

    "Going to a confessional does not absolve a person of these actions . It may relieve their guilty contience , but not their ugly actions."

    I think you misunderstand the concept of the sanctity of the confessional. Confessions do not absolve the sinner of responsibility for the crime, and I have not suggested that it does. However, the sanctity of the confessional prevents a priest from revealing what is conveyed to him there. In that regard, it is not unlike a lawyers protection of 'client confidientiality' or a reporters right to 'protect his sources'. It is at least as ancient as the lawyer's confidentiality privilege, and predates the reporter's right (since the idea of a 'free press' is relatively young).

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 8:29 PM
  • This is my opinion.

    -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 9:15 PM

    And, in my opinion, if Paterno went directly to the police on an allegation that later proved to be false he would have been fired for doing so - without alerting the proper AUTHORITIES at the university first. Paterno witnessed nothing - comprende?

    Send the pervert, if guilty, to jail for a long time. How many of you had the Duke lacrosse players guilty before innocent? All fabricated. Heard of Tawana Brawley? Google it.

    This second guessing, monday morning quarterbacking is interesting.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 10:15 PM
  • Shapley, Your answer may be more or less blowing in the media winds of public opinion and public response to media reporting. Morality and legality takes a back seat to public scrutiny in the firing decision. The lawyers can sort it all out later, but let's first show the public we care. Kind of an early save face gesture on part of the organization designed to distance themselves from the accused as soon as possible.

    I hope this makes sense when I go back and read it tomorrow.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Nov 14, 2011, at 11:15 PM
  • Well, we all seem to have our roles to play in this little passion play.

    Spaniard, for his part, accepts that he has no power save that which is given those with authority. He is content to accept the decision of others as final. He washes his hands, glad that he does not have to concern himself. If he bothers to ask "What is Truth?", he does not expect an answer.

    The mob clamours to "Crucify him", even though we can find no cause with him. The elders have handed him over to the mob. Wherein does the greater sin lie?

    Like good little soldiers, Theorist and Fair71 have decided to saddle me with Mr. Paterno's cross. My sin, of course, is that I have not joined the mob in chanting to have him crucified. For that I, too, must bear the burden, in their eyes.

    If I must play the part of Simon, so be it. I shall not call injustice 'grace', nor bloodlust 'justice'.

    Mr. Paterno, it seems, must be crucified for the sins of others. The bloodlust of the mob must be satisfied and Mr. Paterno has been chosen for this sacrifice. He carries the sins of Penn State, it is apparently hoped. By nailing him up, they seek to be cleansed. Methinks that isn't likely to happen.

    Somewhere, from yon distant hill, I hear a faint voice saying "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." I've asked what they do, and why they do it. I've asked what cause they find with this man, but they answer not. Their eyes are closed and their ears are stopped. There truly are none so blind as those who will not see, none so deaf as those who will not hear.

    Methinks this Passion Play has been performed over and over for the past two-score centuries. It will likely be performed again and again before this World finally crumbles into dust.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 9:00 AM
  • Rick**

    "I guess Joe got the boot for being involved in the situation . Kind of like bank robbers , a couple go in to rob the bank , a couple wait outside in the get away car .

    "Things go bad in the bank , a security officer gets shot before the two robbers run out to the get away car and flee .

    "The people in the get away car will be determined to be just as guilty as the couple who went into the bank .

    "This is what happened to Joe . He was in the get away car . His story/alibi was weak , so he was let go ."

    I don't agree. The getaway car couple would be expected to know of the intent to rob the bank, and thus were complicit in the act. They are, to the extent that they provided transport and likely expected reward for their involvement, partners in the crime, though they did not take place in the actual performance thereof. This does not appear to be the case with Mr. Paterno.

    But, yes, your summation of my post is accurate. Mr. Paterno is a scapegoat - cast into the wilderness to carry away the sins of others.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 9:41 AM
  • I agree: The president & Mr. Paterno are scapegoats - cast into the wilderness to carry away the sins of others.

    Besides the obvious acts of the abuser; the real disservice (crime?) was committed by the actual witness: Mr. McQueary, for failing to take immediate actions to rescue a child from danger...hence, enabling the future abuse of many other trusting children.

    If McQueary's moral standard had been higher, there would've only been one firing, with hopefully legal action then taken.

    No doubt, it's shameful all those aware of the alleged, rumored situation had an obligation to come forward. However, McQueary was an actual eyewitness, his knowledge negated 'alleged & rumored'....his was fact....the buck should've stopped with him.

    -- Posted by commonsenz on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 10:33 AM
  • Just curious, but is there anyone who really believes there is the possibility that nothing went wrong at Penn State and that no children were molested?

    -- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 10:49 AM
  • Acronym,

    No. I think the evidence against Mr. Sandusky looks pretty solid, though legally he is innocent unless proven guilty. He apparently admitted to the mother of one of the victims his guilt, and pleaded for her mercy. That was back in the '90s, I believe.

    You should review the timeline link I posted. It lays out the sequence of events rather well, I think, though it short on details. I'm not talking about 'graphic' details - I'm referring to such things as the response to the 2002 report. It notes that he was forbidden after that event from bringing children to Penn State activities, but makes no mention of any meeting, hearing, or decision that would have resulted in that prohibition.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 10:58 AM
  • http://news.yahoo.com/penn-state-sponsors-anxiously-watch-events-unfold-universi...

    Hard time understanding how anyone could stand by and watch this sort of crime be covered up. Legal or not, how do these people sleep at night?

    Public perception, meeting public demand is what makes the free-world go around. This is about keeping sponsors happy aka selling their product in the market place

    -- Posted by contagious on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:25 AM
  • Spaniard wrote:

    "In this instance, I agree with their decision. Perhaps you do not."

    I've always said they have that authority, and I do not challenge it. My question all along has been about the bigger picture - the 'moral obligation' that led to that decision, how and where it exists. You appear to be unconcerned about such things, which is also your right. You are comfortable with the decision, and do not care about the underlying principles that may or may not have affected it. Mr. Paterno's guilt or innocense notwithstanding, higher authority decided to let him go, end of story. You wash your hands of it.

    Mine is a philosophical question, it began on the 'beating' thread and flowed over to this one. Yourself, like Theorist, Fair71, and (apparently) Imaged, are focused on the trees rather than the forest. I am less concerned with Mr. Paterno's exit, having barely heard of him before this broke in the news, than with the random application of 'moral responsibility'.

    We are, in essence, attempting to establish a societal standard of outrage. Those who are not sufficiently outraged by things that are deemed so worthy are thus guilty of some unspecified infraction, and must be punished. Hence, Fair71's claim that I should be isolated because I refuse to share in this communal outrage, and will not join the mob in demanding a scapegoat to absolve of us some sort of societal sin.

    I've always held the view that those who perpetrate sinful acts are alone responsible for them. Those who are in a position to act against them have an obligation to do so, but those who have no firsthand knowledge thereof do not incur guilt by virtue of association. Mr. Sandusky has apparently acted wrongfully. However, to say that Mr. Paterno is guilty because he knows Mr. Sandusky, or that I am guilty because I question Mr. Paterno's guilt, is fallacious.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:30 AM
  • Shapley Hunter fighting for the rights of an employee over those of the employer?!?! Is today opposite day?

    Better watch it there Shap, you're starting to sound like one of those 99 percenters. You may loose your key to the conservative washroom.

    -- Posted by DADES on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:39 AM
  • "We are, in essence, attempting to establish a societal standard of outrage. Those who are not sufficiently outraged by things that are deemed so worthy are thus guilty of some unspecified infraction, and must be punished."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:30 AM

    Exactly.

    And that is why I brought up the Duke lacrosse team. An accuser comes forward with believable *accusations* and before you can vet it out an entire team season is cancelled, the kids reputations are destroyed and the media moves on satisfied that "media justice" has been done. Duke made a huge mistake with "media justice" - add water and stir and maybe we'll look good.

    Then we find out it was all a lie by the supposed victim. No one has said these kids are lying or that the Penn state coach is innocent. The point, missed by many, is that knee-jerk firings and actions are pushed by the mob. Do they have a right to fire him? Sure, they could have done that 100 times in his football career. Could the #1 ranked Duke lacrosse team get it's season cancelled by Duke? Sure, anytime they feel like it. But both, based on 1 week of public scrutiny (versus a trial or investigation) is an injustice.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:53 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 10:58 AM

    Thanks for the information. It seems I am less "certain" about what should be done, the more I know.

    -- Posted by BCStoned on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 11:18 AM

    I have sat through too many trials to let my decision rest with any jury though from a purely legal standpoint that is the proper thing.

    I am afraid at this point I don't know enough to make a decision with which I would be comfortable a few weeks or even days from now.

    The postings are interesting overall.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:00 PM
  • Those who preach from their soapbox that it is none of the public's business what an entity pays a CEO, are now talking out the other side of the mouth and claiming they have a right to determine who an entity fire or hire? Do I understand correctly?

    -- Posted by contagious on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:01 PM
  • Do I understand correctly?

    -- Posted by iconoclastic on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:01 PM

    Not sure. Again, I don't think anyone is saying that Penn State can't fire Paterno. I think the opinions differ and some of the posters, like myself, think it was premature and (people hate this word!) stupid.

    The point you make - the "publics business" - is the publics business. But not the publics right to demand/legislate CEO pay any more than demand/legislate that Paterno be fired. We have a right to cuss/discuss CEO pay and Paterno. We have no right to set the pay or fire Paterno ourselves.

    What Penn State did was stupid and possibly an injustice - and that is just my opinion.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:06 PM
  • Spaniard,

    In this context, 'accept' means simply to endure without protest or reaction, or to regard as proper, normal, or inevitable. (Merriam-Webster definition 3a & b).

    The comment about power and authority is a reference to Jesus' remark to Pontius Pilate, consistent with my reference to this as a 'Passion Play'. Hence, the comment about the washing of the hands.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:09 PM
  • Dug, Can't have it both ways. It is the boards place to make those decisions, based on whatever reasons they deem fit. It is not your place to determine who gets to keep their job either.

    Funny how some contradict their stated values over and over. Not to mention the volume of ad nausium, sick, defense a few are sharing.

    -- Posted by contagious on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:15 PM
  • Why are you having such a difficult time Shap...and I got to admit, your position is troublesome.

    -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:05 PM

    If we could just possibly remove all the news and prejudice on this event, or series of events, to the day that Paterno was told by another person what he witnessed. Paterno reported that ALLEGATION to the proper authorities. If you've never been involved with criminal behavior at work and subsequent trials (I have - sorry, it wasn't *my* trial) then you may not understand that taking things into your own hands is not usually the best thing unless someone, right in front of your eyes, is being molested or assaulted. Paterno did not witness that.

    I could write a couple of paragraphs about the incident but I won't. Involving yourself *can* screw up an investigation or help the accused get off. If Paterno was told then didn't report it he should have been fired. I'm not seeing that from the facts in the public forum. Any any attempt to say that is troublesome is pure hype - or an attempt to personally discredit someone who disagrees with you. A pattern here?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:18 PM
  • Spaniard,

    For one who 1) stated that the debate was meaningless, and 2) supposedly answered by question, and whose answer I accepted, you certainly seem to keep jumping back into the fray.

    I will acknowledge that I am speculating as to the reasons for the termination. I do, indeed disagree with that decision if the reasons are as I suspect, but as to your third statement, I disagree wholeheartedly. The 'strawman' argument lies with those who've accused me of supporting pedophiles and child-beaters, and with Theorist's 'what if' scenarios involving the possible connections between Mr. Paterno and the children.

    For my part, I've misrepresented nothing. Speculation is not the same as misrepresentation, thus no 'strawman' of my creation exists.

    ______________

    Theorist wrote:

    " Why are you having such a difficult time Shap...and I got to admit, your position is troublesome."

    And what, exactly, do you define as my position? Mr. Paterno did not omit to report the actions. He did so.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:22 PM
  • -- Posted by iconoclastic on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:15 PM

    It is the boards place to make those decisions, based on whatever reasons they deem fit. It is not your place to determine who gets to keep their job either.

    Really? I thought I said I should have been consulted in my posts. I am so mad that Penn State didn't call me. That's about the most riduculous post (of many) I've seen on this thread. Never said it iconclastic. I'll pull a Theo here and speculate that you're an old poster renamed. These made up posts sound familiar.

    ========================================

    Funny how some contradict their stated values over and over. Not to mention the volume of ad nausium, sick, defense a few are sharing.

    You've definitely not contradicted your values as a liberal. Making stuff up. Your ad nausium, sick, defense of knee-jerk firings of people that committed no crime and followed procedure is disturbing. I hope you're never on a jury I'm involved with. Knee jerk, lack of evidence decisions are a mob/liberal trait.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:25 PM
  • I haven't seen anyone making the argument that anyone other than the Board of Trustees for Penn State had a right to fire Paterno.

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:12 PM

    It is not your place to determine who gets to keep their job either.

    -- Posted by iconoclastic on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:15 PM

    Ooops. Sorry Spaniard. You guys need to get your timing together.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:27 PM
  • Another strawman.

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:16 PM

    Hardly. Mr. Paterno has been charged with no crime. All accounts say he has followed the law. Many references to his actions, however, refer to his 'relationship' with Mr. Sandusky being responsible for his failure to pursue the claims further than simply reporting them up the chain (as he is legally required to do). Ergo, Mr. Paterno is being charged with guilt by association.

    Fair71 and Theorist have alluded to my own guilt by virtue of my questioning the position taken against Mr. Paterno. Ergo, I am being charged with guilt by association.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:31 PM
  • As to my speculation, it is consistent with the reportings of the press:

    http://www.stltoday.com/sports/college/penn-state-fires-paterno/article_d554a101...

    "But the outcry following the arrest of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky on molestation charges proved too much for the board to ignore."

    http://articles.philly.com/2011-11-14/news/30397820_1_paterno-and-university-pre...

    "Paterno drew some defense on Fox from former Penn State and Pittsburgh Steelers running back "Franco Harris, who served as an honorary member of Second Mile. Harris said the grand jury found that Paterno "cooperated fully with them."

    "And then, all of a sudden, something came out about a moral obligation, and everybody jumped on that," Harris told Fox. "I think it is unfair how people were treating Joe with this issue because Joe is a highly moral person and great moral character."

    ____________

    Clearly, the press seems to think it is a response to the mob.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:43 PM
  • Stoned: my apologies; I'd never heard that the perpetrator had been stopped @ the time. I misunderstood a report he'd gone home & 'slept on it overnight' before reporting what he'd seen. Thanks for the correction.

    -- Posted by commonsenz on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 12:58 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "Did you read the verse Shap?"

    I'm familiar with the verse. You are claiming, however, that he did nothing when he did what was required. To assume that he assumed what he did was wrong amounts to 'speculation' on your part. Spaniard will, no doubt correct you for doing that, since he finds speculation to be wrong.

    It does, however, provide an answer to my question from your view, and I thank you for that. I don't know why it took you so long.

    As I've said, I disagree that this impels him to do more than he did with the information he received.

    _________

    BCStoned wrote:

    "commonsenz, McQueary did stop Mr. Sandusky at the time."

    Where did you read this? None of the articles I've read thus far have stated that. I will admit I've read only excerpts of the official release, as they were carried in the press. I've not seen a link to the full manuscript posted.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 2:18 PM
  • BCStoned:

    Apparently, that information comes from an e-mail sent either by Mr. McQueary, or someone associated with him. It contradicts the Grand Jury Report (page 6-7):

    http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentme...

    which states that he was still in the locker room, when he realized that both Mr. Sandusky and the victim saw him. He does not report any intervention. Instead the report says that he left immediately, distraught.

    McQueary went to his office and called his father, who told him to come home. They decided that to report it to Mr. Paterno, and did so the next morning (again, according to the report).

    I'm not sure what to make of the e-mail, but it seems to contradict what was previously reported.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 2:28 PM
  • The report does say that the Second Mile programme was advised of the incident, although there seems to be some question as the nature of the report. The Second Mile programme was responsible for the welfare of the children involved, and was the charity with which Mr. Sandusky was operating at the time. Notifying them seemed to be the appropriate thing to do.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 2:35 PM
  • "Speaking for the board of trustees, vice-chairman John Suma said:

    "We thought that because of the difficulties that have engulfed our university...it was necessary for us to make a change in leadership and set a course for a new direction"."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:01 PM
  • Shap - how dare you post facts and comments from those involved. We prefer to deal with speculation and emotion. :-)

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:06 PM
  • This thread confirms Shapley Hunter is a Megla reincarnation aka sock puppet.

    -- Posted by ziggie on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:09 PM
  • Imaged,

    What does that mean? Who or what is Megla?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:11 PM
  • Megalomaniac and Sock Puppet were two different posters.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:22 PM
  • Methinks imaged doesn't understand what a 'sock puppet' is.

    If a regular poster, whose identity, occupation, or general viewpoints is known or suspected by them to be known, they sometimes create a 'sock puppet', or alter-ego, to post comments that might reflect poorly on themselves, or might be viewed as self-serving if they were posted by their regular identity.

    For instance, if a school teacher wanted to post a comment calling for increased pay for school teachers, those who knew them might expose the self-serving nature of the post. Therefore, they create an alter-ego to post that viewpoint.

    Sometimes they serve to create the straw-man argument. For example, if a poster thinks they have a dead-sure refutation for a particular viewpoint, but no one else wants to post that viewpoint exactly the way it needs to be stated for the refutation, they may create a sock-puppet to state what they want to refute, so they can do so.

    A sock puppet is different from a reincarnation, in that exists simultaneously with the poster's regular identity.

    But, for the record, I am not a reincarnation of anyone on this board, or any other. I've always been Shapley Hunter, and intend always to be Shapley Hunter. Should I ever find myself banished, I will remain banished, because I have no desire to post under a nom de plume. For this reason, I try to always keep my posts polite and not run afoul of the rules.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:24 PM
  • I remember a poster named 'Sock Puppet', but I don't think I remember one named 'Megalomaniac'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:25 PM
  • Oh! Yes, now I remember Megalomania. They guy with the crown on his head.

    Google shows he seems to have last posted around 2009.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:35 PM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:35 PM

    He has dropped in a couple of times since then; was banned under many names and I forget his last one.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:37 PM
  • In a 2009 thread called "Where's Megalomania?" he either posts under several sock puppet monikers, or several posters borrowed his avatar and pretended to be him under different monikers. His most recent there was Ainamolagem...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:51 PM
  • Yes, he posted under several sock puppet monikers, but for a short time someone posted as "Sock Puppet and that was not him. I know Meglo as in the beginning, he exchanged emails with other posters and even posted under his real last name briefly as did BC.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 4:07 PM
  • This is what religion means by not have a "false god". Joe Paterno was a false god to thousands of students and fans. That's why this shameful thing was allowed to happen.

    -- Posted by davidk225 on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 4:40 PM
  • Me'Lange - so if

    you were told by a teaching assistant that worked for you that they witnessed something as horrible as this and

    you reported to the principal and the school administration that you were TOLD about it, but never saw it and

    later it was found to be true, should you be fired? Really? For reporting a crime?

    Several have commented that this Sandusky guy needs to go to jail for his crimes IF he is proven guilty. Commenting on the victims is commendable and right but, as you said, off-topic.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 8:26 PM
  • Google shows he seems to have last posted around 2009.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 3:35 PM

    He is still here almost every day. Still cant get him to wise up and jump the fence.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 8:47 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "Methinks you know way too much about the 'sock puppet' subject!"

    How can one know too much about a subject. And this, from a teacher! I'm shocked!

    Do you limit the learnings of your charges, so they do not learn 'way too much' about the subjects at hand?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 9:13 PM
  • Swampeastmissouri calls this "one of the largest criminal cover ups in modern day history". I'm curious where he gets that information.

    Penn State appears to be an ancillary to the actions. Mr. Sandusky being no longer employed there, and the children not being students there. Mr. Sandusky, because of his past association with the sports team, was granted access to the facilities, but it was through the charity he founded that he gained access to the children, not through Penn State. He used Penn State's facilities, apparently because he had access to them. Had he not had such access, he most likely would have found another facility for his imoral and illegal activities.

