JoePa/Washington Post article is up...
Long time reader, first time poster.
In case you weren't convinced before, Surma is an epic jerk. Regardless of how you feel about Joe, Surma's method of termination is pathetic.
I think what most of us suspected, that Joe is simply of another time/era when it comes to this type of thing (supported by McQueary saying he didn't get specific). Also, the comments on the article are...almost funny. Haters are saying that the media is biased, that we should wait for trial, etc, etc. The irony certainly isn't lost.
I, for one, hope Coach gets better soon.
Here's the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paternos-first-interview-since-the-penn-state-sandusky-scandal/2012/01/13/gIQA08e4yP_story.html
Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
577 comments
|
4 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And as always
Save yourself your sanity and don’t read the comments. I have lost so much faith in humanity from this whole ordeal Reading those cowards comments only further enhances my disdain.
"That's why you don't play! 'Cuz you're no good!" -Joe Paterno
by pmm156 on Jan 14, 2012 5:00 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
Not reading comments, but I imagine wishing them death is equal to what they wish on their superior...
Joe Paterno.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
by psume06 on Jan 14, 2012 5:02 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I gave in and looked at them
I was curious if it would sway anyone’s opinion at all. It didn’t. There wasn’t as much wishing death as some articles, but people still seem to genuinely believe that Paterno masterminded a coverup to keep winning.
It takes a unique blend of stupidity and bias to believe that 1.Protecting a guy who wasn’t a coach anymore helped them win games, and 2. that involving more people is a good way to star a coverup.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 5:10 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
and 3. that what happened in the few years right after the incident took place was "winning"
Fire Dan Snyder
by Cari Greene on Jan 14, 2012 5:27 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
In my head, those seasons never happened
We went from 1999 to 2005 overnight. Just like in 5 years I won’t remember anything that happened after Nov. 8 during this season.
2002 happened and was actually a really fun season
take away 2 horrible calls and we are very likely 11-1 that year.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 5:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I do have a vague recollection of something occurring in the middle of the night.
I thought it was a dream.
It is my belief
that the haters who stubbornly ignore the facts and logic and, call it what it is: reality, have never really had to deal with anything remotely as serious, so they cannot comprehend the facts, the logic, and the history as it unfolded.
Their only recourse, is to blame, blame, blame, in order to quell the inevitable subconscious doubts about their own suspected inadequacies. Most vocal outrage comes from hollow sources, while the cooler heads pursue understanding, before rushing to judgment.
Only after one has “sufficient” knowledge should outrage be allowed to justly follow. A lot of people, including so called objective journalists obviously tend to skip that step.
by TonyLion on Jan 15, 2012 9:16 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I wonder if it was difficult for Surma to father offspring,
seeing as though he wholly lacks balls.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Jan 14, 2012 5:04 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
I would call Surma a eunich...
But that’s an insult to ball-less men everywhere.
Jerk is too kind of a word to describe Surma. Any suggestions from the crowd?
by iamkatemcg on Jan 14, 2012 5:07 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Soulless eunuch?
#1 Flyers fan in England (originally from Southeastern PA)
by Orange and Black Forever on Jan 14, 2012 5:14 PM EST up reply actions
Santorum
Son of an Infidel.....Eater of Vegetables!
by joefromboalsburg on Jan 14, 2012 6:10 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
Easy killer.
You are only allowed to refer to nebulous groups of people as “jackasses”, not specific individuals.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I made that comment...
in a knee-jerk reaction. I don’t think Santorum is a dick. I think he’s wrong on some issues, but I’m getting especially sensitive to the whole line of attack of “Why are you scum-sucking Republican Nazi’s so uncivil?” coming out of much of the left and media today. I should have thought before posting though. My apologies.
Pretty sure it had to do with the "other" meaning of Santorum
and nothing political, since that’s against the rules here. We prefer to call each other cultists.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 8:44 PM EST up reply actions
I thought we were Joe Paterno Apologists©
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
Card-carrying, dues-paying!!
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:49 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
lol, but it isn't like that "other" meaning of Santorum isn't completely connected to the man himself
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions
Oh, the rebranding was a political hit for sure
But you can reference the change in meaning and not have political intent.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 9:45 PM EST up reply actions
Two things.
1. That’s my old man you’re talking to.
2. He can defend himself, but it was kind of an inside joke.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I hate when people take personal attacks on politicians as some sort of partisan attack.
Some people just think Santorum is a dick.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:51 PM EST up reply actions
The Word Santorum has two definitions.