    Second Mile reports that it has helped over 100,000 children since its founding. A small number of those suffered at the hands of Mr. Sandusky. I do not understand why the ire is directed at Penn State but, as I have said, I believe this is about the bloodlust of the mob, and such bloodlust is seldom rational.

    This 'largest criminal coverup', according to the Attorney General's office, is limited to about two people - Those to whom Mr. Paterno passed on his report. The Grand Jury does not believe their testimony to be reliable.

    There were janitors who witnessed the earlier instance but did not report them, out of fear for their jobs. There seems to be no ire directed at them. Apparently, their pay scale wasn't high enough to interest the mob. But, I would not call their actions a 'criminal coverup', but rather a fearful response. The one who reportedly saw the actual abuse now suffers from dementia and is unavailable to testify as to what he saw, or why he kept it quiet. A sad situation all around.

    The District Attorney who initially investigated dissappeared. His car was found abandoned, and his computer, with the hard drive removed, was found in the river. He has never been heard from again. It is unknown if this is a suicide, a homicide, or what. It is suspicious, but no one has pointed a finger at Penn State over it, and he did not share any of his findings with anyone prior to his disappearance. Thus, whatever he knew and what direction his investigation was taking disappeared with him. This is a curious and troubling aspect of the case, but thus far does not implicate Penn State or its personnel. I assume the case is still open, though the DA was finally declared dead to give the family closure.

    If this constitutes 'one of the largest criminal coverups modern day history', then we have been indeed fortunate as a nation.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Nov 15, 2011, at 9:32 PM
  • Off topic or not, I agree with Melange and Theorist that the first priority should be the victims.

    Anyone who witnesses a child being abused and who doesn't intervene in some manner isn't worth much.

    I would have thought these people would be mandated reporters.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 7:21 AM
  • Careful there Dug, you are headed for the list! ;-)

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 7:51 AM
  • Rick - I saw something yesterday that said he will get $500,000+ and I'm not sure if that was annual or lifetime but I suspect it's annual.

    Wheels - what list? Help me out here!

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:10 AM
  • "Let me put it this way...What would you have done, Dug/Shap, if the alleged incident involved your son?"

    It didn't. So the question is meaningless. If it did, I would regard it differently, but I like to think I would still look the situation logically and not called for 'heads to roll' regardless of their involvement in the situation.

    _________

    Rick,

    My problem is not with Penn State for firing Mr. Paterno. They are within their rights to do so, and have a responsibility to maintain the image of the University.

    My problem is with the mob for demanding that 'heads roll', regardless of the realities of their involvement. I would like to think that Penn State would take a principled stand, but it would probably be foolish to do so. Then, again, there remains a possibility that, after taking such a principled stand, something comes out, related to this or not, that indicates that Mr. Paterno should be fired, and they would be left with egg on their faces.

    The fault lies, not with the reaction to the demand, but with the unreasonableness of the demand.

    I suppose I've failed to make that clear thus far.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:13 AM
  • What puzzles me is the extrapolation of this by those who claim to want justice, but really just want to strike out.

    No one on here has defended Mr. Sandusky, the actual perpetrator of the events. Few on here have defended Mr. McQueary, the actual witness to the event.

    All I have done is question whether or not the claims of a 'cover up' are over-reacting. But, by their extrapolation, anyone who accused them of such is guilty of coddling child abusers.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:18 AM
  • Rick** wrote:

    "During this whole Media Circus , I have not read or heard what Joe's severance package was , I am willing to believe Joe will live very comfortable indeed for the rest of his life."

    I've not inquired. I think it is immaterial.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:23 AM
  • Isn't there medication for fixations?

    -- Posted by ziggie on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:26 AM
  • If there is medication, then I think the mob needs some.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:29 AM
  • Wheels - I noticed for the first time the other day someone talking about emailing each other. Is that possible on this SE Missourian site as well?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:37 AM
  • Dug

    Yes, and if you will give me a little time, I will give you a temporary e-mail address, then you can e-mail me and I will give you my real one, then if you tell me who you want to converse with, I can give them your address, if it is someone I know, and let it be their decision if or not they want to talk. There are some great people posting on here.... and some think I am not one of them. ☻ ☺ ☻ ☺

    There is no ready made provision for contacting one another through the normal channels on the paper though.

    I am going to be busy and off here until tonight in just a few minutes.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 9:00 AM
  • "Did Joe leave it at that or do something else when the issue continued to happen?"

    There's no evidence, as of yet, that Mr. Paterno had any indication that it 'continued to happen'. The Attorney General's report identified 8 victims. Of them, 6 occurred before the 2002 incident reported to and by Mr. Paterno, one is the victim of the reported incident, and the last one does not appear to have involved any illegal/immoral activity on the Penn State Campus. According to the Grand Jury's report, Mr. Sandusky was an volunteer coach at a local high school attended by the most recent victim, although they did meet at a Second Mile event on Penn State's campus. The abuses there apparently took place at Mr. Sandusky's home, and at various motels, etc.

    There is no indication that Mr. Paterno knew of any of this.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 9:51 AM
  • "I think there is more to the story then the MSM is reporting."

    There's more to every story than the media reports. However, at this point, we have only the Grand Jury's report on which to derive any further data, other than hearsay and blogs.

    The indications at this point are that Mr. Sandusky is a serial predator. However, the level to which any of this is known remains unclear. Mr. Paterno is only mentioned in connection with a single incident, the one that was reported to him and which he in turn reported.

    I do not know how well Mr. Paterno knew Mr. Sandusky. They worked together for a time, but Mr. Sandusky had not been associated with Penn State officially since about 1999. His charity, Second Mile, had some affiliation with Penn State, probably through Mr. Sandusky, that permitted them access to athletic facilities.

    Most likely, Second Mile attendees periodically had the opportunity to meet Mr. Paterno as part of their outings, since attending practice games is listed as one of their activities. There is no indication how many of these were attended by Mr. Sandusky, or if Mr. Sandusky and Mr. Paterno were frequently seen together at these events.

    There also remains the possibility that Mr. Paterno simply did not believe the story relayed to him by Mr. McQueary. He passed it up the chain as required, but did not pursue it because he thought it 'out of character' for his one-time assistant. The requirement to relay information does not carry with it a requirement to believe it.

    It's been a while since I read Sigmund Freud's writings, but I think he had something to say about our ability to marginalize or shield unpleasant memories and/or thoughts.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 10:05 AM
  • Now the then-grad-student now football-coach said "I did tell the Police". So then, IF he told the police and told Joe Paterno that he told the police I would assume the mob would still want Paterno's head? Me'Lange? Theo? Spaniard?

    Kinda nice when the facts begin to come out and all the "everyone is covering up" early conspiracy theories start to dry up. Good ethical judgements require two components - being informed AND discerning.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 10:17 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 10:44 AM
  • If that turns out to be true, I will 'man up' and admit that I was wrong about Mr. McQueary.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 10:45 AM
  • "Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett said McQueary met "the minimum obligation" in reporting the incident to his superiors, including former coach Joe Paterno, but did not "meet a moral obligation that all of us would have"."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 10:46 AM
  • Just out of curiosity, "if" Sandusky was not found to have been involved in any misconduct in 1998, why would this set a precedence?

    Should we view everyone accused of misconduct with distrust no matter the outcome of proceedings against him/her?

    -- Posted by Acronym on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 12:13 PM
  • Little doubt crimes were committed. The questions are what entities and persons found him 'innocent' of the charges and covered the crimes up?

    -- Posted by contagious on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 12:23 PM
  • Settling an issue like this quietly, is the same thing as covering up a crime. Makes one wonder how much money changed hands. Parents accepting a settlement and not demanding a criminal investigation should have to face criminal neglect charges too.

    -- Posted by contagious on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 12:28 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "My readings suggest that he admitted to the showers and misconduct..."

    I"ve read that he admitted to 'poor judgement' by being in the showers with the boy.

    "...and the victim did not want to go through the humiliation of a trial."

    I've not seen that anywhere. The Grand Jury report merely says the investigator told him not to shower with any more boys.

    "Does not surprise me as so many on these threads alone have questioned the veracity of the victims."

    I've not seen any posts on here questioning the veracity of the victims.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 12:31 PM
  • This thread may have gone in many directions, but I have seen no one question the victims.

    It seems SH has advise caution in some instances while others insist on going with their emotions.

    Yes, cover ups have and do happen, but again, because this has happened, do we assume this is always the case?

    Anyone remember the McMartin School incident?

    I will admit I don't know enough yet to know which way to jump though my emotions keep pushing me one way.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 12:40 PM
  • child molestation=emotions

    -- Posted by contagious on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 12:56 PM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "Gee shap, are you suggesting that we need more obligations and laws?"

    Hardly. What I'm saying is that the mob, once they get a whiff of blood, are not satisfied to merely take down those responsible for illegal actions. Mr. Sandusky should, and probably will, pay the price for his actions. Mr. McQueary will also, unless it is revealed that the information in his e-mails is accurate.

    The Second Mile charity will likely get a second look. I'm not sure what kind of a charity that is involved in the welfare of young children permits those same young children to travel and spend time alone with an adult, including overnight visits to their homes. This would particularly be the case, one would think, after the 1998 incident.

    What may or may not come to light of Mr. Paterno's or Mr. Spanier is up in the air. Right now, there seems to be little evidence of anything. Still, in response to the mob, both have been fired. If the investigation reveals they had no connection, how will the mob respond? I doubt they'll give a thought. The furor will die down long before the investigation is ended, and the report will probably be back-page news when it is released, unless it reveals something d***ing.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 1:41 PM
  • iconoclastic wrote:

    "Parents accepting a settlement and not demanding a criminal investigation should have to face criminal neglect charges too."

    More witches yet to be burned, eh? Could it not be simply that some parents may think sparing the child the trauma and embarrassment of a trial could be in the best interest of the child?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 1:44 PM
  • Rick**

    I've not seen any reports that these are 'special needs' children. The camps were to help 'disadvantaged' children. That term is most frequently applied in educational terms to children from impoverished neighborhoods or that lack an 'intact family structure'.

    According to Second Mile's website:

    "Many children face adversity even before they understand how to dream. The Second Mile, founded in 1977 in State College, Pennsylvania, is a statewide non-profit organization for children who need additional support and who would benefit from positive human contact. The Second Mile plans, organizes, and offers activities and programs for children - and adults who work with them - to promote self-confidence as well as physical, academic, and personal success."

    Interesting that they include the 'human contact' part. I would have thought they would have redisigned the website in light of the scandal.

    Fox News reports that they are continuing to solicit donations without mention of the scandal.

    http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/Jerry-Sandusky-charity-kept-donor...

    It was suggested on one of the links I posted earlier that Mr. Sandusky founded the charity to provide himself with a steady stream of young boys. I had speculated about that myself, but did not want to head off into that tangent. However, now that the breach has been opened, I would say it is a point to ponder.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 3:42 PM
  • Wheels - I noticed for the first time the other day someone talking about emailing each other. Is that possible on this SE Missourian site as well?

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:37 AM

    Dug, You can contact me at homersimpson2002-001@yahoo.com I will be happy to get back with you.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Nov 16, 2011, at 8:54 PM
  • Both State Police and Penn State Campus Police are disputing Mr. McQueary's e-mails that he 'notified the police' after witnessing the 2002 incident.

    http://home.myhughesnet.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CD9R2BGF03%40news.ap.org%3E&p...

    The e-mails do not state what police officials he claims to have notified.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 8:59 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 11:19 AM
  • Rick** wrote:

    "'special needs' , 'disadvantaged' , both end with children . All children need protection from some elements of adults'."

    I'm just trying to retain accuracy here. Adjectives are applied to enhance or limit the subject. Wrongly applied, they can prejudice the reader.

    There is no need to add to the bloodlust of the mob with inaccurate information.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 11:21 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 11:41 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 11:46 AM
  • Does anyone know the age of these disadvantaged children?

    Have any of them spoken up?

    Do we know for a fact that the one report was not merely a misjudgement?

    Is anyone here familiar with a little known trait of children and their reports....namely, a sort of "me, too. notice me, too." mentality that sometimes takes over.

    On television today, I heard a woman in charge of students talk about hugging each of them at least three times a day. Hugging, by its very nature. requires bodies to touch. Should she be dismissed?

    -- Posted by InReply on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 6:41 PM
  • Rick** and Me'Lange,

    For about the hundreth time: No one on this board has downplayed the impact the actions of Mr. Sandusky has had on these children. Nor has anyone, to the best of my recollection, defended Mr. Sandusky or come to his defense.

    Mr. Paterno is not Mr. Sandusky. Mr. Paterno has not been accused of having any relationship with these children. As far as is known, Mr. Paterno never met these children. Mr. Paterno is accused, purely and simply, of not having told enough people about that which he was told.

    _________

    InReply:

    I posted a link to the Grand Jury Report a while back. It is on this thread, but you'll have to scroll up a bit to find it.

    The children are now mostly in the twenties, although the most recent victim is, I believe, now a teenager.

    The identity of the 1998 victim is known to investigators. The victim of the 2002 victim is not known to them, or apparently to anyone but Mr. Sandusky. That is the victim of the incident reported to Mr. Paterno, and the only incident of which he was known to be aware. The victim of the most recent incident, from 2007 - 2009, is known to investigators. The victim that was observed by the janitors is unknown. I believe the rest are known to investigators.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 7:30 PM
  • Rick**

    I posted the New York Times article and the York Press article because they provide a summary of the known points to date. The York Press article deals with the DA's dissapearance. It is not known to be linked to any of this, but provides some information regarding the loss of information that resulted therefrom. It was he who chose not to prosecute following the 1998 incident.

    They are news articles, not blogs, although it is sometimes hard to tell the difference any more.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 7:33 PM
  • Not being a legal scholar, I do not understand why Joe Paterno was fired; other than that, being the face of the football program, he was also the face of the university.

    One person committed the assault. He definitely should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

    Another person witnessed the assault and reported it to Joe Paterno; after the fact. Mr. Paterno reported the incident to his superiors. It seems to me that this absolved Mr. Paterno of legal responsibility unless, after the fact, he participated in a cover-up of the incident.

    I would consider that all involved and all who were informed of the incident had a moral responsibility to see that the guilty party was prosecuted and that the victim/victims be given justice. But, then...........for years I have been told that I can not impose my morality on others.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 8:17 PM
  • Rick,

    I do not consider that Mr. Paterno's hands are clean in this matter. It is my opinion that even if the university did not follow up on these charges he should have. After all, he was the head football coach and the others involved were employed in his department at that time or previously. The legalities of the situation are unclear to me. It seems apparent that the university chose to make him the 'fall guy' for this matter, hoping that the public would not insist on a deeper investigation.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 9:09 PM
  • Theorist says "I agree with Melange and Rick. It is/was horrid and inexcusable".

    And I agree with Shap-It is/was horrid and inexcusable. For the criminal(s) that committed the crime.

    Should Paterno's wife be arrested? She is, after all, married to the head coach of the football team that had a coach who did horrible, inexcusable, criminal things (make you feel better now?)? What about Paterno's neighbors - they are also associated with him as well.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Nov 17, 2011, at 10:18 PM
  • It's amazing that I would agree with Me'lange, Theorist, and Rick on the same topic. We will no doubt be at odds in some of my future posts, but I sincerely thank you for putting the alleged sexual assault victims in this story first.

    But it amazes me more Shapley that you, with my friend's Enemy of the State like tenacity with your multiple postings, believe that Joe Paterno had any actual "superiors" at Penn State with whom to report. Joe Paterno WAS the superior at Penn. State. Joe Paterno was a god at Penn State. After nearly 50 years of being head coach, no major decisions even close to his program did not include him. A fool would conclude otherwise.

    Paterno, for his own apparent self centered and selfish reasons did not make sure the alleged rape of a child in his Penn State showers, that his own football team used, had not been reported to the cops.

    Sure there were people Shapley who had titles of importance to whom you were satisfied with Joe's minimum required reporting, but Paterno was the brand name of Penn. State and he called the shots. Joe's "superiors" would have been terminated or re-assigned had Joe wished it so. Joe was the god and what he said went.

    That is until the trustees, lawyers, and accountants figured that Joe was too big a liability in the sure to be coming civil lawsuits that would question Paterno's suspected minimalist answers in the grand jury. There was too big of a hole in the cover-up balloon to repair. Joe had to go.

    Joe Paterno may be a good man in every other aspect of his life. However, he should be ashamed because he didn't do more than the minimum requirements that he and Shapley have deemed adequate.

    I am troubled that we live in a country that believes minimum (legal) requirements of accountability are acceptable for anything, especially when the abuse of children is involved.

    We live in a very sick country. Common sense is abandoning many otherwise good people.

    -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 2:08 AM
  • If, as has been intimated by TC and others, Paterno was the ultimate authority at Penn State, this means that the university President, athletic director, board members and others had consciously been derelict in their duties. And, now that Paterno has been revealed as mortal, those same authorities at Penn State have now determined that he is now a liability and must be sacrificed at the altar of public opinion. Otherwise the institution itself might be destroyed.

    If the decision to fire Paterno could be made now; it could have been made before under other circumstances. If that is so, then Paterno was not the ultimate authority at Penn State. He was merely given that illusion of power because of his popularity and through the dereliction of duty by others.

    Casting Paterno to the wolves now does not absolve university officials from the duty of overseeing departments supposedly under their control. Just as going through the motions of reporting sexual assaults does not excuse Paterno and his staff from the moral obligation of protecting persons under his care and supervision.

    Legally, I do not know; Paterno may have done all that is required of him because his knowledge was secondhand. Morally and ethically, that is another story. He should have cared enough about individuals in his program to follow up on the investigation if only to inform himself of the truth of allegations brought against present and former staff members whose guilt or innocence would reflect on his program.

    The problems at this university go far beyond Joe Paterno.

    -- Posted by Robert* on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 3:50 AM
  • Me'Lange wrote:

    "...however, in this case the mere number of victims coming forward (and the number of settlements) is enough evidence for me."

    What settlements? I've seen no reports of settlements.

    The Grand Jury had identified at the time of its report eight victims. Of those, only one is known to have been reported to Mr. Paterno. Everyone can speculate all they want about how Mr. Paterno's god-like status gave him the ability to know all and see all, but there is no evidence that supports that.

    I suspect that he may have wondered at Mr. Sandusky's abrupt retirement, at the height of his career, in 1999. No doubt he asked about it. However if, as is it appears, upper level management was involved in a 'cover-up', then is it not likely they had a story prepared to tell those who came asking?

    Mr. Sandusky, for his part, appears to have been well practiced in deception. I'm sure he had an excuse for his departure that distanced himself from any scandal. After all, if scandal was known, he would not have been permitted to retain access to young boys through his charity.

    Many of the incidents took place on Penn State property, but the evidence is that they took place only when Mr. Sandusky expected that he and his victim would be alone. The janitors who caught them stated that they told no one. The 1998 incident was reported to police and Child Protective Services. They investigated - listening in on phone conversations and interviewing the victim. They decided not to file charges. I do not know their reasons, nor do you. As was noted in the links I provided, the man that made that decision is missing, so we do not know his reasons, and likely will never know them. With no charges filed and no arrest, there is no reason to assume that Mr. Paterno knew of the incident. His son says he did not.

    From what I read on here, it seems that everyone wants Mr. Paterno's head, not because of his crime (of which there is none) but because it is some sort of symbolism of the toppling of the a god. The desire is not for justice, since justice is not served by his firing, but rather for some sort of odd satisfaction of seeing the mighty brought low. The lives of those children is not improved one whit by Mr. Paterno's departure. The cause of justice is not advanced on iota. It is, as I have said all along, the bloodlust of the mob - an injustice instigated in the name of justice. A wrong imposed to correct a wrong.

    MSN had an article yesterday concerning how few people actually exhibit the type of moral courage they are demanding of Mr. McQueary and Mr. Paterno. I, myself, have faulted Mr. McQueary for his inaction. But, having never myself been confronted with what he saw, I cannot say for sure that I would have had the courage to stop it either. I like to thank I would but, until you have worn those shoes it is unfair to criticize the ones who have.

    I mentioned earlier those who go off to war. When injustice is seen, such as the bombing of Pearl Harbour or the attack on the World Trade Center, men rush off to sign on the dotted line. They're all full of p*** and vinegar, ready to kill all the people who enacted those horrors. But, when the bullets start to fly, very few muster the courage to shoot back. Of those that do, very few manage the fortitude to aim well. It's easy, from the comfort of our armchair, to talk about moral courage and duty. It's much harder, when actually called upon, to do it.

    I've never been a hero. I will not fault those who do not make one of themselves.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 8:06 AM
  • According to the news reports, Mr. Sandusky had a tendency to 'groom' his victims. He chose from them those who seemed least likely to report his actions. He moved slowly, carefully, to ensure that he was not caught. He selected victims, according to one article, who had absent fathers and other family characteristics that made them not only vulnerable, but unlikely to report his actions.

    He apparently had the ability to gain the trust of the people around him, not just his victims. His charity, which worked with thousands of children, provided him a steady source of vulnerable boys. Now, unless you believe that the entire staff of that charity was comprised of molesters and enablers, then you have to suspect that he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of hundreds of volunteers who not only interacted with Mr. Sandusky, but with the boys who were his victims.

    School counselors continued to send young boys to the charity and, therefore, to Mr. Sandusky. The charity and, therefore, Mr. Sandusky must have had a good reputation for the work they did, or school counselors would not have continued to send them there.

    Now, for some reason, with all these dedicated people interacting not only with Mr. Sandusky but with the boys he victimized apparently not knowing of Mr. Sandusky's perversions, why is everyone so insistent that one man, - who busied himself with a passion for sport, did not interact with the victims, and did not witness the perverse actions that were reported to him - would be in position to discover that which all these others overlooked?

    Methinks too many of you think that Mr. Paterno was a god, after all.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 8:33 AM
  • Rick**

    Note that I used the lower case for the word 'god'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 9:16 AM
  • Seriously, isn't there medication for fixations?

    -- Posted by ziggie on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 9:21 AM
  • -- Posted by imaged on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 9:21 AM

    Sadly it doesn't appear so.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 10:17 AM
  • Theorist wrote:

    "That is the only way I can explain his "stance", and I understand it is not my position or job to explain anything about Shap. I need to make sense of it for myself."

    If, after all my posting, you haven't understood my 'stance', then nothing more I or anyone else can say will help you.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 12:48 PM
  • -- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 12:30 PM

    I have worked with pedophiles as in locking them up, putting them in counseling, restricting their movements and come to the conclusion that you cannot "help" a pedophile. The only way to truly protect children from them is to keep them away from children locked up.

    -- Posted by Acronym on Fri, Nov 18, 2011, at 12:49 PM
  • Hmmmm. No link on those settlements, eh?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Nov 19, 2011, at 9:59 PM
  • Acronym and Theorist, I get a little silly late at night sometimes so please forgive me.

    "The only way to truly protect children from them is to keep them away from children locked up."

    I've been waiting for Theorist to ask "What about the children that aren't locked up? :) :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 20, 2011, at 12:30 AM
  • Me'Lange, As flattered as I am, I must confess I am only one. "They' is just me. I can see how you would think my post must be the combination of multiple great minds, but I don't share that distinction.

    Thank you and may you have a good dayn. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Nov 20, 2011, at 1:40 AM
  • Therorist, I hadn't heard of Paterno before all this so I have no real interest except what I think most people would, that is justice fair and simple.

    Is that your great concern or are you baiting Shapley for a rematch? :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 5, 2012, at 6:41 PM
  • The names of several of the victims remains unknown, unless they have come forward (unreported) since the Grand Jury report was released. If they did, it would be difficult to confirm that the persons claiming to be 'victim number so-and-so' is actually the victim identified by the witnesses.

    I don't think one can claim that 'he dirtied their beloved Paterno', whatever that means. Mr. Paterno was not 'dirtied' by the actions of Mr. Sandusky, but rather by the unfair efforts to connect the two, and the unjust (in my humble opinion) ouster of Mr. Paterno in respose to 'their' efforts to sully his name with this scandal.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 6, 2012, at 10:38 AM
  • "Note that at the bottom of the article, it mentions that identity of victims will be released (in other words). Even though they are now adults, I sincerely believe this why more victims do not come forward in this type of abuse."

    It's rather difficult to hold a public trial, exposing every facet of the defendent's life while keeping the prosecution's witnesses secret. It would smell of a 'kangaroo court', in my humble opinion.

    we go to great lengths to 'protect the children' in these cases, as is reasonable. We sometimes permit them to testify without identification, sometimes by videotape, and make other provisions to keep the psyche of the child from being further harmed. However, to permit adults to testify in trial that threatens the reputation and the freedom of another adult, without exposing them in the process, undermines the system (in my humble opinion). The defense has to be able to access information about the witnesses/victims in order to challenge the veracity of their testimony.

    If you do not want to expose them to public ridicule, do not hold a public trial.

    That is the nature of public justice. The veracity of everyone who enters the process is put on trial. We cannot give protection from scrutiny to one side while simultaneously claiming fairness.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 6, 2012, at 11:08 AM
  • Shapley who?

    -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jun 5, 2012, at 6:58 PM

    Hmmmmmm! ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Jun 6, 2012, at 11:19 AM
  • So. We all have regrets. Where did you see that Paterno interpreted it as 'horseplay' and downplayed its significance. The Grand Jury report says he reported it is 'something of a sexual nature'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jun 10, 2012, at 8:23 PM
  • Theorist,

    Thanks for bringing this thread back to life. That was one of your comments that I was thinking about.

    Shapley who?

    -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jun 5, 2012, at 6:58 PM

    Was that "hate filled" belittling Shapley that way?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Jun 10, 2012, at 8:24 PM
  • ...or something of a sexual nature. You left that part out, though the Grand Jury didn't.

    You've not shown that he "made light of the seriousness of the incident". I see that as indicative of the bias I mentioned earlier. Just as you said Mr. Romney wanted to 'lay off teachers, etc.' when he said no such thing, so you claim that Mr. Paterno 'made light of the seriousness of the incident', when the evidence indicates that he did no such thing.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 11, 2012, at 8:20 AM
  • Did you read what he said??

    Yes, and I see nothing in it that 'made light of' it. We do not know how it was reported to him, as Mr. McQueary has been shown to be unreliable in his statements. We only know that he reported something, and that Mr. Paterno reported it to those who he thought were better suited to deal with it.

    As I said, we all have regrets. But regretting not having done something does not mean we were wrong in doing less before, it merely means that hindsight shows us that another course of action may have been better.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 11, 2012, at 11:52 AM
  • Better than castr**** Rick.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jun 11, 2012, at 2:15 PM
  • It's being debated because Mr. Sandusky's trial is now ongoing. Forgive us if the direction of our discussions are impacted by current events.

    You don't have to follow the discussions, if you don't want.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 14, 2012, at 12:44 PM
  • I pointed out, long ago and without the hundred-dollar word to describe it, that 'turning a blind eye' is common amongst humans. However, the idea that it was done to protect the football programme at Penn State is a stretch.

    While it appears to be true that the janitors who witnessed the event may have turned a blind eye to protect their jobs, or at least out of a perception of the need to protect their jobs, the most egregious of the events occurred long after Mr. Sandusky was no longer with the programme. Exposing him would not likely have harmed Penn State's programme.

    It is also logical to assume that Second Mile, when it was reported to them, turned a blind eye in order to protect themselves. But, it is also logical to assume that, having been founded by Mr. Sandusky and not having witnessed it nor had it reported firsthand, they simply could not believe ill of him.

    As Mr. Paterno notes, Mr. Sandusky appears to have been very good at hiding his transgressions even from those who are trained to look for them.

    "You could have turned a blind eye to the 'Felicite' - there's a precedent in the navy for turning a blind eye. Then you could have stayed with Moore and shared the prize money."

    - C.S. Forester 'Hornblower and the Hotspur' -

    You don't have to be a professor of business ethics, or use hundred dollar words, to understand such things. Apparently, it helps to be a Navy man, though.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 6:28 AM
  • It is, as you say, speculation.

    However, it is also contrary to your 'blind eye' post, as it suggests that Mr. Paterno turned anything but blind eye to the investigation. Rather, the suggestion is, he stepped in to quell the investigation and rid his football programme of Mr. Sandusky.

    That does not fall under the definition of 'turning a blind eye' or, as your professor of business ethics refers to it: 'motivated blindness'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 8:02 AM
  • As I see it, I'm willing to give Mr. Paterno the benefit of the doubt, and you have been willing to convict him without a trial, based on heresay evidence.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 8:03 AM
  • You failed to link your source for information on Mr. Paterno.

    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/06/what-did-paterno-know-.html

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 8:06 AM
  • Mr. Sullivan cites this as his source:

    http://www.esquire.com/features/joe-paterno-0612

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 8:11 AM
  • "I understand your willingness to forgive, I do not understand your assumption that everything was done as well as it could have been."

    Nothing in my posts says everything was "done as well as it could be done". I said that Mr. Paterno appears to have acted responsibly by reporting it up the chain, and had no further obligation. Things could have been done better. Things can almost always have been done better. But, we're talking aboug a man who's job was not to do it, referring it to his superiors so they could act appropriately. I do not see it as his responsibility to see to it that they did.

    "Are you a football fan, Shapley?"

    No. I've never really understood the sport. Why?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 8:51 AM
  • I do find it significant to note that the information on Mr. Paterno's schedule all links to the Esquire article, and was only released after Mr. Paterno's death. This conveniently prevents any response from Mr. Paterno himself, and probably limits the ability to verify the data.

    Looks like a hatchet job to me, which is something for which 'Esquire' is noted.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 9:10 AM
  • "Football...I thought maybe this was your subliminal reason for apathy."

    I think I've posted more on this topic than anyone else. I would hardly call that 'apathy'. Methinks you need to look up the definition of that word.

    I gave Mr. Paterno the benefit of the doubt, which you apparently do not. That is your prerogative, but I am not obligated to agree with you. My disagreement does not make me 'apathetic'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 10:11 AM
  • Rick wrote:

    "It's kinda hard to believe none of them said something when it happened and not years later."

    The defense is saying that those who came forward earlier came forward with a different story. The prosecution was supposed to wrap up its case, and the defense to start calling witnesses today, I believe.

    On charge has been dropped against Mr. Sandusky, because the law under which he was charged was not in effect at the time of the alleged incident. That still leaves 51 charges against him, I believe.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 18, 2012, at 10:56 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 20, 2012, at 11:14 AM
  • Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of 45 of 48 charges. I'm not sure what happened to the charges 49 - 51, as I was out of town and not following the news. When I left, there were 51 charges against him, one having been dropped.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jun 24, 2012, at 9:24 PM
  • I have not been following this thread thinking there was nothing left that hadn't been said.

    I'm guessing most of the quest for justice was driven by the quest for money and career advancement.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jun 24, 2012, at 11:37 PM
  • I found the judge's directions to the jury rather interesting.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57457765-504083/jerry-sandusky-trial-judg...

    -- Posted by InReply on Mon, Jun 25, 2012, at 12:53 AM
  • InReply, Sounds like the judge started off reminding that the jury is there to find a verdict without regard to what the victims may gain or be denied. I think that proper. After that he should have shut up, IMO.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 25, 2012, at 1:25 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 11:49 AM
  • The first thing I notice in the report is that Mr. Paterno notified Mr. Sandusky in February of 1998, some three months before the first known incident, that he would not be the next head football coach. Thus, the idea that Mr. Paterno based his decision on any known incident of this type is unsupported by the evidence.

    It has been suggested here that Mr. Paterno only notified Mr. Sandusky of the decision after the first (1998) incident. That is not supported by this report. The report, on page 55, says they find no cause to support that claim. Both Paterno and Curley had met with Sandusky prior to the incident to discuss his future with Penn State, and that retirement was discussed as an option. Paterno's undated notes from that timeframe appear to confirm this. Sandusky spoke with a supporter of Penn State Football in March of that year about his (Sandusky's) setting up a football programme at the Altoona campus, as an option for his future.

    Notes from the 1999 meeting (after the incident) suggest that Sandusky's involvement with Second Mile was a factor in the decision not to permit Sandusky to be Head Coach. However, there is no indication that it involves improprieties at Second Mile, but rather that Sandusky's involvement with the Second Mile Programme involved too much of Sandusky's time, such that he was unable to devote himself full time to the duties of a Head Coach.

    There did appear to be much squabbling over Sandusky's benefits, pointing to a belief that his retirement after 30 years vice 35 years would result in a lower retirement benefit, and that Penn State should have made up the difference. However, the report again notes that it sees no evidence that any of this relates to the 1998 incident.

    The University agreed to a lesser amount than Sandusky was asking ($12,000 per annum instead of $20,000 per annum), paid through an annuity. This was later altered to a lump-sum payment because of tax questions, according to the report.

    There was also some question over the granting of 'emeritus' status to Sandusky upon retirement. This decision was made using the Presidents special discretion in such matters. No explanation is given for the special consideration. All the evidence points to the decision being made by Spanier and Schultz.

    The second, thing I note is that the District Attorney made the decision not to prosecute, after its first having been reported to University Police by the victim's mother. That would mean that 'proper authority' was notified of the incident. Mr. Curley, Mr. Schultz, and Mr. Spanier were all aware of it, but Mr. Spanier did not notify the board.

    I also note that, while Paterno is identfied as being 'in the loop' on both the 1998 and the 2001 investigations, the extent to which he is aware of the actual nature of the charges remains unknown.

    The evidence does indicate that Mr. Shultz is the 'key man' in dealing with the issue, and that his stories are inconsistent.

    The February 27 & 28, 2001 entry is troubling. It does indicate that the discussion with Paterno may have resulted in Mr. Curley's 'change of mind', though we do not know the nature of that discussion. He states that the 'change of mind' came about "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday". But, the possibility also exists (and the sequence of his wording indicates) that Mr. Curley may have changed his mind and then discussed only his new plan of action with Mr. Paterno. There is insufficient evidence to say that Mr. Paterno proposed the change of plan, rather than merely accepting the proposal of his boss, Mr. Curley.

    The notes on the 1998 incident indicate that the Child Abuse Network was involved with and had full knowledge of the incident and of Sandusky's behaviour. Thus, again, the idea that 'proper authority' was not notified appears incorrect.

    The report notes that neither Spanier, Curley, Schultz, or Paterno contacted Sandusky about the incident. That would seem to me to be proper, given that authorities were handling it, and they did not want to interfere.

    Page 51 of the report cleary notes that there is no clear evidence of how or how much information was conveyed to Mr. Paterno. We are left in the dark about how much he knew.

    In his statement to the Grand Jury, he mentions that he 'may have heard' of the prior incident, but did not remember it. This remains a possibility, given the less-than-serious manner in which his bosses appeared to regard it. The possibility that the same attitude existed in their communication with him would be likely.

    The question then becomes: did Curley and Schultz seek to minimize Paterno's knowledge of the nature of the investigation, and thus shield him from it? If that is the case, then we are left only to speculate on his guilt. Those with an inclination towards believing the worst will do ss, while those of with an inclination towards believing the better will lean that way.

    Of particular note to me is that the report makes reference to Spanier et. al. Having knowledge of the 1998 incident, which is true. However, they also had knowledge of the outcome of the incident, which was that the prosecuting attorney and the Child Protection Services seem to have determined that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. It is entirely possible that they viewed this more as a violation of Sandusky's promise not the shower with young boys than as an act of sexual transgression. Much hinges on the exact nature of what Mr. McQueary related to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz.

    The report correctly notes that none of the particulars involved (Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, or McQueary) attempted to identify the boy in order to determine if he was harmed or to hear his story. Again, this may be explained by a misunderstanding of the nature of what Mr. McQueary saw, except in the case of McQueary, who is the only one in this case who knows exactly what was seen. What we do know is that McQueary did not act to stop the incident, and did not report it until the next day, which might lead one to wonder at the seriousness of what was actually seen or reported. (I've said as much before.)

    The 2000 incident, observed by a janitor, was not reported, and thus indicates only a failure on the part of the janitorial staff. The janitor was advised to report it, but did not do so out of fear for their jobs. The incident appears to be included, both for the chronology, and to indicate that a 'climate of fear' may have existed regarding such matters in the football programme. However, the report draws no further conclusions from this.

    The indication from Sandusky's letter regarding his retirement, undated, but (I believe) predating the 1998 incident, seems to indicate that his push for special consideration for his retirement had much to do with keeping the Second Mile charity connected to Penn State. He probably saw this as vital to its survival. Thus, the push for, and granting of, 'emeritus' status was designed to provide him continued access to University facilities, even beyond the departures of Curley, Schultz, and Paterno. While I view Sandusky's association with Second Mile 'creepy', believing he used the charity as a channel for access to young boys, there is no evidence that Spanier, Curley, Schultz, or Paterno had any reason to regard it thusly. The evidence suggests, rather, that Paterno regarded Sandusky's association with the charity as a distraction from the necessary devotion to football that a coach of such a programme must exhibit.

    _________

    In short, therefore, I still think there is a lack of evidence to support the conclusion of many that Mr. Paterno had extensive knowledge of wrongdoing on Mr. Sandusky's part. It does appear he was aware of some level of accusations made in 1998, and of the 2001 incident.

    Much hinges on what McQueary saw, and how he reported it. I cannot get past that point. According to Paterno's testimony, McQueary claimed to have seen it through a mirror, and that it may have involved wresting or touching of the genitals. Subsequent reports claim more graphic details, but nothing in the reports of 2001 and prior point to such a report being made. This victim has not yet been identified, so we still do not know what happened, and McQueary's testimony has been inconsistent.

    Schultz comes across in the report as being dishonest, in my humble opinion. He may well have known more than he let on, and he may also have 'filtered' the information both up and down the chain. We do not know for sure what he related to his superiors or to Paterno, or how it was related. That, of course, is speculation on my part. But, speculation is all we are left with in much of this.

    I am unsure of Curley's role in this. He strikes me as a man entrusted with more authority than he was equipped to handle, and not a man of quick decision or firm conviction. But, I have never met the man and know only what I've read here and elsewhere, so I am speculating wildly. I think his first thought when the 2001 incident was reported to him was to report it properly. He changed that decision the next day, and we are left to speculate as to whether he did so on his own or had it changed for him. I give him the benefit of the doubt when he says he was the one who changed it and then spoke with Paterno. Others may see that differently.

    It's a sad incident all around. I still stick to my conclusion that Mr. Paterno is largely blameless. The report does not seem to point to anything that alters that view. The report chides the board for failing to establish themselves as the authority in such matters, apparently leaving Spanier, Curley, et. al. To believe that the buck stopped with them.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 13, 2012, at 3:04 PM
  • And all of the discussions before suggested that Mr. Sandusky's departure was a result of the 1998 incident, though the report clearly shows that decision came about months before. Much of the speculation prior hinged on Mr. Sandusky's 'abrupt' decision to quit the programme. All of that speculation is thrown out the window with the report.

    The report clearly shows that Spanier, Curley, and Schultz had numerous meetings and discussions. The do not indicate that Paterno was a party to most of them. Most references to Paterno indicate that Paterno was advised of the goings on, but do not indicate that he was actively involved in the discussion. I mentioned that in detail in my post.

    "It does not need to be more graphic...the first sentence would have been enough."

    Enough for what? Enough to notify one's superiors? Paterno did that.

    You asked for my thoughts. I read the report, twice. Once through and then once more while typing my comments. There is little new evidence, so the question comes down to whether you assume the worst or you assume the better of those involved. Given that my knowledge of the individuals comes solely from what I've read about this incident, and about those who've written about them since this incident, as I'm sure is the case with you as well, I am limited to what light is shown through others' writings. The picture I get is this:

    Mr. Spanier: As president of the Universtiy, he appears to be someone who wields his power with perhaps a bit of a heavier hand than the University's structure is supposed to permit. He does not consult the board, but rather decides and then notifies them. The Freeh Report chides the board for permitting this type of structure.

    Mr. Curley: I think he is dedicated to the programme first and foremost, but indecisive. Whether his changes of mind result from his own thought or from the persuasion of others is unclear. I suspect a bit of both. He relies heavily on legal counsel, which indicates that his first and foremost objective is his legal culpability, with an eye to image as well.

    Mr. Schultz. He strikes me as the least honest of them, and also the man who seems to have the most control of the situation. As I noted, he seems to filter the information both up and down the chain. We do not know how much or in what manner information he receives is then transmitted to others, but inconsistencies in his testimony and correspondence indicate to me that he does not relay it accurately.