JFB was simply using the more common form of the word, rather than referring to the politician.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 7:53 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
I think I'll get away with that one.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Seriously.
It is at that time you should know you are taking things to seriously.
How about
“gutless asexual invertebrate”?
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions
Read the comments...
Probably shouldn’t have. Color me a masochist. What kills me is that these asshats are the same who were so quick to condemn Paterno, completely blew their facts, etc. Whatever, if you’re that stupid, I know where you didn’t go to school.
The video made me tear up.
by iamkatemcg on Jan 14, 2012 5:06 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
good thing about WaPo
they seem ok with deleting comments that have obvious factual inaccuracies presented as fact. See: Sally Jenkins’ original article in November, where one commenter was going crazy because his comments were deleted. A WaPo staffer commented on his comments, explaining why it was deleted.
Of course, the commenter claimed his facts were true. I think the employees of a well-respected newspaper might know a little bit better, however.
Fire Dan Snyder
exactly
he obviously had no idea what he was talking about, and thought he did. that’s a dangerous combo.
Fire Dan Snyder
A lot of that article is fluff, but I found two things interesting
First, Joe confirmed what a lot of us suspected, that Joe recognized he wasn’t the person who should be investigating the claims and handed them off to the people whose job it was to do so. He then assumed they had done their jobs. Unfortunately, they didn’t.
Second, I liked how Jenkins says in the video that she gave Joe every chance to trash PSU and he didn’t. He’s a better man than me, because I would have went off the first chance I got if I had been wronged like he was.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 5:17 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Interesting that a fair amount of the article is fluff.
Wonder how much Wick Sollers had to do with getting that interview done and the article written. Seems strange that the Washington Post would get that story.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Probably has a lot to do with the fact that the Times was shitty in November
and the Philly, Pittsburgh and Harrisburg papers are just shit all the time.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:38 PM EST up reply actions
The Times...
has been a shitty paper since the mid 90’s.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I may not always agree with the OpEds, but the reporting is usually damn good.
There are obvious exceptions.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:47 PM EST up reply actions
They also voted us National Champions after the 1994 season, so that's kinda nice.
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Jan 14, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
NY Times > many B1G writers in that regard
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
A Pile of Shit > B1G Anything
Run.
by Bob Sacamano on Jan 14, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Maybe.
My guess is that Paterno is really sick, wanted to go on the record just in case, and Sollers was able to call in a favor to get a favorable article written.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
With the caveat that I have no information,
All of this feels that way to me too.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Yahoo reported he was wearing a wig.
Chemo must be playing hell with him.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
Washington Post reported that too.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Damn it.
I am getting all emotional again. I have this dreadful feeling Joe wanted this interview on record before he takes over for Vince Lombardi as HC of God’s football team.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
Agreed
Although I hope that the man has a long, long time.
Regardless of what happens, my life is better because of him. Period.
by iamkatemcg on Jan 14, 2012 9:05 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
My mother died of lung cancer two years ago.
The chemo is almost worse than the disease.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I think it was more Jenkins herself than the Post
Jenkins actually did some reasonable articles on the subject when the story began in November. She argued that Joe shouldn’t be the main focus, and did an article on how hard it would be to believe the accusations.
I’m guessing they picked her because they had faith that she wouldn’t spin the interview poorly.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Cultist.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah, this
I think I remember a comment from Joe long ago that he used to know and view favorably Sally’s father, Dan Jenkins. He was a longtime sportswriter for SI as well and, notably, from a similar era as Joe.
jtothetweet
Yet, bag or not, it’s nigh on impossible to mistake a cat for a pig.
Grew up reading Dan Jenkins
If you’ve never read one of his books, you are missing out. Grab a paperback version of Semi-Tough, Life It’s Ownself or Baja Oklahoma, get a bottle of single-malt, a bucket of ice, some chips and/or pretzels, throw some pillows on the couch, pull up the ottoman, and enjoy a nice three-hour trip. You’ll be better for it. Seriously.
*
Excellent endorsement!
Headed to Amazon immediately. Thanks!
jtothetweet
They don't even bind feet in China anymore, mostly.
About what I expected, but I really would have liked an answer to the question about what, if anything, he did to follow up AFTER.
Surely he must have had some opinion of seeing Sandusky around campus after he reported it up the chain to Curley and Schultz. The closest thing is his admission that he wasn’t the right person to handle it, and wanted people more able to handle it to lead the investigation: that is fine, but what about when you see nothing come of the investigation, don’t you at least try to figure out why?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 5:44 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Nothing.
The article said he never followed up. Read closely. The explanation is he didn’t want to be seen as pushing for or against Sandusky.
Which may...
or may not have been the wrong decision. Don’t know if it was an immoral decision.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 5:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
i think it was a wrong decision
and possibly an immoral one. he had to have seen sandusky with kids on campus, around his football program – one would think he would have said something.
I love penn state, and love joepa and hope his legacy outlasts this scandal. However, let’s not fool ourselves. He was wrong in how he handled such a serious situation – and he comes off as very naive in the article in what he did to address the situation.
by RoBo_Cop on Jan 14, 2012 6:24 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
you are assuming that Joe came out of the 2002 situation believing Sandusky guilty.
It is just as reasonable for him to have thought the investigation went the other direction. How many investigations do you read about that say, “Investigation against person X has uncovered no wrongdoing”? Typically in an investigation no news is good news.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
And remember the article goes into detail about Joe's problem with JS
Although Sandusky had been his close coaching associate and helped fashion Penn State defenses for three decades, their relationship was "professional, not social," as Paterno described it. "He was a lot younger than me." Sandusky had been out of the program for three years, and in fact, Paterno said he cannot recall the last time he had seen or spoken to Sandusky. "I can’t," he said.
Sandusky retired in 1999, shortly after Penn State made the Alamo Bowl. The timing was curious. Paterno’s understanding was that Sandusky took early retirement on his recommendation after Paterno told him frankly that he would not become his successor. The state was offering 30-year employees a handsome buyout, and Paterno believed Sandusky should take it. Paterno was frustrated that Sandusky spent so much time working on his youth foundation, The Second Mile, that he was not available to help in recruiting and other coaching duties. Authorities now say Sandusky used Second Mile to meet and groom his alleged victims.
"He came to see me and we talked a little about his career," Paterno said. "I said, you know, Jerry, you want to be head coach, you can’t do as much as you’re doing with the other operation. I said this job takes so much detail, and for you to think you can go off and get involved in fundraising and a lot of things like that. . . . I said you can’t do both, that’s basically what I told him."
Joe sees JS as a dedicated Charity Founder just like Curley and Schultz see him
He’s the foster father of SIX who spends too much time with his charity work.
Everyone seems to dismiss this widely held view in 2002 and cannot divorce the 40 count 23 page presentment from consciousness to try to comprehend the unreality that Joe and Tim & Gary would have been facing. Jerry was so well liked by everyone in terms of being likable, physical, good with kids, and almost selfless in giving his time to charity and foster kids.
That is really the KEY THING here. – it’s MM’s actual statements and how they mix with Jerry’s image in the minds of Joe Tim and Gary
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 14, 2012 9:17 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Thanks, aurabass.
You’ve succinctly stated what I’ve been formulating nebulously in my mind for a while now.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 14, 2012 9:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
he always does
and am thankful for that. I gotta say I have become an outside “fan” of Tennessee since aurabass has brought his views, opinions, and writings here
by TJM5054 on Jan 15, 2012 1:37 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
1998 report
I’d really like to know when JoePa found out about the 1998 report. I know he said he didn’t know about it in 2002, but did it take until 2011 to know about 1998?
that's another good point.
If he doesn’t find out about it until right around the time he’s summoned by the Grand Jury, then that’s one thing, but if he knew about it earlier, then spotting Sandusky hanging around should be sounding the klaxon.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 15, 2012 9:55 AM EST up reply actions
He comes off...
like an old man. I think he probably made the wrong the decision, but I don’t question his intentions. But for Curley and Schultz shitting the bed on this, the narrative would be how Paterno did the right thing.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:28 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Joe says
he had never heard of and didn’t comprehend the idea of one man raping another male. Could he have followed up more? Sure, but I really think the reality of what MM saw (or thought he saw) does not exist in Joe Paterno’s reality. I think that, more than anything, motivated Joe’s actions.
by kflintosh on Jan 14, 2012 9:41 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
The yahoo "journalist" said he was "out of touch" for this.
Yeah sorry 70 year old joepa wasn’t keeping up on all the latest in depravity. Normal people shouldn’t have to contemplate such obscenities.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Franco Harris:
"If I had to choose today between the moral integrity and character of Joe Paterno and the politicians and commentators criticizing him, I would pick Joe Paterno, hands down, no contest every time."
by showtime on Jan 15, 2012 10:18 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
That's ridiculous
The idea of a man molesting a kid is not anything new. This seemed like a weak excuse to me.
by M1EK on Jan 16, 2012 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Maybe not new to those of us who watch SVU all the time
(and, other similar shows/movies). But to someone Joe’s age? This is just a topic that wasn’t brought up when Joe was in his heyday. Period. Not talked about.