    Mr. Paterno: First and foremost concerned with the football programme. He chides Mr. Sandusky for his split loyalty, indicating that the football programme and his family should be the primary focus of his life, and that his charity work is interfering with that. He appears to be a driven man, and expects no less of his underlings. His focus on the investigation of Mr. Sandusky appears to be more about whether or not it will impact his ability to coach. We do not know if he concerned himself at all with the nature of the charges, or whether or not he focused his concern there at all. Child Protection Services was already involved, so I doubt he saw the need to second guess them, that not being his job or his life focus.

    Mr. Sandusky: A creeep.

    As I noted, the 1998 incident was being handled, as regards the welfare of the children, by competent authority, or those judged to be so. This was known. Mr. Sandusky had indicated that he had showered with the youth, which many at the University had identified as nothing unusual there. Men's shower rooms have common showers, not individual stalls, and it is common for those involved in athletic practice to shower afterwards. When I was in high school, it was required, though we never showered with the coach. Freshmen and upper classmen routinely showered together. The women's coach, I'm told, used to insist on the girls stepping out of the shower so that she could see that they were properly soaped, since many would simply run the showers and not wash themselves. It was considered a hygiene issue to ensure they did so. I assume our own coach monitored our showering to some level, though I never saw him do so. He was a big advocate of deodorant, though.

    The question then involves whether they believed Mr. Sandusky in 1998. He was not charged with any wrongdoing, despite an apparently thorough investigation, including taping of his conversations. There is no evidence to suggest that they influenced the decision not to charge, although the discussion between the campus police and Mr. Shultz not to enter a crime report is troubling, and points to a cover-up of events, ex post facto.

    In 2001, Paterno again reported the events as they were apparently reported to him. Sandusky reportedly offered to tell Schultz or Curley (I forget which, and don't wish to re-searcch the report for it) the name of the child, but they did not wish it. Again, those higher up than Paterno made the decisions, as they were the ones who interviewed Sandusky and McQueary, and they were the ones responsible with taking action against him. As I noted, he did not work for Paterno at that point.

    You asked for my thoughts on it. I have provided them. I can only gather that you wanted them so you could challenge them. I laid out in detail, based on a line by line reading of the report.

    An interview by a dying man with a news reporter is not the issue, and was not the subject of the report. What he couuld remember when he talked to a report about an event some 16 years prior is unknown to me. I would suspect he had other things on his mind at the time.

    You assume that everyone takes every such charge as seriously as you apparently do. I do not believe this to be the case. You are charged with the care of young children, hence they are the focus of your life, and you read this with an eye to that end. Mr. Paterno was not so charged, and thus, perhaps, did not focus his life's energy towards that end. I've seen no evidence that Paterno devoted hiself heavily towards involvement with youngsters, and he say Sandusky's involvment with them as a distraction from his duties. If that made Paterno a curmudgeon, so be it. To the best of my knowledge, being a curmudgeon is not a criminal act.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 14, 2012, at 7:25 AM
  • Theorist,

    Did you read the report, or did you simply read what others said was in the report?

    Did you try to keep an open mind while reading it, or did you seethe at every word?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 14, 2012, at 7:27 AM
  • I've treated nothing lightly. However, I do not believe that Mr. Sandusky's actions should be cause for guilt to be placed upon anyone other than Mr. Sandusky.

    What we have today is little more than a witch hunt. Mr. Sandusky's crimes are so attrocious that punishing Mr. Sandusky alone is not enough to satisfy the mob.

    "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." - Charles MacKay -

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 8:04 AM
  • Shapley hit the nail on the head with the "herd" mentality or lynch mob mentality.

    What in the world does the "National Collegiate Athletic Association" or NCAA have to do with this? They march out and say "we want $60 million dollars from you" and demand it? It's absurd and wreaks of a lynch mob.

    Local and state law enforcement are involved. Investigations will be completed, people will be arrested, charged and prosecuted and justice - the American way? - will be served.

    But the NCAA wants some money so they hit them with $60 million in fines that will cost ALL the students higher fees and tuition and kill a football program where 99.9% of those involved did nothing. Nice.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 8:32 AM
  • The curious thing is that Mr. Sandusky's action had nothing to do with the NCAA programme. He was not then a member of the coaching staff at Penn State, and the victim's were not involved with the programme.

    I think the good folks at the NCAA need to read Charles MacKay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions And the Madness of Crowds". It might be good reading for a few posters on here, as well.

    I think this is part and parcel of the current 'War on Achievement' (yes, I know that is not an original concept). From Mr. Obama's claim that, 'if you own a successful business, you didn't build it' to the effort to undo Mr. Paterno's achievment in his field, to France's efforts to tar the accomplishments of Mr. Armstrong, the idea that there are individual men who accomplish great things seems to be anathema to the current political thinking.

    I find myself reminded of the 1975 film 'Rollerball'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 8:54 AM
  • most for recruitment violations.. -- Posted by Rickʘ on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 10:05 AM

    Anything that would provide Penn State a competitive advantage through cheating (recruiting, etc.) should be a fine from the NCAA since it governs the athletics at a participating University for fairness.

    It doesn't oversee University (non-athletic) operations. Did the NCAA fine Virginia Tech for the shooting massacre? Nope. This child-sex scandal involved a few individuals that failed to act appropriately on something completely unrelated to the athletic program at Penn State.

    This is nothing but a money grab by the NCAA pure and simple.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 10:10 AM
  • No he wasn't *but* is it right to fine an athletic program because a sick, twisted individual criminally assaulted children?

    If I'm a teacher at Cape Girardeau central and I assault a child should the school be fined millions by the state board of education?

    If you and I work at P&G and I rob a bank, you know about it but didn't report it should the prosecutor fine P&G $10 million dollars?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 10:19 AM
  • "...part and parcel of the current 'War on Achievement'..."

    I was in agreement with you up till this spurious claim. What "war on achievement?"

    The idea that Joe Paterno and Penn State are being punished for "achievement" is laughable, even pathetic.

    My opinion is actually that Joe Paterno is being wrongfully tarred as "overlooking" Sandusky's action. I do not think Coach Paterno was ever convinced of Sandusky's guilt. Obviously if there were actual proof of criminal wrongdoing, charges should have been brought then. I feel that Penn State may have been guilty of giving too much benefit of the doubt, to a former coaching assistant, but nothing more.

    The person responsibly is in custody and should be imprisoned for life.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 10:19 AM
  • Yes ..the well being and safety of a child is paramount no matter the circumstances -- Posted by Rickʘ on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 10:22 AM

    We can agree to disagree on this. I think random acts of criminal behavior by people are hard to pin millions in fines on an organization. Question: How can any school district stop every individual from committing a crime? There is no way.

    How could the theatre in Colorado have stopped an individual who secretly planned to kill people while a movie was showing? Should the company be fined millions - for what?

    The NCAA is responsible for athletic violations. Not child sex abuse. It's a money grab.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 10:36 AM
  • Penn State University and all its athletic programs have been indiscriminately punished for the actions of one man and the failure to act by others. I totally support punishing the wrong doer and those who failed to act. The rest is just a sham.

    IMHO Penn State should cease all activities which fall under the (questionable) jurisdiction of the NCAA. Why submit itself to the arbitrary and capricious whims of the NCAA?

    -- Posted by Cogito on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 11:47 AM
  • Somebody help me please.... were all of these Universities formed to educate people, or was it to organize a venue for football, basketball, volleyball, baseball, and all other mentionable balls?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 11:54 AM
  • "The idea that Joe Paterno and Penn State are being punished for "achievement" is laughable, even pathetic."

    I didn't say they were being punished for their achievement. I said it is part of the war on achievement. Joe Paterno rose to the top of his field, and lesser men were jealous of his accomplishments. The removal of his statue and the stripping of the Lion's victories is a part of that war on achievement.

    The victories were won on the playing field, and nothing Mr. Sandusky has done had any apparent influence upon them. Ergo, their removal constitutes nothing more than an attempt to devalue the accomplishments of Mr. Paterno.

    "The Virginia Tech shooter was not a Coach who committed deviate crimes to children for a decade..."

    Neither does this one, as far as the evidence currently indicates. Mr. Sandusky left the programme after the first incident, which had been properly reported and investigated by the proper authorities. In that instance, and that alone (as far as the evidence currently indicates), Mr. Sandusky was under the employ of the Lions. For the rest of that decade, he was not a part of the programme.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 12:38 PM
  • "The school will also forfeit all football wins from 1998, NCAA President Mark Emmert said. That decision strips the late Joe Paterno of the title of winningest coach in major football college history."

    This is the part that I say is indicative of a war on achievement. Mr. Paterno is to be stripped of his title, and thus of his earned recognition in the 'Hall of Fame' or the record books.

    What we are seeing is the efforts of small men to build themselves up by tearing down bigger men.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 12:43 PM
  • How, exactly, do the actions of Mr. Sandusky qualify the removal of the success of the Nittany Lions? The stripping of those victories does not punish Mr. Sandusky, and it's too late to punish the late Mr. Paterno, but it punishes the young men whose efforts on the gridiron helped to achieve that victory - young men who may very well not have even known Mr. Sandusky, let alone be cognizant of his actions.

    As I've said, the men going mad in herds.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 12:46 PM
  • "Sandusky WAS employed by Penn State at that time. Paterno and other Penn State personnel knew about the allegations/problem. (As determined by the Freeh report) That is why NCAA has stepped in."

    That incident was investigated by proper authorities and no charges were filed. Protective services were also notified. The onus, methink, was upon them to act, not upon the coaching staff at Penn State. Mr. Sandusky left Penn State before the other reported incidents.

    The failure of the 1998 incident was the notification of the board, and that responsibility fell upon Mr. Spanier, although the Freeh report places as much blame on the board for not making it clear that Mr. Spanier had that obligation.

    Again, none of it involved the NCAA. Their actions are indicative of a group trying to strip Mr. Paterno of his achievement (he being in no position now to defend himself) in order to present the appearance of 'doing something'. Again, in my humble opinion, this is done more out of a desire to please the mob than to actually impose any kind of justice.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 12:55 PM
  • -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 12:43 PM

    I'm never going to agree that reporting an alleged incident to the proper personnel that you didn't witness is "covering up".

    Unless you have training in this or experienced any work place assault or crime (sexual, physical, mental) you may not know what you are talking about.

    I did have an incident reported to me. A person who worked for me was assaulted by a co-worker. I immediately reported it to HR. At that point I was told - and trained - to *leave it alone*. They would handle it. One more time:

    a) I didn't witness the alleged assault

    b) I immediately reported it to HR - as trained

    c) YOU CANNOT PERSONALLY APPROACH the ALLEGED perp. The allegation may be a lie (lawsuit against you and the company), the perp may take your discussion and run from the law (prosecution for you - aiding and abetting), the perp may kill the person who alleged the assault (lawsuit against you).

    Unless you are highly trained to deal with incidents of any kind - to adults, to children, to animals - if you didn't do it or you didn't see it then you should REPORT it and leave it alone.

    Answer this simple question - you see a child getting a harsh beating by what appears to be a parent on a parking lot. Very harsh. You call the authorities and report it. Are you going to follow up a week later and drive to the parents house and confront them to see if it's still going on? Doesn't matter that it happened in your office or program - you don't take matters like this into your own hands unless you witness it FIRST HAND. If someone is sexually assaulting a child and I see it first hand there is going to be some serious fist-o-cuffs whether I know the individuals or not.

    In the incident I spoke of I couldn't even approach the co-worker. All the rest here is lynch mob attitudes - somebody's gotta hang. I guarantee you if Paterno would have confronted Sandusky later and Sandusky - having been tipped off to the reporting - would have killed the child/children all the same people on here advocating Paterno's hanging now would be screaming about how stupid Paterno was for trying to handle this himself and want to hang him then. I'd bet my life on it.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 1:09 PM
  • -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 1:40 PM

    As the article points out, Paterno said: 'I didn't want to interfere with their weekends, (so) either Saturday or Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone, saying, "Hey we got a problem" and I explained the problem to him.'

    This is not a "cover up" as you alleged above - by either Paterno or McQueary- the only two people here that are associated with the football program and both who reported it the next day to school authorities. McQueary to Paterno, Paterno to school officials. Note what the 84 year old Paterno said "I didn't want to interfere with their weekends so either SATURDAY or monday I talked to my boss".

    Isn't saturday a weekend? Sounds like an old man having trouble recalling what happened. A cover up? Really?

    HANG HIM!

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 1:57 PM
  • "Former Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno took his time forwarding to authorities a report of sexual abuse of a young boy because he didn't want to 'interfere with their weekends,' is what was told at the hearing at Dauphin County District Court."

    And the person who reported it took his time in notifying Mr. Paterno. A lack of urgency on the part of the reporter is likely to spur a similar lack of urgency on the part of the recipient of that knowledge.

    However, Mr. Schultz reported that he discussed it with Mr. Paterno on Sunday or Monday, based on his recollection. It is possible that Mr. Paterno's recollection of the timing may have been inaccurate. Keep in mind that ten years had elapsed since the incident, which Mr. Paterno did not witness first-hand. It is entirely possible that Mr. Paterno's recounting of events was dimmed by the time that had elapsed.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 2:08 PM
  • Wonder if you would feel the same if it were your son. -- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 2:01 PM

    If it were my son I would be furious at school officials that decided not to go to the police immediately after the alleged incident was reported to them. They made a conscious decision to avoid the police and stop any investigation. And as a result they - Schultz, Curley and Spanier - are in serious hot water and justifiably so.

    IF Paterno had not reported this he would be just as guilty. But in fact he did report the alleged incident. He's not a witness, he's not skilled in investigations and he's not involved in any cover up. HANG HIM!

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 2:09 PM
  • Rick,

    I'll trust that you are accurate there. As I've said, I've never followed football, college or otherwise, and so I know little of the sport except for that which is reported and which I have read.

    All indications point to football, Penn State football specifically (since he was associated with no other team), was the lifeblood of Mr. Paterno. I think it probably no coincidence that he died so soon after it was taken from him. He was the winningest coach in histroy, I understand, but now, the NCAA has stripped him of that earned honour in an effort to appease the mob and, in my humble opinion, the modern desire to denigrate achievement.

    When they strip his team of its victories, what then? Does the losing team become the winning team? Do awards change hands and those who failed suddenly become successful? If so, indeed it can be truly be said of them that they did not build that success themselves, others had a hand it in. But it can also be said that the Nittany Lions did not fail on their own, others had a hand in that, also. Ex post facto.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 3:14 PM
  • Folks dont worry. Sandusky will get his due in prison. Taking shower with those boys will be different.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 6:26 PM
  • I saw that a post had been removed, but I did not have a chance to read it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 8:11 PM
  • Sounds to me like a case for reversing the tradition of large sports arenas with small schools attatched.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 23, 2012, at 9:19 PM
  • I've long been of the position that sports have too much of a priority in schools, though I generally concern myself with elementary and high schools. Mostly high schools.

    College is elective. If people want to attend, or permit their children to attend, a sports-oriented college, I reckon that is their business. As long as there are sports-oriented college, I reckon those that make their living through those sports ought to be able to do so to the fullest of their ability.

    From reading the Freah Report, Mr. Paterno expressed to Mr. Sandusky before the 1998 incident that he would not be head coach, and the indication in the report leads me to believe that he saw in Mr. Sandusky a divided loyalty between his duties as coach and his devotion to the Second Mile. Now, we can speculate that Mr. Paterno knew that his devotion to the Second Mile was connected to a vile purpose, but there is nothing in the report to suggest that. I am inclined, rather, to believe that Mr. Paterno expected of his future head coach the same devotion to the programme that he, himself, has shown over the years.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 24, 2012, at 8:04 AM
  • "Removing Paterno's past feats is equal to Jim Thorpe."

    That's true. His accomplishments are what they are, and they should stand. If Paterno himself had been found guilty of something, my decision might be different. Instead, we are seeing what amounts to a Bill of Attainder.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 24, 2012, at 8:28 AM
  • The words of History can be erased, but the deeds themselves are etched forever in the fabric of time.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 24, 2012, at 8:57 AM
  • Shapley wrote:

    "When they strip his team of its victories, what then?"

    It is my understanding the net effect of the NCAA's action is merely to strip Mr. Paterno of his wins. Unlike a forfeit, the opposing team does NOT get a victory and Penn State does not get a loss. IMHO it is a cheesy way for the NCAA to strip Paterno of his earned title of winningest coach.

    The real loser are the hundreds, perhaps thousands of athletes who played with honor and integrity during the last decade, who did nothing wrong, and are being punished because the NCAA felt it had to do something. What a crock.

    -- Posted by Cogito on Tue, Jul 24, 2012, at 11:55 AM
  • http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/graham-spaniers-gig-as-a-fe...

    "Graham Spanier might have been ousted from his post at the helm of Penn State over the sex-abuse scandal that engulfed the university, but it seems he's found a backup employer: the American taxpayer.

    "Only a disgraced public figure would consider joining the much-maligned ranks of the federal workforce as a step up, reputation-wise. We can assume there were no openings for a used-car salesman.

    "Spanier was faulted in an internal Penn State report after the conviction on child-molestation charges of former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky. The report said he, head coach Joe Paterno and others helped cover up Sandusky's abuse.

    "His lawyer confirms to the Loop that Spanier is working on a part-time consulting basis for a "top-secret" agency on national security issues. But the gig is so hush-hush, he couldn't even tell his attorneys the name of the agency. In April -- months after his ouster as president but before the release of the internal report -- he told the Patriot-News of central Pennsylvania that he was working on a "special project for the U.S. government relating [to] national security."

    "But who's he working for? The CIA? Homeland Security? Or maybe just a dull consulting firm with a government contract?

    "I have no idea,"says his lawyer, Peter Vaira. "We know the work is in security and he's prohibited from disclosing which agency or agencies he's working for.""

    ________________

    Apparently, Mr. Obama likes to hire people who know how to keep quiet about embarrassing details...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 7:43 AM
  • "Apparently,(President) Obama likes to hire people who know how to keep quiet..."

    Working as a "part-time" consultant to an unnamed federal agency, does not make him a "government employee" much less one that the President hired. Why would anyone make this kind or absurd assumption?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 11:44 AM
  • Well, he was obviously hired by someone in the government, despite his failings. The government seems to be going to great lengths to keep the exact nature of his employment hidden, which kind of points to the Obama administration, given their penchant for obscurity.

    I was anxious to see how quickly the defenders of Mr. Obama would jump in here. Obviously, if the 'outrage' over the Penn State issue was real, then that outrage should be now be focused on the government's obvious indifference to the sufferings of the children.

    Or was it all simply theatre?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 12:47 PM
  • Apparently, in your zeal to defend Mr. Obama from any over this matter, you neglected to mention in your summary of his duties that he is working on 'National Security issues'. That also rather points towards the Obama administration...

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/04/post_340.html

    ""For the next several months, as I transition to my post-presidential plans, I will be working on a special project for the U.S. government relating national security. This builds on my prior positions working with federal agencies to foster improved cooperation between our nation's national security agencies and other entities," Spanier said in an Email."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 12:57 PM
  • "...obviously hired by someone in the government..."

    No. From your link he was hired by a contractor, not the government. What in the world does President Obama have to do with that?

    "...the government's obvious indifference to the sufferings of the children."

    Again, where is this coming from? What does President Obama have to do with the situation at Penn State?

    "Or was it all simply theatre?"

    Possibly "theater" has been in your last few posts.

    "...duties that he is working on 'National Security issues'"

    What national security issues? Anyone can define "national security" in any fashion. A clerk that issues security badges for the Cape Girardeau airport can claim that he is "working on national security issues."

    How is it that anyone is vainly attempting to connect the past president of PSU with the current President of the United States. My guess is that President Obama has no interest or concern on who or which private contractos chooses to give Mr. Spanier a job.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 3:16 PM
  • "Again, where is this coming from? What does President Obama have to do with the situation at Penn State?"

    Nothing. Nor did I say he did. It does appear, however, that Mr. Spanier has been hired by the an agency under his auspices.

    Where does it say he was hired by a contractor? That is an assumption made by the reporter. According to Mr. Spanier, he is working for an agency of the Federal Government, though he can't tell us which one, but he reports that deals with national security issues.

    When he was president at Penn State, Mr. Spanier led a board that coordinated communication on national security matters among various universities and the FBI. The panel was created in 2005 and is known as the National Security Higher Education Advisory Board. They deal withvsensitive research that might need to be protected from foreign espionage.

    According to Mr. Spanier, this consulting postion 'builds on that' experience.

    "My guess is that President Obama has no interest or concern on who or which private contractos chooses to give Mr. Spanier a job."

    It seems to me if Shapley Hunter, who has not connection to Penn State, to the University system as a whole, or to Jerry Sandusky whatsoever is expected by the board members here to be outraged over the issue because (to quote you) "a child was raped", to the point that I am supposed to carry that outrage to the point of denouncing anybody and everybody at the universit in a position to know anything about it, then I think it reasonable that those who so demanded it would expect the President of the United States to similarly share that outrage.

    But, alas! I was all theatre. They merely wanted to tear Joe Paterno off his pedestal and, having achieved that, have let their outrage fade away. If Mr. Spanier, who apparently could not be trusted to protect an innocent child can retain his security clearance and land a government job ostensibly to protect us all, so be it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 29, 2012, at 7:16 PM
  • http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48477210/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

    Second Mile halts internal probe, prepares to go out of business.

    __________

    The charity apparently isn't interested in finding out who knew what, when. They plan to turn over operation of the programme to a Houston-based ministry.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 6:06 AM
  • One of the curious things about this whole tragedy has been the lack of focus on Second Mile by those who cried the loudest over the issue. Penn State was, to be sure, a bit player in the whole drama - the first known incident, in 1998, involved Mr. Sandusky at a time he was employed there, though he was already on his way out according to the Freeh Report. That incident was duly reported, investigated, and handled by proper authorities. The later incidents had only specious ties to Penn State - some of them occurred on their grounds by a former employee (Sandusky) and were seen by employees.

    The common thread through all of these has been the Second Mile charity. It was founded by Sandusky, and provided the access to young boys which Sandusky desired. The Freeh Report even cites Sandusky's dedication to Second Mile as a major factor in his leaving Penn State. Even so, the focus of all the ire has been on Penn State.

    To read the comments, one would think Second Mile was a bit player, and Penn State was the culprit, rather than the other way around. I take it Second Mile wasn't a big enough trophy to hang on the wall. They wanted Joe Paterno's head to mount, nothing else would do.

    Now that they've got their trophy, it seems their attention has waned. I find that curious, that's all.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 7:17 AM
  • "I find it curious that some keep trying to make others appear innocent."

    I find it curious that some keep trying to make certain people guilty of other peoples' crimes, apparently because of their accomplishments in life. Mr. Paterno's role in all of this appears minute, at best, and yet he and his institution have been the focus and the target of the entire 'scandal'. To read the posts of the outraged, one would think Mr. Paterno either committed or witnessed the acts, and yet he did neither. They seem intent on tainting the successful football programme and the man who ran it with the actions of man no longer in their employ.

    Even the title of this thread' Tragedy at Penn State', is indicative of that misplaced blame. The tragedy appears to have originated with Second Mile, under whose care the boys were entrusted. Penn State had no auspices over the children, and yet I barely see the name of Second Mile mentioned by those most claiming to be outraged. To be sure, they utter the name of Joe Paterno more often than that of the perpetrator of the events, despite his relatively small involvement in the entire matter.

    It is almost as if the sinking of the Titanic can be blamed on the Westbound steamers that saw icebergs, but did nothing to keep the Titanic from running into one.

    "No one should be excused for failing to protect these kids! Nobody!"

    And yet, how many times have you mentioned Second Mile in your posts, which have focused almost solely on condemning Mr. Paterno?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 10:00 AM
  • "I would say condemning the organization would be closer to your Titanic scenario...the organization was not aware of what he was doing...Paterno et.al. were..."

    Not true. They were notified after the 1998 incident, and may or may not have been notified after the 2001 incident (depending on whose version you accept). The Freeh report seems to indicate that at least one member of Second Mile's board was notified, but we do not know if he shared that information with the rest of the board.

    In any case, the children with whom Mr. Sandusky was involved were put in contact with him by the Second Mile, not by Penn State. They were entrusted to the care of Second Mile, not to the care of Mr. Sandusky, by the counselors that sent them there. Mr. Sandusky's involvement with them came about entirely through his relationship with Second Mile.

    You seem to be granting Second Mile the benefit of the doubt that could not pull yourself to extend to Penn State. Why is that?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 3, 2012, at 4:37 PM
  • http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-11-14/news/30399134_1_grand-jury-report-rep...

    This 2011 article reports that the CEO of Second Mile's legal counsel, who was also Penn State's legal counsel, was notified of the 1998 incident. Their CEO was at least aware of the 2001 incident, if not the 1998 incident.

    "Harvey also questioned why Penn State administrators would go the charity but not also to the police or another government agency. "It makes no sense why the administration would just go to the charity," Harvey said.

    "According to the grand jury report, Nittany Lions athletic director Tim Curley testified that he told Raykovitz "of the conducted reported to him" and that he had met with Sandusky to advise Sandusky that he was prohibited from bringing youth onto the Penn State campus from that point forward. Curley testified that he met again with the graduate assistant and advised him that Sandusky had been directed not to use Penn State's athletic facilities with young people and 'the information' had been given to the director of the Second Mile.... Curley did not report the incident to the University Police, the police agency for the University Park campus or any other police agency." Curley, who has been charged with perjury and failure to report, has left his university post.

    "Second Mile said in a statement last week that Raykovitz later told the grand jury he was told "that an individual had reported to Mr. Curley that he was uncomfortable about seeing Jerry Sandusky in the locker room shower with a youth. Mr. Curley also shared that the information had been internally reviewed and that there was no finding of wrongdoing. At no time was The Second Mile made aware of the very serious allegations contained in the Grand Jury report."

    "The grand jury report says that former PSU vice president Gary Schultz, who also faces perjury and failure to report charges, testified that Wendell Courtney, who resigned as Second Mile's counsel last week, was notified in 1998 of allegations that Sandusky had acted inappropriately with an 11-year-old boy. Courtney was also the university's counsel in 1998."

    _______

    The 1998 incident was reported to the prosecuting attorney, University police, and Child Protective Services, as well as their Second Mile's legal counsel. It is unreasonable to assume that each of these competent authorities would have failed to notify the charity responsible for the welfare of the children involved.

    From the Freeh Report:

    "Detective Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with Centre County Children & Youth Services (CYS) about the allegation. However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case. CYS had contracts with the Second Mile - including placement of children in 2M residential program & the Second Mile CEO Raykovitz had a contract with CYS to conduct evaluations. The referral sheet from psychologist Chambers indicated the case might involve a CYS foster child. In light of these conflicts, the Dept of Public Welfare (DPW) took over the case on May 5. DPW officials in Harrisburg, PA took the lead because of Sandusky's high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro replacing John Miller."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 6:53 AM
  • And, of course, there is this, from March of this year:

    "Postal Inspectors Investigating Second Mile"

    http://www.chron.com/news/article/Postal-inspectors-investigating-Second-Mile-34...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 6:55 AM
  • While it is one man's opinion, I thought this analysis of the Freeh Report was worth noting, particularly the second-to-last paragraph, outlining who all knew about the 2001 incident:

    "What is essential is the context created by these events. Penn State officials, along with the boy's mother and Chambers, notified everyone who could possibly be notified (other than their own department of Human Resources and the Board of Trustees but Freeh ignores that non-events might not be brought to the attention of Human Resources or the Board). Spanier, Curley and Shultz appropriately monitored the situation and did not interfere in any way with the investigation. They receive from Freeh, however, no credit, no acknowledgment, and no benefit. In fact, as will be set out below, Freeh repeatedly condemns Spanier, Curley, Schultz and Paterno for not doing more in follow up despite the fact that all were advised that Sandusky's actions were not a crime.

    "An unbiased and non-conclusion oriented report would have at least considered, mentioned, pointed out that the 2001 events regarding Sandusky are seen by Spanier, Schultz, Curley, and probably Paterno, with an understanding of the finding that Sandusky's actions in the shower in 1998 were not a crime.

    "Freeh never once mentions or considers that, Schultz, Curley and Spanier, and perhaps Paterno, when learning in 2001 that Sandusky was seen in a shower with a young boy, had heard this story before and fairly, reasonably, and if given the benefit of the doubt, were entitled to view Sandusky's actions as a repeat of 1998 and, thus, apparently, not a crime. Certainly, this interpretation fits entirely with Spanier's testimony before the Grand Jury and in his comments of defense after the Freeh Report and the NCAA sanctions.

    "Freeh never acknowledges how easy it is in 2011 and 2012 to look back, knowing today that Sandusky is a pedophile and that his actions are despicable and repulsive. But certainly to a large group of folks in 1998 his actions did not so appear and certainly in 2001 to a large group of folks his actions did not so appear. Hindsight is always 20/20 but the Freeh Report in its rush to judgment fails to even consider that the events of 2001 were far more blurred in the eyes of Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz and were seen by those four Penn State officials through glasses provided by the non-prosecution of Sandusky for a similar event in 1998.

    "It must not be forgotten that McQueary's report to Paterno as admitted by McQueary and as reported by Paterno was not explicit (pg. 67, McQueary does not tell Paterno it is sexual in nature). It must not be forgotten that McQueary's version of the events had the boy and Sandusky turning towards him after he slammed his locker closed and that the boy was not screaming or asking McQueary for help (pg. 67). It must not be forgotten that McQueary told his father of the events and his father did not call the police, did not report the incident to anyone (pg. 67). It must not be forgotten that Curley told the University's outside attorney, Wendell Courtney, who did not call the police, did not report it to anyone (pg. 62). It must not be forgotten that Curley told the Executive Director of Second Mile, who in turn told two trustees of Second Mile and none of the three called the police; none reported it to anyone (pg. 78).

    "It would perhaps be appropriate for the Freeh report to emphasize that it is best for anyone who sees any man showering with any youth to report such incident to the police and to the appropriate child welfare agencies. But such does not appear to be required by Pennsylvania law (pg. 251, pg. 254)."

    http://ps4rs.wordpress.com/tag/alycia-chambers/

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 7:08 AM
  • "Just admit they should have done something."

    That's what I've been saying all along: the Second Mile should have done something. They are the ones responsible for the welfare of the children under their care. Yet you seem willing to give them a pass that you are unwilling to give to anyone else. Why is that?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 7:13 AM
  • "All those things were said AFTER months and plenty of coaching from lawyers and friends."

    Exaclty the point. He said those things in hindsight. The question is how he regarded those things at the time. For that, we'll never know. Mr. Freeh and his associates do not know, they can only speculate, as can we. What we do know is that competent authority was notified in 1998, and they said there was no crime. It was reported to many people whose job it was to understand these things, and they said there was no crime.

    Yet, your every post is to condemn Mr. Paterno, whose job was not to understand these things. That is why I do not understand your position. You seem to only want the 'deep pockets', not the guilty. You wanted a head to mount on the wall, not justice. Mr. Paterno is disgraced, and the legacy he built erased, because of people who wanted a 'big honcho' to blame for all this. It is, simply put, not enough to see the perpetrator put away and steps taken to ensure that such things don't happen again.

    It's not about the children, it's about tearing men off their pedestals.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 12:55 PM
  • Ye gods! We are going to be out of cyber space before this goes away.

    It is very clear if you go back to the beginning of this thread.... Theorist made her determination of Paterno's guilt way before any facts were known and she is not backing off!

    It is well established, as an example the nameing of St. Louis, Theorist is always right and is never wrong and that is that, no need for any other opinions or proof... tongue firmly in cheek.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 12:56 PM
  • Wheels said:

    Ye gods! We are going to be out of cyber space before this goes away.

    This has been a sad topic all the way around, but that statement you made was way too funny Wheels. I am going to borrow that line for later use. ( of course I will reference you as the source so the plagiarism ninnies don't scold me )

    -- Posted by Thought Criminal on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 3:21 PM
  • TC,

    You better reconsider before referencing me. It's that guilt by association thing you need to be concerned with. ☺ ☺ ☺ ☺

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 3:42 PM
  • "You other two can preach all you want about second guessing, lynch mobs and due process AFTER the safety of the victims has been ensured!"

    Eh? You do realize we are discussing this some ten years after the fact. The known victims are now adults, and the unknown victims are known to Sandusky alone.

    Speaking of which, Sandusky, the only one known to be a threat to the children in this case, is in jail. None of the others were threats to them. So, we are having this conversation AFTER teh safety of the victims has been ensured, to the extend that you or I have the ability to ensure it.

    Whatever punishment was meted out to others than Sandusky is not about ensuring the safety of the children, since they posed no threat to them. It is about extending Mr. Sandusky's guilt beyond Mr. Sandusky.

    Seriously, how has all of your condemnation and denigration of Mr. Paterno improved the life of a single child?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM
  • "You other two can preach all you want about second guessing, lynch mobs and due process AFTER the safety of the victims has been ensured!"

    Eh? You do realize we are discussing this some ten years after the fact. The known victims are now adults, and the unknown victims are known to Sandusky alone.

    Speaking of which, Sandusky, the only one known to be a threat to the children in this case, is in jail. None of the others were threats to them. So, we are having this conversation AFTER teh safety of the victims has been ensured, to the extend that you or I have the ability to ensure it.

    Whatever punishment was meted out to others than Sandusky is not about ensuring the safety of the children, since they posed no threat to them. It is about extending Mr. Sandusky's guilt beyond Mr. Sandusky.

    Seriously, how has all of your condemnation and denigration of Mr. Paterno improved the life of a single child?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM
  • "Whatever punishment was meted out to others than Sandusky is not about ensuring the safety of the children, since they posed no threat to them. It is about extending Mr. Sandusky's guilt beyond Mr. Sandusky."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Aug 4, 2012, at 9:11 PM

    Since this thread popped to the top of the list again< I thought I'd weigh in.

    There's another angle to this situation. I don't know if you will agree, but it was discovered that other people knew of the abuse and kept it quiet. Pedifelia is unconscionable to me and gross beyond imagining. Those who swept it under the rug bear a significant portion of the responsibility for all of the acts committed after they became aware of that behavior.

    Not reporting a crime is a crime as well. And these sexual crimes that are committed against children are d*** near unforgivable in my view.

    Having said that, I think the NCAA's "punishment" of the school and it's students who had nothing to do with the offenses and no knowledge of it is illogical and akin to punching a stranger because you hate your father.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 2:31 PM
  • "Your evidence to support such a claim?"

    My evidence? The statue was removed and the Lions were stripped of their victories. You can look it up.

    Obviously, these actions had did not improve the safety and security of a single child. They were, simply put, an effort to deprive Joe Paterno of his place in the record books.

    How does this improve the lives of children?

    "It's a Limbaugh talking point. He's rambled ad nauseum about this."

    I suppose you would know, since you listen to him. I don't. I suspect that he reads the same sources as I, though. The Weekly Standard, the National Review, and other Conservative sources have written extensively about it. So has Sports Illustrated, I think, which Rush Limbaugh likely reads, though I don't.

    I have, however, read articles online that ran in various sports magazines. I subscribe to none of them, though, since I'm not much of a sports fan.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 2:43 PM
  • The NCAA is, in their own way, telling Joe Paterno 'You didn't build that'...

    Here's more efforts to strip Mr. Paterno of his legacy, none of which improves the safety of a single child:

    http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2012/07/25/sports/doc500fc140b0d6e951769807.t...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 3:01 PM
  • Spaniard,

    I'm curious. What, exactly, is the point of your effort to attach Rush Limbaugh as the source for all right-leaning posts here? Do you seriously believe Mr. Limbaugh is the sole source of such thinking? Do you really believe that anyone who expresses a thought that may be shared by Mr. Limbaugh can only have gotten it from him? Is your thinking that narrow?

    This has become part of 'the left's' attack on conservatism - the idea that they all get their 'talking points' from Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. The curious thing is, they on the left parrot these same 'talking points' in the manner they accuse the right of doing. I can only assume that those 'on the left' get all their thought from such talking points, and thus believe 'the right' to be similarly incapable of independent analysis of the issues.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 3:07 PM
  • I guess this is part of the Obama phenonenon:

    "You didn't think that!"

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 3:09 PM
  • " It's a Limbaugh talking point. He's rambled ad nauseum about this.

    -- Posted by Spaniard on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 2:00 PM"

    That's Limbaugh's style. He believes nobody but him has the capacity for abstract thought; He insults his listeners and touts his show as the only place they can get the truth. I just have to roll my eyes ever time he says, "Half my brain tied behind my back". I wish he'd untie the other half. He drones on and on about stuff that we knew 2 weeks ago.

    Personally, I like Beck, Savage and Ingram better. Even they are caught up in the political theater though. Glen...not so much.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 3:36 PM
  • The last time I listened to his show, he was still married, and the first half of his show was dedicated to telling us with whom he dined and with whom he visited, and so forth.

    It's his show, so he can talk about whoever and whatever he wishes, but I don't listen anymore, and haven't in years.

    But, I don't listen to Beck, Savage, or any of the others, either. When I listen, I listen to music. For news and commentary, I read.

    I don't watch much television, either.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 4:23 PM
  • C'mon Easy, not hating conservatives! I AM one. Just saying what I think.

    SH, I don't make a point of listening to the spinners. Just when I'm in the car I sometimes listen to talk radio to see what they're saying that day.

    I DO watch some TV. Although it was turned off for a couple of years when everything went digital. My Pop gave a converter so, after a while, I hooked it up and have the locals. Mainly for M.A.S.H. and Seinfeld. The 'News' is a joke.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Mon, Aug 6, 2012, at 6:14 PM
  • Theorist,

    My comment was addressed to Spaniard, who continually tries to portray every comment made by those of us 'on the right' as originating with Mr. Limbaugh.

    I find it quite curious, given that so many 'on the left' parrot that same claim - Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News (which they frequently spell 'Faux', ignoring the fact that 'Faux' is not pronounced at all like 'Fox') and so on. Even Mr. Obama has been guilty of that association.

    But why are you concerned? You always tell us you're not part of 'the left' and are supposedly an independent thinker. If so, the comment clearly would not apply to you, would it?

    The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 8:59 AM
  • So, are you now telling us that _you_ know how everyone 'on the left' thinks, since you clearly claim to know that my assumption is wrong?

    And are you not concerned that Spaniard seems to think he knows how everyone 'on the right' thinks? Or do you consider that acceptable?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 9:01 AM
  • Did you read the entire quote...yes he has one assumption and then deducts everything else.

    -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 8:51 AM

    Huh???

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 10:08 AM
  • Wonder if she meant deduces???

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 10:13 AM
  • No, I deducted it all. My deductible has now been met...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 10:29 AM
  • I think I met my deductable about 10 years ago.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 10:56 AM
  • 'Deduct' is actually correct, though most people say 'deduce' or 'infer'. Deduct has the same root as 'deductive', as in 'deductive logic'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 11:39 AM
  • SH

    I realize it does... but it still sounds goofy to me.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 11:51 AM
  • Probably. I think the British use it more commonly than Americans.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 12:53 PM
  • 'They are a number of people 'on the left' with whom I converse, not just here but elsewhere. 'They' have a penchant for claiming, as Spaniard does, that any 'right-leaning' thought originated with Mr. Limbaugh or Fox News. It seems to be a common denuciation of ideas - such as we see from Spaniard - that once an idea has been said to be a 'Limbaugh Talking Point', it no longer warrants discussion.

    So we have here. I've been talking about this issue ever since it was brought up on here, and for much of that time about how Mr. Paterno was used as a scapegoat, because of his position and his success, when merely punishing the offender, Mr. Sandusky, did not seem enough. Apparently, Mr. Limbaugh has also discussed this in conjunction with Mr. Obama's efforts to belittle individual achievement. (I wonder if Mr. Limbaugh mentioned 'Rollerball', as I did?)

    I see that you, too, have decided to shift the focus towards me. You have not answered how taking down Mr. Paterno's statue or erasing the Lion's victories has, in any way, improved the life of children. As i see it, it is quite the contrary, as it teaches children that society loves to kick you when you're down, and that noble legacies can be erased ex post facto by the petty jealousies of lesser people.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 1:24 PM
  • Schoolmarm.... you back on that "posse" thing? Seems like you have kind of a problem with people not agreeing with you and then comes the name calling. Well that is a silly game we can all play I suppose.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 2:46 PM
  • Rick,

    I voted also.... 'FOR' the candidate I consider the most likely to trounce Clare in November.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 2:48 PM
  • "That is...I vote on the person who most closely represents my ideology, and has the best plan. I detest those who vote party only..."

    That seems contradictory, since a candidate generally runs on the party ticket that best matches his ideology..

    Why do you 'detest' people just because they choose a different manner of voting than you. That seems a bit hateful...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 3:41 PM
  • "Shapley, Joe Pa himself admitted his error, why can't you."

    He said he'd wished he'd done more. Most of wish we'd done more, once we have the benefit of hindsight. That is hardly an admission of guilt.

    There are have been many instances in my life where, once I had the benefit of hindsight, I wish I'd done more or done differently. That does not make me guilty of a crime or of a sin. I've seen things that were 'troubling' which, only later did I know were actual wrongdoing. I've let things pass which, perhaps (and only 'perhaps'), different actions on my part may have led to more positive circumstances for others. But, I have no way of knowing, and certainly had no way of knowing at the time.

    "Would I have imposed the same penalties? Perhaps if I knew what they know..."

    That's the point, you don't know what they know, or knew, on in what frame of mind they knew it. Nor does anyone else, except them. The Freeh Commission did not even interview the principal characters involved, and Mr. Paterno is no longer with us to answer the charges.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 3:49 PM
  • "Why do you 'detest' people just because they choose a different manner of voting than you. That seems a bit hateful..."

    Oh Me, Oh My... is the Schoolmarm making hate filled comments again?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 4:39 PM
  • Now wheels. Quit picking on Ther. You know she sets on the fence.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 4:51 PM
  • Schoolmarm if you cannot figure it out, it would be Claire McCaskill. Sorry I left the "i" out but I guess I gave you too much credit for being able to figure it out.

    Did you leave out by accident or on purpose.... Like voting for Barry Obama because he is the Democrat candidate, but not because they like his plan, he represents their ideas, etc.

    Or is it just Republicans you despise? Be honest with us. And if you think you have me fooled into believing you are an 'Independant'... well try again.

    For me Theorist, I have two candidates I want to see gone from the scene and that would be Claire McCaskill, the nursing home queen of the past, and Barry Sorrento aka, Barack Hussein Obama, the community organizer. They are both phonies.

    I think for Governor, I am pretty satisfied with the current one and can live with him or I like Dave Spence the Republicans.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 6:27 PM
  • Now wheels. Quit picking on Ther. You know she sets on the fence.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 4:51 PM

    Sorry about that Regrets,

    I guess I forgeted... or maybe the devil made me do it.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 6:40 PM
  • "In other words, for Shap, I detest those who vote for a politician simply because he/she is representing the party of their choice. "

    What you are saying is you detest them because you disapprove of their method of selecting candidates. What makes you think your methodology is any more detestable than theirs? Why would you pick the word 'detest' to describe your feelings concerning those who have chosen a different method of selection?

    The political parties exist and establish platforms in order to establish an ideology for which candidates will, by and large, stand. Generally, we can expect Republicans to stand for subsidiarity and Democrats to stand for more centralized government.

    The primaries help us to select those candidates who we think will either uphold the party ideology or, where we find the party ideology lacking, shape the ideology more to our liking. Once the primary is over, we can select candidates with a reasonable belief that the candidates selected by the party will more accurately reflect the ideology with which that party is identified than any candidate not affiliated with that party. Ergo, selection in the general election by party is a valid a choice as selecting candidates by what they say, particularly given the penchant of candidates to say whatever they have to say to get elected.

    Keep in mind that any candidate that runs under the banner of a particular party will be pulled by that party towards their ideology in order to get the support of that party when it is needed. Thus, regardless of what claims they have made regarding their position, they are more likely to reflect their party than not.

    I detest people who go around detesting people they don't think think they way they ought to think, particularly whent they don't even understand the thought process they are detesting.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 8:36 PM
  • Wow Schoolmarm.... If everything you said about SH was true, it would make the two of you identical twins.

    "I disapprove of your telling me and them what I am thinking and what they should be thinking."

    Isn't that pretty much what got us off on the wrong foot the first time I had any contact with you. You were definitely trying to tell me what I should be thinking.

    I guess what they say is true.... what comes around goes around. Funny!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 10:01 PM
  • "And once again...how would you know what I understand or not...answer is...You don't!"

    Only if you are you acknowledging that you are one of those people who go around detesting people they don't think think they way they ought to think. Are you admitting to being one of that group? That's the only group I've acknowledged detesting...

    I said nothing about how you should be thinking, I merely commented upon how you appear to be thinking. You cited two examples of people you 'detest' because of the manner of their voting, those who vote for party only, and those who vote 'against' instead of 'for'. There is no other way to say it than to say you are detesting them for the manner of their voting which you claim to be different than your own.

    Your first quoate was this:

    "I detest those who vote party only...I detest those who vote against instead of for."

    To which I responded:

    "Why do you 'detest' people just because they choose a different manner of voting than you. That seems a bit hateful..."

    My statement seems a logical question based on your statement. Are you saying one should not, for example, vote 'against' a proposed constitutional amendment? That would be voting 'against' instead of 'for', would it not?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 6:18 AM
  • "Now, a question for you...am I one of those people you detest?"

    Methinks I would not waste my time communicating with detestable people. There are few people in the world I detest, and of them, they are all people I've actually met. Ergo, it is unreasonable for you to assume that I would detest you. I do not detest people simply because they have a different viewpoint.

    I don't pretend to know why any specific person may vote the way they vote, thus while it is convenient to lump those who 'vote for the party' into a group, any particular individual who votes that way may not meet the criteria. For example, if a person has looked at each candidate and decided, after much consideration, that the Republican candidates are preferable to the Democratic ones, should they not be able to simply mark the 'Republican' box (assuming the ballot still has one: ours do not) instead of checking each individual box? I cannot presume to believe that, simply because they've chosen to check the party box, they have not researched the candidates and arrived at their decision based on a thorough understanding of the character and ideology of each.

    "I would clarify I was speaking candidates."

    I would point out that, in the case of incumbent judges, voting for or against is the only option given. The question is placed on the ballot to either retain or not retain them. There is no option to vote for their replacement. Again, voting 'against' is a logical alternative, if one decides that a particular judge has failed to faithfully fulfil his or her duties.

    "Once again...the word ONLY..."

    You only used the word 'only' in the party detestation, not in the case of 'for' vs. 'against'. And, again, that in no way changes the gist of my post, which is that you claim to detest certain people because they choose a different manner of voting than you. By 'different manner' I refer to to a different process of selection, which is the criteria upon which you state your detestation. I ask, again, why you 'detest' those who favour party platform over individual ideology? What is so terribly wrong about doing so?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:19 AM
  • But, I am clearly one of those people you detest. I am one because I have voted for the party in the past, and will likely do so in the future. I've also voted against candidates rather than for their opponents, in cases other than the aforementioned judgeships, but in those as well.

    But, I don't care. I reckon life's too short to spend it wallowing in hatred or, if want the softer term, despite. That you chose to do so is your business. That you choose to despise people you've never even met, even though I don't see how that is justifiable, is also your business.

    You see, I'm aware there are those who disagree with me, politically and otherwise. I neither hate nor despise them because of it. Nor do I concern myself with changing their minds. I'm aware there are those who vote straight Democratic tickets, but I don't despise them for it, even if I can't understand how a person could do so. All I can do is state my point of view and hope it sheds some light on my side of the issue.

    I don't get mad or upset if they don't change their point of view. I can remember in the Bible how many were shown the power of God and yet their hearts remained obstinate. If God himself, with miracles and displays of awesome might could not change peoples' minds, I certainly don't think my inability to do so is any great failing.

    We only fail when we give up.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 9:42 AM
  • Where is the evidence that these actions have anything to do with making children safer from predators?

    What possible purpose does the punishment serve? Why work this corruption upon the achievements of those who had nothing whatsoever to do with the crimes of Mr. Sandusy, and had only knowledge after the fact?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 10:47 AM
  • "Re-posted. Such an incredible claim requires facts."

    Which part requires factual confirmation? Are you saying there is no 'war on achievement'. How about the claim that 'You didn't build that'?

    Are you saying Mr. Paterno did not rise to the top of his field?

    Are you saying no lesser men were jealous of his accomplishments?

    Or are you saying the statue was not torn down, and the Lions were not stripped of their victories?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 10:51 AM
  • "How about the claim that 'You didn't build that'?"

    Since you do an excellent job of reading, you are very well aware that in the above phrase, the President was referring to roads, bridges, and associated infrastructure, not, repeat not, whether someone built their business.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 1:22 PM
  • From Merriam-Webster:

    "Despise: 1: to look down on with contempt or aversion

    2: to regard as negligible, worthless, or distasteful"

    "If you haven't taken the time to research who you're voting for and why, then you are a puppet of the political party. Think before you vote. If you can honestly say why you voted for one candidate over the other and it is an intelligent reason and not because of a commercial attack ad, and that candidate lines up with the party of your choice, then I respect your decision to vote as such.

    Otherwise, you do a disservice to our country."

    That's curious. I thought the mantra was that no one should be denied the vote. You seem to be advocating a sort of literacy test, such as the ones that were tossed out long ago. I believe such a concept was deemed racist and bigotted.

    And speaking of dancing: I see you're dancing all around the 'for' vs. 'against' part of your statement...

    ________

    "Since you do an excellent job of reading, you are very well aware that in the above phrase, the President was referring to roads, bridges, and associated infrastructure, not, repeat not, whether someone built their business."

    I've read the speech several times, and it is not clear from the context that he is not saying successful businessmen did not build their businesses. He says someone invested in roads and bridges. But, the successful businessman is one of those who invested in roads and bridges. Chances are, if he is truly successful, he has contributed more than most towards those roads and bridges, so even that argument is incorrect.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 1:53 PM
  • "...someone invested in roads and bridges..."

    Certainly, like MoDOT, the Federal Highway Department, states, counties, and cities. A contractor might have built them, but believe it or not, governments put up the money. And there is no problem with that, as it's part of their responsibility, and there's no reason why businesses cannot take advantage of that same infrastructure. They just can't claim that these investments did not help them succeed.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 2:24 PM
  • Not at all. You merely advocated a literacy requirement, if not a test, of voters who do not wish to be detestable.

    I also notice you changed 'detest' to 'despise'. Need I provide a defintion of 'detest'?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 2:27 PM
  • "Certainly, like MoDOT, the Federal Highway Department, states, counties, and cities."

    Uh, no. Taxpayers made the investment, the government was merely the instrument of directing those investments.

    That is the paramount difference between a Democrat and a Republican. Democrats seem to believe the government is the investor, whereas Republicans believe, in a government of the people by the people and for the people, that the people make those investments.

    Governments derive their power, including the power to invest tax dollars, from the consent of the governed. Democrats seem to forget that.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 2:30 PM
  • Since you do an excellent job of reading, you are very well aware that in the above phrase, the President was referring to roads, bridges, and associated infrastructure, not, repeat not, whether someone built their business. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 1:22 PM

    A liberal lie. The exact quote in question - Obama's words "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

    The president was not referring to roads or bridges. How stupid it would be for the president to assume that people think McDonald's restaurant or Wal-Mart builds bridges or roads so he had to say "Businesses didn't build roads or bridges". His clear intention is to say nobody can make it in the "real" world without the government programs and handouts.

    We've had these discussion before common. You still insist that my money is *your* money or the governments money first. That is the difference between far-left socialists like you and Obama and the rest of the hard-working world. The ONLY jobs program Obama has is to grow government jobs that taxpayers fund. Failure so far...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 3:04 PM
  • "...the power to invest tax dollars, from the consent of the governed. Democrats seem to forget that."

    It is by no means forgotten. I don't think anyone is unaware that the government operates on tax dollars, why should that be a surprise.

    The government is not an investor, rather it provides services by the people and for the people. Yes it is an "instrument" to provide services. That too, should come as no surprise.

    I believe that Democrats are very well aware what government can and should do.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 5:12 PM
  • "The exact quote in question -"

    As we've come to expect, you only got part of the story. Here is "the exact quote in question.

    "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

    "that" equals "roads and bridges" some may have understood easier if he had used "those" instead of "that" but the vast majority of Americans got it anyhow.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 5:19 PM
  • -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 5:19 PM

    So you're standing by your position that Obama meant that McDonald's and Wal-Mart didn't build bridges? Really? That was his point?

    I learned in 6th grade civics class that the government - through taxing all of us in various ways - built bridges and highways. Is this the intellectual level that Obama is speaking to? Or to quote you better Obama said

    "If you own a business, you didn't build roads and bridges".

    Do you think the electorate is that stupid and will believe that is what he meant?

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 6:10 PM
  • "Do you think the electorate is that stupid..."

    I think the electorate is smart enough to know exactly what he meant.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 6:34 PM
  • Why read a transcript to figute out what the empty suit said... listen to his words, and if you thing this short exerpt is out of context, then go find the entire speech and listen to it. There is no doubt what he said. Those of us who put in blood, sweat and tears to build a business that employed people, should be highly insulted at what this do nothing president theorizes. He is anti business, anti individual success, and anti anything that does not require government intervention.

    Vote him out in November.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8XhQfvpW8&feature=player_embedded

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 6:52 PM
  • "...find the entire speech and listen to it."

    Actually I did find it and read it. Here are some more applicable extracts...

    From President Obama's speech...

    "...at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you're willing to work hard, if you're willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try."

    "That's the idea of America. It doesn't matter what you look like. It doesn't matter where you come from. It doesn't matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. That's what binds us all together."

    "-- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded."

    " I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well."

    "I said I'm betting on America's workers. I'm betting on American industry."

    "...look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there."

    "Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that (all of that infrastructure, roads, bridges etc.) Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

    "So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together."

    Obviously, the President was not denigrating individual accomplishment, he was praising it and the spirit of cooperation and the unified effort on the part of not only business owners, but of employees, customers, competitors, and even of government.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:05 PM
  • Common,

    Watch the speech... and how emphatic he is. Nice spin but it is all BS!

    I wish I would have had his arse with me on some of the jobs I had to do to build a business... and I would further have liked to had his signature on the paper that guaranteed the bank my hat, arse and spats if I could not pay. I detest the b*****d for what he said.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:10 PM
  • And don't forget - Claire is in bed with this inexperienced clueless leaderless Acorn attorney. She's with him lock, stock and barrel.

    Obama will likely go back in office. The BEST hope we have is to help turn the senate over to republicans and stop Obama's leftist agenda.

    Did you know??? the defense department is getting NO direction from the Obama administration on how to handle the $1 TRILLION in defense cuts Obama has signed? We are sending troops to Afghanistan weekly yet they are facing $1 Trillion in cuts and Obama refuses to talk about anything until after the election.

    His constant campaigning, fear of expressing what he really believes and lack of leadership is killing this country. Get Claire McCaskill out and stop this clueless community organizer from further destroying this country.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:37 PM
  • "The government is not an investor, rather it provides services by the people and for the people. Yes it is an "instrument" to provide services. That too, should come as no surprise."

    You are the one who made the claim that the government was the investor:Certainly, like MoDOT, the Federal Highway Department, states, counties, and cities. A contractor might have built them, but believe it or not, governments put up the money."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:55 PM
  • "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business -- you didn't build that (all of that infrastructure, roads, bridges etc.) Somebody else made that happen."

    Someone's been editing the transcript, I see. If it was so obvious, why the need to alter the content? Isn't that a bit dishonest?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 8:57 PM
  • Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8,

    Not totally true. The government hired the idea man to develop ARPAnet for defence and not for companies to make money.

    The government was working on it but with it's dithering, secrecy, and endless stupid ideas Xerox PARC took the lead. Xerox had already developed the Ethernet so they had the technology in house.

    The funny thing is AT&T and IBM blew it off thinking it would never be anything of significance.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 9:12 PM
  • "...editing the transcript..."

    The added information was provided in parentheses as an aid for some of the less astute participants. It clearly and simply shows the accurate meaning of the paragraph.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Aug 8, 2012, at 10:16 PM
  • The transcript was compiled from a non-prepared speech. It was arranged in a manner to make it palatable. It could just as easily have read:

    "That's the idea of America. It doesn't matter what you look like. It doesn't matter where you come from. It doesn't matter what your last name is. You can live out the American Dream. That's what binds us all together."

    "-- it is to build an economy where that work pays off. An economy where everyone, whether you are starting a business or punching a clock, can see your hard work and responsibility rewarded."

    " I believe that when working people are doing well, the country does well."

    "I said I'm betting on America's workers. I'm betting on American industry."

    "...look, if you've been successful, you didn't get there on your own. You didn't get there on your own. I'm always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges."

    "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn't get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together."

    "So we say to ourselves, ever since the founding of this country, you know what, there are some things we do better together."

    Doesn't change the wording at all, and yet....

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 6:59 AM
  • "...some of the less astute participants..."

    By 'less astute' you must mean those who don't agree with your interpretation.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 7:01 AM
  • "Again...Shap, you are telling people what they are thinking (mean), which of course, you can't possibly know."

    Again, Both you and Commonsensematters are assuming to know what others here know, and indeed knowing what Mr. Obama thinks, by such comments.

    I used the adverb 'must' when addressing what Commonsensematters 'meant' by his post. According to Merriam-Webster, the adverb means "be logically inferred or supposed to", which, just as when I say 'seem' or 'appear', indicates that I have deduced that meaning from his context.

    I would argue that, if anyone is telling people what other people are thinking, it is commonsensematters: He presumes to know Mr. Obama's meaning and he presumes that anyone who infers that meaning differently than him is 'less astute'.

    I find it curious that you do not call him to task for that, as you do me. But, then, you detest me, not him, so suppose that is undertandable.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 8:22 AM
  • "So you vote party only? See other thread..."

    No, but I vote 'against' instead of 'for' more often than not...

    You keep neglecting to that you mentioned your detestation of those of those who do so.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 9:18 AM
  • "He presumes to know (President) Obama's meaning..."

    It is not a matter of "presuming" anything. It's simply reading the words, and it's abundantly clear what the meaning is, unless you intentionally decide to misinterpret both words and implication.

    The most obvious question would be to ask why the President of the United States would make such an outlandish contention (i.e. that businessmen did not build their business.) The answer is that he did not.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 9:23 AM
  • Astute - Having or showing an ability to accurately assess situations or people.-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 7:59 AM

    Education - something achieved thru K-12 classes where we learn many subjects - including English language. For example, how to read and interpret a sentence. Remember those exercises of breaking down sentences? Here's one:

    "If you own a BUSINESS, you didn't build THAT".

    Remember all those nouns, pronouns, participles, tense, verbs, prepositions? Or did you attend school. The SUBJECT of the sentence is "business" and "that" refers to "business". THAT doesn't refer to roads, bridges, community organizations, temples, airports or pet rocks. THAT refers to BUSINESS. My 8th grade teacher could tell you THAT.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 9:39 AM
  • "The most obvious question would be to ask why the President of the United States would make such an outlandish contention..."

    Because he believes it, perhaps?

    I have a friend that cheered the remarks after they were made, because he has stated for years that the success of business is the result of the labourers who labour more so than the result of the leadership that gets them to labour towards his goal. That is, as Ayn Rand's antaganist in 'Atlas Shrugged' stated: anyone can run a railroad if they've the capital to do so.

    Many seem to believe the successful are successful because they are rich, not that they are rich because they are successful. That is, they seem to believe they one can simply buy achievement.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 9:45 AM
  • "I detest those who vote against instead of for."

    -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Aug 7, 2012, at 2:32 PM

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:17 AM
  • Are you saying I have to be enthused about Mr. Romney, rather than simply being anxious to get rid of Mr. Obama and his policies? To think that is clearly delusional. I recall the 2004 election, when many Democrats told me there were going to 'hold thier nose' and vote Kerry because they wanted to get rid of Mr. Bush. Given that Kerry was, amongst other things, an admitted war criminal, voting 'for' him seemed illogical to many, but they didn't like Mr. Bush, either, so it was a matter of 'against' rather than 'for'.

    You don't have to be embarrassed for me. Yes, I vote against many candidates. To be sure, a vote for any candidate is a vote against his/her opponent, but more often than not, we find ourselves less-than-enthused about one candidate but find him/her preferable to the alternative.

    Methinks you should save your embarrassment for yourself, given that there are so many citizens of this nation you must now find yourself detesting.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:35 AM
  • So, you're saying that, if no candidate impresses you, you refrain from voting? Good for you. More people should refrain from voting.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:36 AM
  • I take it you rarely vote, in fact, since you claim the party system keeps plausible, possible, and creditable candidates off the ballot, there would seem to be few candidates, under this system, 'for' whom to vote.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:46 AM
  • Gentlemen,

    I am not sure this argument is worth so much fervor.

    Given the fact that we are attempting to operate within such a flawed electoral system.

    -- Posted by dchannes on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:47 AM
  • "...successful because they are rich, not that they are rich because they are successful."

    Typical chicken-egg issue, and there is no real answer, as success is normally due to a combination of circumstances and situations. However, most would agree that it is immensely more likely to be rich and successful, if you are able to start out rich.

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:47 AM
  • If candidate 'A' promised to lead us down the road to Hell, and candidate 'B' doesn't really promise anything except to not lead us there, you can bet I'll vote against candidate 'A', even though that means punching the ballot 'for' candidate 'B'.

    Candidate 'B' may not promise anything I particularly want to see, but I most certainly oppose having my country led down the road to Hell.

    I am shocked that you would let the nation follow that road, simply because you couldn't find enough good in candidate 'B' to justify voting 'for' him, instead of simply voting 'against' candidate 'A'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:50 AM
  • "However, most would agree that it is immensely more likely to be rich and successful, if you are able to start out rich."

    I disagree. Most of the most successful I've known did not start out rich, and most of the rich I've known only managed to stay rich, which is not the same as being successful.

    That is to say, if you start out rich and remain rich, though do not get significantly richer, are you truly successful? However, if you are poor and you end up middle-class, are you not successful?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 10:55 AM
  • "Methinks this has happened in the past!"

    I think it happened four years ago. But, even so, the point being 'best qualified' does not imply 'qualified' it merely implies that they are better than the alternative. In such a case, the vote can be said to be as much 'against' as 'for'.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:19 AM
  • If you are voting simply to rid the system of one politician without looking at what you are putting in, you are embarrassing yourself. Methinks this has happened in the past!

    -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:09 AM

    "Methinks this has happened in the past!"

    Schoolmarm, I agree with this statement. 'It has happened in the past.' It happened in 2008 when people were dumb enough to vote an anti-Bush sentiment, when he wasn't even running, thereby putting themselves into the embarassing position of having elected a completely incompetent imbecile for a leader.

    Glad I don't have that dumb mistake on my conscience.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:22 AM
  • If I could have typed faster I could have beat you to making that statement SH. ;-)

    Methinks Theorist has just about covered the whole spectrum of people she detests.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:24 AM
  • So what to do when confronted with two evils. Does one choose the lesser of the two, thereby helping the greater of the two from ascending? Or does one refrain from choosing, let evil land as it may?

    Are you saying that choosing the lesser of two evils is voting 'for' something? I say it is a case of voting 'against' the greater evil.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 11:27 AM
  • "...if you are poor and you end up middle-class, are you not successful?"

    Of course you are. I merely stated that it is easier to become rich and successful if you start out rich. Just ask Governor Romney's kids, my understanding is that one of then was presented with $10 million to start an investment business. (Apparently it was Ann Romney's blind trust that made the investment.)

    Remember, "you didn't build that... you had help along the way." I guess so...

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 3:03 PM
  • Hw wasn't talking about rich people's children in that speech Common, Listen to the words, listen to the contempt for those that did well, in the tone of his voice. For people like yourself who did nothing without government help, it is easy to spin his written speech.

    I heard what he said!

    Sure, I drove on roads that my ever increasing taxes helped pay for. I also drove through snow drifts that the taxes I had paid to be removed had not yet been cleared, to help a customer. Sure that customer helped me, after I earned his trust through the effort that I put forth.

    And you and Theorist may mark this down. I will vote against that empty suit in November, God willing that I am still looking at the green side of the grass.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 3:21 PM
  • "I for one don't want to miss that mud on your face "

    Hmmm.... mud on my face. Isn't that what women do at night to hold down on the wrinkles? I'm not particularly concerned with wrinkles myself. I had a doctor remove a basel cell skin thingy from my face next to my nose a couple of months ago. He did such a fine job of hiding the scar by matching the line on the other side of my nose that I don't think I need to do mud packs.

    But thanks for the suggestion anyway Schoolmarm.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 5:40 PM
  • PS: Schoolmarm, I may not prove to be victorious in my vote, but at least I can hold my head high and tell everybody that I did not aid in the destruction of America.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Thu, Aug 9, 2012, at 5:42 PM
  • "I for one don't want to miss that mud on your face just in case you convince others to do the same embarrassing thing!"

    Now I'm confused. I know Mr. Obama has flung more mud early in this campaign than any I can recall in my short lifetime. But, are you saying he and his supporters are going to start flinging it a voters once the election is over?

    Methinks you may be right!

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 6:44 AM
  • And no one has presented any proof that the life of a single child has been made better by the removal of the statue or the erasure of the Lions' victories.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 2:38 PM
  • And you've presented no proof that I get my opinions from Rush Limbaugh talking points, but you continue to make that baseless charge.

    Isn't that what an 'opinion board' is all about?

    You demand 'proof' from others, but present none of your own.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 2:40 PM
  • http://unclemikesmusings.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-fall-of-paterno-empire.html

    "What will it take to remove the stench of Paterno from the school?

    "A coach who actually is what we were told Paterno was: Honest, truly caring about what happened to those under his governance instead of his own image, and successful.

    "Which will take at least 4 years, beyond which the last Paterno recruit is gone. It will probably take longer than that, because it's usually tough to come back from a smacking like the NCAA got (which also includes a huge fine, stripping of scholarships, and loss of TV and bowl game revenue).

    "The fall of the Paterno Empire is complete. The rebuilding of Pennsylvania State University can now begin.

    "I only wish Paterno had lived to see this day. Because, let's face it: From this plane of existence, we cannot prove that Hell exists, much less that he is in it."

    _______________

    I would call that proof of jealousy by petty men, though I can't prove that 'Uncle Mike' actually had a hand in tearing down the statue.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Aug 10, 2012, at 4:59 PM
  • "And yet Shapley...you still are trying to prove his innocence."

    Nay! I have come to bury Joe Paterno, not to praise him. Joe Paterno is dead, and nothing I can say will help or harm him. I wish him the ability to rest in peace, and I am saddened that so many seek to spit upon his grave, to strip him, post-mortem, of his achievements, and to preserve their honour by stripping him of his.

    The Penn State board paid Mr. Freeh millions in order to have him produce a report that exonerates them from blame. He delivered. Now, I'm sure Mr. Freeh is an honourable man. So are they all, all honourable men. And yet, Joe Paterno is dead and the finger of blame is pointed at he who is in no position to protest.

    They say Joe Paterno was ambitious. So it would seem, but his ambition seems to have benefitted Penn State more than it benefitted Joe Paterno. If, indeed, Joe Paterno 'turned a blind eye' to what was going on, so indeed did they 'turn a blind eye' to Joe Paterno's methods, so long as he delivered victories. Can it be said that those who job it was to supervise supervised? Can it be said that those whose job it was to be president presided? Can be said that those whose job it was to oversee oversaw? It was Joe Paterno's job to coach, and it can fairly be said that he coached. That he failed to fulfil the duties of those appointed over him is not his failing but theirs. Even if, as is suggested (not proven, mind you, but suggested) by Mr. Freeh that he may have been able to persuade those whose job it was to 'do the right thing' to not do so, is that his failing or theirs?

    Methinks, had Joe Paterno lived to look upon the Freeh report, his dying comment may well have been "Et tu, Louis?"

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Aug 12, 2012, at 11:36 AM
  • "The central claim that Paterno "was engaged in a conspiracy ... there's simply no basis anywhere in the report for that finding. That in my view renders the whole report of very little value," Thornburgh said. "There's simply nothing in this record, in the Freeh report, that indicates he was involved in any way"."

    I said as much long ago. But, alas, "Child Sexual Abuse" is the new plague, contaminating all who come anywhere near it.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 17, 2013, at 9:24 AM
  • Joe died with a broken heart, he loved his football team and school he served for so many years.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Thu, Jul 18, 2013, at 6:06 AM
  • "How much did the paterno family pay thornburgh?"

    Probably not as much as the Penn State Board of Trustees paid Freeh...

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 18, 2013, at 6:26 AM
  • "The Paterno family paid Mr. Thornburgh to have him produce a report that exonerated the late Joe Paterno."

    Just as the Penn State Board of Trustees paid Mr. Freeh to produce a report that exonerated the Board of Trustees. What is your point?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 18, 2013, at 8:10 AM
  • I pointed out many of the same objections that Mr. Thornburgh pointed out, free of charge. But, Mr. Thornburgh's name carries more weight, and he is justified in asking to be paid for his analysis. That does not make his objections invalid any more than Mr. Freehs paycheck invalidates his.

    Ultimtately, both looked at the facts presented, offered their summation of the facts, and were paid for doing so.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 18, 2013, at 8:13 AM
  • http://msn.foxsports.com/college-football/story/downtown-state-college-will-have...

    "Nearly two years ago, the iconic Joe Paterno statue outside Beaver Stadium was removed as the NCAA prepared to levy heavy sanctions against Penn State for its role in the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal.

    "A little more than three years later, there will be a new Paterno statue in State College.

    "The statue, a bronze Paterno seated on a bench, is scheduled for November 2015 and will be erected outside Tavern Restaurant in downtown State College.

    "The project, currently called "Joe's Bench," will be renamed "Reflections" when it is finished and is independent of Penn State University.

    "There's been some level of frustration among Penn Staters with what happened with the statue at the stadium," Ted Sebastianelli, one of the project's organizers and former president of the Penn State Football Letterman's Club, told Onward State. "We wanted to come up with a way to honor Joe for all that he did for the State College community. It wasn't just the university he impacted -- it was the whole town."

    _______________

    Can't keep a good man down, it seems.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 23, 2014, at 1:58 PM
  • Shapley, You do realize you're still not going to be paid for your analysis. :)

    -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Apr 23, 2014, at 6:11 PM
  • I do it as a public service. :)

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Apr 23, 2014, at 10:20 PM
  • http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/son-of-penn-states-paterno-says-pedophile-soli...

    When, oh, when, will we end the prohibition and allow College professors to marry so we can end the cycle of abuse?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 25, 2014, at 8:42 AM
  • "This statement "Paterno says his father was conservative, even clueless about sex, and speculates that might have influenced how he handled Sandusky" I find suspect myself."

    That seems to be consistent with what we have heard about Mr. Paterno all along, even from his own statements regarding the incident. He could not comprehend the idea of "man rape", and he described the incident as "something of a sexual nature", possibly because the reality was so foreign to him.

    Why do you find that suspect? From what we know of Mr. Paterno, his life was dedicated to one thing: football. I know some on this forum have said "it is just a sport", but for Mr. Paterno, it was apparently life itself.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 25, 2014, at 9:12 AM
  • "So he wasn't protecting a friend, he was protecting his football program that as you claimed, was apparently life itself. What about the victims?"

    The football programme was not threatened by Mr. Sandusky's actions. The victims were not a part of the programme, and indications are that Mr. Paterno saw Mr. Sandusky's involvement with the charity as a distraction from his duties with the team. That was evident from the reports of the investigation, as Mr. Paterno told him that, had there been no "Second Mile", he might not have had to let him go. Some claimed that was evidence that Mr. Paterno knew of his sexual proclivities, but others (myself included) believe it indicates that he saw Mr. Sandusky as having divided loyalties, and thus was unable to devote the attention to the team that was required of an understudy of Mr. Paterno.

    I find it telling that all of the condemnation of Mr. Paterno comes from without, not from within. All of the evidence by those who knew him point to Mr. Paterno as being exactly as described, dedicated to football and largely distant from everything outside of the playing field.

    "... according to a new biography of Paterno."

    Oh, well, if it's written in a biography it must be true, eh?

    "Do you think the topic ever comes up in the locker room?"

    Possibly not in front of him. When people learn that certain subjects are taboo with certain people, they learn not to discuss them in their presence, for the most part.

    While I was never a coach, I can't say I recall discussion of pedophilia running rampant in the locker room when I was in school. Whether that was because it was unknown or because it was taboo to discuss, I do not know.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 25, 2014, at 9:52 AM
  • I was hoping that when SH and Theorist get this issue resolved we could get back to the naming of St Louis.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 26, 2014, at 7:50 AM
  • Paying 59.7 million to victims certainly must effect the school, no?-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jul 25, 2014, at 2:13 PM

    The only way to get $59.7 million is to sue who?

    Sandusky? No.

    To "go for the money" all you have to do is confuse a jury with emotional testimony and link it to the University. The University did nothing - not a thing - to this victim or the others.

    One man and one man alone did this - Sandusky. And the attorney's and this victim needed money.

    A few administrators were also seriously guilty of not reporting this to police or following through and deserved jail time and monetary compensation to the victim.

    This is another example of liberal "reparations" and punishment of 10's of thousands of people who didn't do anything illegal. When you add up the number of students, administrators, faculty and staff at Penn State they all paid a heavy price.

    Only the criminals should have been financially liable for this.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 26, 2014, at 8:28 AM
  • It is called "deep pockets".

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 27, 2014, at 9:07 PM
  • Only the criminals should have been financially liable for this.-- Posted by Dug on Sat, Jul 26, 2014, at 8:28 AM

    Dug: Agree. IMO, the citizens should be able to sue the lawyers for suing the university. The current and future students (and their parents) are the ones to suffer from all the suing.

    -- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jul 28, 2014, at 8:09 AM
  • Agreed Theorist - except for one small thing. Wasn't the sports program banned from Bowl games and had other punishments put on the innocent athletes?

    And I'm sure they had insurance but I'll bet it cost the University - students, staff, faculty and administrators - a lot of money still.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 28, 2014, at 8:19 AM
  • "Penn State fans planning 'Joe-out' this Saturday to honor Paterno"

    "of the most visually appealing traditions in college football is a Penn State "white-out" at Beaver Stadium, where more than 100,000 fans rock together and wave white towels.

    "This weekend against UMass, Penn State fans are planning a spin-off that will garner much more attention.

    "On Saturday, Nittany Lions fans plan to hold a "Joe-out" to honor late coach Joe Paterno.

    "It's a divisive show of support considering Paterno lost his job in November 2011 due to his role in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

    "We want to make an impact, as Joe would say," Penn State grad Laurie Anne Stannell told the Centre Daily Times. From the story:

    "How fans do it is up to them, she said. A cardboard figure of the longtime coach, a Joe mask, a JVP hat. For many on social media, there are plans for things with the number 409, the total wins for Paterno's coaching career before 111 victories were taken away by the NCAA as part of Penn State's post-Sandusky penalties.

    "For some, it's the kind of opportunity they have been awaiting.

    "He will forever stand as a great founder of our university, shoulder to shoulder with Atherton, Beaver, Pattee, Sparks and more. There will be other coaches, other presidents, other trustees and great men in Penn State's future, but that does not mean we should forget this one man, who made Penn State great. My family and I eagerly await the future -- but we will never forget to honor Joe," said Susan Beck Wilson.

    "The "Joe-out" is not sponsored or associated with Penn State University, and Stannell said there's no veiled message being sent by the fans.

    "It's honoring our past," she told the paper. "We are Penn State. If that's not JoePa then who?"

    http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/penn-state-fans-honor-joe-patern...

    ________________

    There is hope, methinks, for future generations after all. Some, it seems, are now willing to hate people just because society says they ought to be hated. Good for them!

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 17, 2014, at 8:17 AM
  • That was supposed to be "not willing to hate", rather than "now willing to hate".

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 17, 2014, at 8:38 AM
  • "Penn St. gets wins restored, Paterno again winningest coach"

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaafb/penn-st-gets-wins-restored-paterno-again-...

    "STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- Penn State's football team is getting back 112 wins wiped out during the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal and the late Joe Paterno has been restored as the winningest coach in major college football history.

    "The NCAA announced the new settlement with the school weeks before a scheduled trial on the legality of the 2012 consent decree it will replace.

    "The new deal also directs a $60 million fine to address child abuse be spent within Pennsylvania and resolves that lawsuit.

    "The NCAA board of governors approved the settlement, said association spokesman Bob Williams. The Penn State board was discussing the deal Friday afternoon.

    "The announcement follows the NCAA's decision last year to reinstate the school's full complement of football scholarships and let Penn State participate in post-season play, and comes just days after a federal judge declined to rule on the consent decree's constitutionality.

    "The NCAA said continuing the litigation would only delay the distribution of funds to sex abuse survivors.

    "While others will focus on the return of wins, our top priority is on protecting, educating and nurturing young people," said Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina president and member of the NCAA board.

    "The consent decree sprung from the scandal that erupted when Sandusky, a retired football assistant coach, was accused of sexually abusing boys, some of them on Penn State's campus.

    "It had eliminated all wins from 1998 - when police investigated a mother's complaint that Sandusky had showered with her son - through 2011, Paterno's final season as head coach after six decades with the team and the year Sandusky was charged.

    "In September, the NCAA announced it was ending the school's ban on post-season play and restored its full complement of football scholarships earlier than scheduled.

    "The restored wins include 111 under Paterno, who died in 2012, and the final victory of 2011, when the team was coached by defensive coach Tom Bradley. It returns Paterno's record to 409-136-3.

    "The consent decree had also called for Penn State to provide $60 million to fight child abuse and combat its effects. The lawsuit scheduled for trial next month began as an effort by two state officials to enforce a state law that required the money to remain in Pennsylvania.

    "Under the settlement, the money will remain in Pennsylvania.

    "As part of the new proposal, Penn State acknowledges the NCAA acted in good faith."

    __________

    An injustice has been corrected.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 1:52 PM
  • An injustice has been corrected. -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 1:52 PM

    You don't have to look any further than this thread to see the "mob mentality". Finally - years after his death - justice.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 1:58 PM
  • "Had this been East Wyoming Community College"

    ...or the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople. ;)

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 2:16 PM
  • You are free to think what you want. However,now that that frenzy has died down, cooler heads appear to be prevailing, and actions made to appease the mob are being rethought, as they should be.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 10:13 PM
  • "Joe Paterno has been restored as the winningest coach in major college football history"

    At least he has the recognition now.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Fri, Jan 16, 2015, at 10:20 PM
  • Sounds to me it's about $60 million.

    Where does that money come from and where does it go?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jan 17, 2015, at 7:21 AM
  • I have said all along the punishment did not fit the crime, in Paterno's case, since there was no crime. The wins were pulled to placate the mob. Now that the furor has died down, they are retracting it. Part of the agreement required an acknowlegement they "acted in good faith", presumably to keep them from being held to task for overstepping the bounds.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jan 17, 2015, at 10:16 PM
  • Not being one to follow sports I must display my ignorance in asking, is Penn State a school for children?

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:22 AM
  • The NCAA has no authority to punish "moral crimes" of a dubious nature.

    He acted. He reported it "up the chain", as you claim is required (it probably wasn't, in his case). He had no firsthand knowledge of the ctrime, only information relayed to him, which he relayed to his superiors. On what possible basis you believe he incurred guilt is beyond me.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:44 AM
  • You keep trying to make this personal and, by extension, to assign guilt to me for a crime I only read about in the papers, which speaks volumes about your mindset in this matter.

    A crime has been committed, and you want to hold everyone liable who does not share your outrage. The world is not obligated to think as you do. The perpetrator of the crime, alone, is responsible for what was done to those children. They were not under Mr. Paterno's authority in any way, yet you have condemned him with greater vehemence than you have the perpetrator, whom you rarely mention. I find that odd.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:50 AM
  • "Not being one to follow sports I must display my ignorance in asking, is Penn State a school for children?"

    No. It is not. The children were not associated with the school in any way. Nor were they under Mr. Paterno's auspices. If he met them at all, it was only in passing, from all I have read.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:54 AM
  • It was right to reinstate the wins that were earned by the student/athletes who were being punished for something they had no control over.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 9:26 AM
  • "It becomes personal to you, when you pooh pooh the crime in a manner such as 'boys will be boys'."

    Except that I never said that, and I didn't "pooh pooh" the crime, there being none on Mr. Paterno's part.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 10:38 AM
  • "He too, is an embarrassment to your gender and all human kind."

    And so the truth comes out: your bigotry and sexism drives your viewpoint. I suppose your hatred for Mr. Paterno stems from the male-dominated nature of the sport of football.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 10:40 AM
  • -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 10:40 AM

    BINGO!

    Paterno witnessed nothing. Paterno committed no crime. Paterno was told SECOND HAND about a horrible incident and reported it to school administration.

    Paterno is NOT the police, the prosecuting attorney nor the judge. It is NOT his job to investigate or prosecute a crime. He was a football coach. I have sensed the bigotry and sexism since the beginning of this thread.

    In the real world, if you receive information of an incident (physical abuse, verbal abuse, sexual assault - you name it) you must report it to the proper authorities and SHUT UP about it. You can get prosecuted yourself or fired for getting involved. It amazes me that this concept is so foreign to some. Apparently Theo never received the onslaught of training in how to handle incidents like this.

    The mob mentality lives...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 11:11 AM
  • Ever wonder how lowly paid lawmakers leave office filthy rich?

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein is showing how it's done.

    The US Postal Service plans to sell 56 buildings -- so it can lease space more expensively -- and the real estate company of the California senator's husband, Richard Blum, is set to pocket about $1 billion in commissions.

    Blum's company, CBRE, was selected in March 2011 as the sole real estate agent on sales expected to fetch $19 billion. Most voters didn't notice that Blum is a member of CBRE's board and served as chairman from 2001 to 2014.

    From the nypost.com

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 11:55 AM
  • oops, wrong thread.

    -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 11:56 AM
  • Almost all states impose some sort of penalty on individuals who fail to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse. This is a classic case of what happens when a person fails to report. -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 1:30 PM

    Why do you manufacture information that doesn't exist to make your point? Who disagrees with what you posted? No one I know. The problem is your posting has nothing to do with Paterno. What, exactly, are you trying to prove?

    You simply have a hate for Joe Paterno. He reported it. Period. He did EXACTLY what you said. Talk about "deflection".

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 2:33 PM
  • "When we as a society lose our moral foundation, we are in a dire position."

    Theorist,

    I believe if you will do little bit of investigating you will find this country as a whole lost it's moral foundation a long time ago.

    When it started on this path is debatable but it was not with Joe Paterno, who I never heard of before this issue because I pay little attention to sports.

    I think it was well under way when we started accepting the "feel good" movement as normal behavior. If it feels good, go ahead and do it.

    Look around you and see if you still think we lost our moral compass with this one incident.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 7:37 PM
  • "Almost all states impose some sort of penalty on individuals who fail to report reasonable suspicions of child abuse. In some states, all citizens are mandated reporters; in other states, adults who hold certain positions are specifically indicated as mandated reporters.

    "If you are a professional educator in a public school? A doctor? A nurse? A lawyer? A social services provider? A child care provider? or A psychologist? you are obligated to report."

    And the person who had reasonable suspicion was the one who witnessed it. He told Paterno, the next day. Paterno told his superiors the following Monday. If there is anyone other than the perpetrator at fault, it is the assistant who witnessed the act, yet he, too, seems to get a pass. Only Paterno, presumably because of his status and visibilty, seems to be the subject of ire.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:11 PM
  • I think what we are seeing is "success envy" at work. The desire to tear Mr. Paterno off the pedestal is so great in some that his very minor role in this drama was expanded to make him the Devil. Time and again, his detractors have faulted him for "putting football before the interests of children". Of course, there is the obligatory "it's only a game". Neither of those is true. He did not put football before the interests of children, that choice was never in the equation. Penn State football was never threatened by the children, nor vice-versa. Nor is it "only a game", at least as far as colleges are concerned. It is the primary identifier and recruiting tool for many of them. I have expressed my concerns with the connection between sports and education in the past.

    For Mr. Paterno, Penn State football was life itself. It is what he did. I do not know how he would have handled things had he been required to choose between saving children and football, but he was not presented that dilemma, so it remains a moot point.

    What we do see, however, is a desire by some to keep kicking him, even as his corpse lay rotting. I do not understand such hatred, but the "gender" remark strikes me as very telling. That is not "standing up for human rights", no rights were violated by Mr. Paterno's actions.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:36 PM
  • " That is where I do not respect you."

    You didn't respect me before the Paterno story came to light. Must be that gender thing.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:39 PM
  • "I suppose your hatred for Mr. Paterno stems from the male-dominated nature of the sport of football."

    Oh no. Don't get that started or we will hear the whining that football must be ended because it isn't fair to the weaker sex..

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:42 PM
  • I disrespect you because you have no empathy for the children who Paterno didn't want to "mess up his weekend". -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 8:54 PM

    Once again, making up straw man points to appear on higher ground. The fact that you actually believe that Shapley has no empathy for the children goes right back to your bigotry and gender bias.

    I believe you have no empathy for men or children...

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 9:20 PM
  • Theorist, what would have a couple of days changed? Maybe he couldn't report it until Monday.

    -- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 9:24 PM
  • "I disrespect you because you have no empathy for the children who Paterno didn't want to "mess up his weekend"

    I see no reason to empathize nor lose sleep over children neither you nor I have met, some of whose identities remain unknown even to the prosecutors. I do not know their story. You do not know their story. You imagine a story based upon what you have read, and expect the world to stand still until that fiction is adressed.

    I have seen enough of the world to know that the press, the police, and the courts do not always get the story right. I do not pretend to know what Joe Paterno knew, but I will not fabricate guilt where none is evident.

    Football was going on that weekend? So? How would his reporting earlier what was not reported to him until late have affected or been affected by that?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 9:41 PM
  • "I give you the facts, and you try to deflect by insinuating it is my problem."

    I don't think it was an insinuation.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jan 18, 2015, at 9:46 PM
  • My best recollection of the facts of the case are that most of what we know comes from witnesses who saw "something inappropriate". Few of the victims' identities are known and the few that are have reported only being "touched" inappropriately. Ergo, to empathize with the victims requires filling in a lot of blanks and then being outraged by those fantasies. Sorry if I don't follow the logic. Yes, I can empathize with those who havebeen touched inappropriately, but it is hardly something that keeps me up at night.

    As far as the eyewitnesses, if we learned anything from the events in Ferguson, it ought to be that such eyewitness accounts are unreliable, to say the least. I do not doubt they saw something, but how much of what the reported seeing is real and how much is due to their minds "filling in the blanks"? I don't know, and you don't know. But I choose not to try to fill in the blanks myself.

    I have made the mistake, when trying to comfort a person going through difficult times, of telling them "I understand". I have been correctly admonished that I do not. My life may be far from perfect, but I have not worn the shoes of many who suffer. Ergo, my attempts to empathize require creating feelings which are not my own, and pretending they are real. They are not, and thus suffering can see through the facade. If that leaves me sounding cold and uncaring, too bad. I prefer to think it makes me the more honest of us.

    As far as the reporting laws are concerned, they are inconsistent. While our system, on the one hand, requires adults to report suspected abuse, they also instruct schools to hand out condoms and haul young girls off for abortions, no questions asked. Young girls can go to abortion clinics and obtain their services without question, even though statistics show that thirteen- and fourteen-year-old girls, by and large, are not being impregnated by thirteen- and fourteen-year-old boys. Please forgive me if my concern over the lasting damage done to those girls and their unborn babies is greater than my concern over the lasting damage done to a boy who had his leg touched. I'm kind of funny that way. I have seen no evidence that you concern yourself over the unreported fathers of those slaughtered babies.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 6:34 AM
  • Sorry, that should have read

    "Those suffering can see through the facade". My typing, like life in genetal, is far from perfect.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 6:38 AM
  • Anyone who has ever tried a case or presided as a judge at a trial knows that witnesses are prone to fudge, to fumble, to misspeak, to misstate, to exaggerate; if any such pratfall warranted disbelieving a witness's entire testimony, few trials would get all the way to judgment.

    United States v. Edwards, 581 F.3d 604, (C.A.7 (Ind.), 2009)

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 6:40 AM
  • Even my corrections need corrections, at times. "...life in general...".

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 8:16 AM
  • That's the Wikipedia definition. Here is Merriam-Webster's:

    "em·pa·thy noun \ˈem-pə-thç\

    : the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings

    1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

    2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this:

    ____________

    Again, I say, we do not know those victims' stories, so you are having to fabricate them in order to empathize with them. I am rather relieved that I lack the capacity to do that.

    _______________

    "He is gone, and God is his judge. Ask yourself why they are restoring his title?? Justice was done, why change it now??"

    Why are they restoring his title? So Justice can be done. He earned the title. Now he again wears it. Stripping him of it was an injustice. It's the same reason we give posthumous medals to heroes: They may never wear them personally, but their survivors, and society in general, know of their accomplishments.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 8:53 AM
  • "He reported to Paterno what he had witnessed."

    According the report, McQuery did not describe in detail to Paterno what he saw. Paterno left town after for the scheduled game after meeting with him, and reported it shortly after his return, telling his superiors to discuss it with McQuery, since he (Paterno) did not know all the details.

    ___________

    "...as the winningest (sic) coach..."

    You have problems with the word "winningest"? Merriam-Webster lists it as having entered the lexicon in 1972, and the newspaper editors seem to accept it as valid.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 10:20 AM
  • "I do not believe Paterno would want the title restored. He would want this to be left alone."

    I do not pretend to know what Mr. Paterno would want. However, enough people who concern themselves with such things and have followed his record have been concerned enough to press to have the honour restored, and so it has been. His statue, torn down from the stadium which was his home, has likewise been restored, albeit in a location not on the University. There are still among us, apparently, those who honour achievement and respect accomplishment sufficiently to protect it from those who would tear men off their pedestals for political purposes.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 10:24 AM
  • And I appreciate the debate, as well. I do believe I know the answer, or understand it as well as it can be understood, but it is not as you apparently understand it.

    Mr. Paterno's life was intertwined with Penn State football. To take that from him because of an unrelated matter is sour grapes, nothing more. And it was an unrelated matter. The incident in question had no connection to the Penn State football programme whatsoever, and should not have been an NCAA issue. I think the NCAA has come to that conclusion, in hindsight, but only wants to be recognized for having "acted in good faith"

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 10:43 AM
  • "This isn't about politics, Shapley."

    Yes, it is. How else do you justify stripping the University of its wins, despite there being no connection between the wins and the incident in question. This is not a recruiting violation. It is not about cheating. It has nothing to do with football whatsoever, yet the decision was made to alter the outcome of football games in order to placate the mob. It is politics at its oldest and dirtiest.

    "Are you so completely devoid of feeling that you can't understand that?"

    Are you so wrapped up in "feelings" that you can't look at this logically? What do "feelings" have to do with it? Does it make you "feel" better to have those wins stripped, and therefore you "feel" it is justified. You had my respect when you suggested: "Everyone would consider what they are saying and doing before they do it, we would have a better world" but now you are back to acting on "feelings" with out consideration for the lack of connections between the act and the punishment.

    "...after Paterno's death, an email surfaced that indicates Paterno was either aware of or that he actively encouraged university officials not to report Sandusky to child welfare authorities."

    An email from whom and to whom? It sounds rather vague, as they cannot seem to tell us whether it indicates he was "aware of" or "actively encouraged" the actions of the university. Again, it seems to require the filling in of a lot of blanks.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 11:54 AM
  • "They wanted (unlike others)to try to 'fix' something that could not be fixed."

    It is entirely devoid of logic to try to fix something you know can't be fixed. What you are saying is they wanted to "do something for the sake of doing something" so they would look better in the eyes of the mob. Unfortunately for them, many saw through the façade, so they have reversed themselves.

    You are showing yourself to be part a growing problem in America, one in which we seek "feel good" solutions that do nothing about the problem they are supposed to address, but serve only to placate the mob. Such "solutions" cost society billions while making the restless mob ever more demanding.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 12:00 PM
  • In all your posts, you have yet to explain how stripping Mr. Paterno of his record improves the life of a single victim. You claim it is about "Justice" but it is really just about vengeance. This is particularly troubling because it does not appear to be the victims calling for the vengeance, just an angry mob who want to "feel better" because something has been done.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 12:02 PM
  • "I do feel it was not the NCAA responsibility to 'punish' the university. It should have been taken care of with other judicial processes."

    And so we agree on something. It was not related to the NCAA in any way whatsoever. And, since it was the NCAA that acted where they had no responsibility, it is only logical that such overstep ought to be reversed, as it was.

    It is curious that you agree that it was not the NCAA's responsibility to act but agree with the action. Do you support vigilantism in other regards, or just when it comes to punishing football teams?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 12:05 PM
  • "Tell me how stripping Paterno of his title cost billions to society"

    I didn't say it did. I said "[s]uch "solutions" cost society billions". That is to say, the cumulative total of such "solutions" made to placate the masses cost us so.

    However, the stripping of Mr. Paterno's title cost such things as the money spent to tear down his statue and to remove references to that record from the stadium. Add to that the cost paid by those who restored his statue with their own funds. Now can add the cost of restoring that record to the books, correcting an error that ought never to have been made.

    ___________

    "And...I did address why reinstating his record hurts the victims. Are you reading my posts? Check my 8:42 post!"

    Sorry, but no. I asked about "stripping him of the title" and you addressed "reinstating it". Different issues. One is an injustice made to placate the mob. The other is the restoration of justice, which you think ought to be left undone in order to keep the mob placated.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 12:20 PM
  • SH,

    As I learned long ago, when dealing with this poster you may as well be talking to a wall. What you have to say is meaningless, her "opinion" is the only thing that matters.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 12:35 PM
  • "No one needed to restore his statue, who paid for it the first time?"

    I don't know. Nor does it matter. The cost of installing it is lost, and the cost of removing it is added to the injustice. Again, the removal of the statue, like the removal of the title, was an injustice that costs society.

    The idea that it is done to make someone, in this case an unknown someone, "feel better" is absurd. Do we even know if they "feel better" because of the statue's removal? Is it because you are so empathetic with this unknown individual (the one reported to Mr. Paterno, which is the only one this would address), that you know how he feels about Mr. Paterno, his statue, and his record?

    Methinks your entire sense of justice in this case is unsupported by logic.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 12:48 PM
  • If I was to have the last words of this thread they would be 'enough already!'

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 8:00 PM
  • Old John,

    I was hoping we could get back to the naming of the City of St. Louis discussion myself.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 8:06 PM
  • Victim 1's assaults took place at a high school. The incidents were reported to Paterno after already being reported to the "proper authoroties". What was Paterno expected to do? Overrule the "proper authorities over a matter that was not under his auspices?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 9:11 PM
  • Wheels, Or St. Peters Rock.

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 9:11 PM
  • "45 guilty counts, 10 boys, 15 years."

    That is akin to saying Bacon matters more than bicycles. The numbers are not related. You have still yet to explain how revoking the wins aids a single one of those victims.

    It was a meaningless gesture unrelated to the crime that produced those convictions.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 9:16 PM
  • What I see after reading all of these posts is Theorist is the one tossing and turning at night. You can't except the fact that the wins have NOTHING to do with the crime, plain and simple.

    -- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jan 19, 2015, at 10:06 PM
  • Glad to see that the wins were restored to the players that earned them.

    -- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 6:34 AM
  • "Victim 1

    "The investigation was initiated in the spring of 2008, after Aaron Fisher (identified in court papers as "Victim 1"), then a freshman at Central Mountain High School in Mill Hall, Pennsylvania, reported that Sandusky had been molesting him since he was 12 years old."

    "Fisher met Sandusky through The Second Mile in 2005 or 2006, when Sandusky began having a relationship with Fisher involving "inappropriate touching". At the time of the alleged actions, Sandusky was volunteering as an assistant high school football coach at Central Mountain High School, where the assaults took place."

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_State_child_sex_abuse_scandal

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 6:53 AM
  • "If and when the abused speak out about the restored games, will you listen and change your mind or make more excuses?"

    "If..."

    I don't deal in hypotheticals. It would depend on whether or not they can make a case that there is a connection between those wins, Mr. Paterno, and their abuse. I rather doubt they can. If they continue not to speak out about it, will you listen and change your mind or continue to "emphathize" with people you have never met?

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 6:57 AM
  • "What does restoring the winning games record do to a man who is gone and "wished he would have done more"? It doesn't right a wrong, it gives an honor to a man who did something dishonorable."

    I answered that many posts ago. Why do we give posthumous medals to dead heroes? Why do we posthumously pardon those wrongly convicted and executed? Yes, it rights a wrong.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 7:03 AM
  • "I bet you would feel different too, if your child was one of the abused."

    Only if Mr. Paterno had been the abuser. I don't try to punish the everyone who ever knew those who wrong me.

    "Have another toss filled night."

    We see here more of your problem, you wish to inflict guilt on society for those things that bother you. I have learned, for the most part, the art of forgiveness. I am sorry that you cannot sleep well because of what happened to peolle you don't know. Perhaps you should learn to "let it go". Your desire to inflict suffering on those who have done you no wrong will only bring suffering upon yourself.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 7:10 AM
  • As far as I know, I have never met Theorist. I am quite certain I have never wronged her. Yet, she feels compelled to wish discomfort upon me for having the audacity to disagree with her.

    For my part, I consider it of no concern whether she sleeps well or not at all. I have never wished discomfort upon her. But, then again, I suppose that has something to do with all that empathizing. Perhaps she is wanting me to empathize with her restlessness. Perhaps her insomnia makes her "compassionate", and she thinks if I sleep less, I will become so, as well. The things that pass for compassion, I can't understand.

    Methinks maybe she is mistaking her sleep-deprivation-induced-hallucinations for empathy. Perhaps she is up late sticking needles in the little Shapley doll she has fashioned from my hair which she picked up at the local barber shop. Who knows?

    Whatever the case, I wish her no ill will. She is free to hate me as she sees fit. I will lose no sleep over the fact that she wants me to do so. ;)

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 8:08 AM
  • "Unless a genius, he wasn't in H.S. at age 12. The article does not say that was where the assaults took place."

    He wouldn't have to be. Most middle and elementary schools lack football facilities. Ergo, they likely use the local high school facilities. A quick look at the map shows that Central Valley Middle School and Central Valley High School are adjacent one another. Given that the indications of the reports were that the assaults typically took place in locker rooms and in the perpetrator's home, it is likely that the assaults took place in the high school locker room, as the Wikipedia article states.

    Your linked article does not say otherwise, and there is no indication they took place on the Penn State campus.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 10:01 AM
  • Joe was an outstanding coach and person he died of a broken heart. This tragedy hit him right at the end of his career. I believe they need to give back some of the wins to Joe, don't take away all of his dignity for something some one else did.

    -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 10:12 AM
  • OK, she sang!

    Is this enough already.

    -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 10:51 AM
  • "You do not know where the abuse took place."

    I posted the quote and link that stated quite clearly that the assaults took place at Central Mountain High School. I have seen nothing that disputes that.

    "Sandusky was volunteering as an assistant high school football coach at Central Mountain High School, where the assaults took place."

    That sounds pretty cut and dry to me.

    "I do not understand your detached position."

    Nor do I understand yours. I have asked twice for you to explain how removing the wins helps the victims, and you have provided no answer. I can only assume there is none. I think you have repeatedly failed to provide a valid reason for the removal.

    I will now bow to the wishes of the other readers to end this discussion (though I don't understand why they keep reading if they are tired of it). It has been a pleasure debating the issue.

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 11:13 AM
  • I agree swamp, he died in pain, as he stated he "wished he would have done more". I believe his words. -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 10:41 AM

    Maybe you should practice his words and "do more" to learn about the laws and guidelines on such matters. Your pure emotional arguments and biased postings are blinding you. You haven't a clue.

    -- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 11:24 AM
  • Dug, I've found that most "liberals" argue and react due to emotions and feelings. And when conservatives don't, it drives them crazy.

    -- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jan 20, 2015, at 11:48 AM

Respond to this thread