Fire Dan Snyder
Was it an excuse?
I didn’t read it as an excuse. He gave his reason (or “excuse”) and then kind of candidly said that even if he’d been told more, he probably wouldn’t have been able to wrap his mind around it. Don’t take “never heard of” literally, it’s more of a rhetorical device.
So believe what he said or not, it wasn’t an excuse.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Exactly
It’s not that he never heard of it, but its unlikely that he’d know much about other crimes like this or how it usually works in this day and age. The history of ancient Greece doesn’t enter into it.
We now know that JS’ alleged behavior fit the usual pattern/profile for these types of criminals, but Joe wouldn’t know what that “usual pattern/profile” was. Indeed, it’s clear that most people still think of pedophiles as weird guys in vans and trench coats so it would be hard for him to see JS as a molester.
So he couldn’t say for certain one way or the other, based on McQuery’s vague description, if it sounded like something horrible or something innocent just being misinterpreted. Of course, those of us who’ve read a bit on this would say it’s best to just err on the side of caution and assume the worst of a situation like that, but see to it that its investigated discretely. But I can see how he wouldn’t know how to interpret it because he had no context.
And he certainly wouldn’t know how to go about investigating it properly.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
"That's ridiculous"
The fact that you haven’t been banned yet is ridiculous. I find your opinions offensive.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Franco Harris:
"If I had to choose today between the moral integrity and character of Joe Paterno and the politicians and commentators criticizing him, I would pick Joe Paterno, hands down, no contest every time."
by showtime on Jan 16, 2012 7:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He was running the Second Mile
It made sense for him to be around kids. This is only suspect now because of the knowledge of repeated incidents that we now have.
At the time, it would have only been one incident to Joe. Like it or not, false accusations happen.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
no, he didn't "have to have seen Sandusky with kids on campus"
After the 2002 incident Sandusky was told not to bring kids on campus.
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
by letsgopsu on Jan 14, 2012 7:57 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
and the charity was told too
the second mile scandal needs more investigating.
by FB6244 on Jan 14, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I do NOT understand why this is not happening
and why there is not more outrage about their failures
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
by letsgopsu on Jan 14, 2012 8:31 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Page views
It’s a sad sad world. But we can make a small difference.
^ This.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvPkLG-tvzM&feature=fvst
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:40 PM EST up reply actions
AGREED
I get the feeling like there are facts hiding at the Second Mile that need to be uncovered. With that said, the organization also should not be painted with a broad brush – there were many, many good people who are totally innocent in this involved with that charity. It was huge, and the vast majority of volunteers and employees just wanted to help underprivileged kids.
The depth of both my sadness and anger is unfathomable.
We (Still) Are...
It sucks for the people
who did good work there.
and the vast majority of the kids who DID benefit
and the ones who won’t benefit because of this
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
and one's who could be helped.
in the future. I hope some other charity steps into their place.
Another good point
Yet more victims of Sandusky’s apparent depravity. This whole affair is sickening on countless levels.
Great thread tonight, folks. Enjoyed reading through it, but just didn’t have the mental energy to contribute much. Go Pats… I guess.
The depth of both my sadness and anger is unfathomable.
We (Still) Are...
Glad to know you are
here in spirit, Buch!
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 9:00 PM EST up reply actions
And the scrutiny that other groups will endure.
There are always ripples upon ripples. Charity 1-A gets a bad rap for something, and 1-B through 1-Z (who work in the same field) come under the same microscope. “How do we KNOW you are not embezzling/misusing funds/allowing children to be hurt?”
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
dangit
someone please teach me the sarcasm font?
just put and @ before and after you sentence
Cory Giger deserves a Pulitzer
Make sure you “Preview” before you post
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
by letsgopsu on Jan 14, 2012 8:59 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
Rec'd for the sample sarcasm.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 14, 2012 9:26 PM EST up reply actions
I was reading over on the Flyers SBN blog
and they use the sarcasm font too. I wonder if this is just an obvious use for the coding font on SBN, or if it is spreading (since obviously there is some crossover between the fanbases)
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 9:30 PM EST up reply actions
As Christian Bale would say,
Oh, good for you!
Thanks very much.
Cory Giger
deserves a ‘pullet surprise’, but that would be cruel to the bird.
Alea iacta est...
by PSUGuru on Jan 14, 2012 11:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
BINGO - the Second Mile was JS hunting ground
the place where the kids and their families would have complained
and the one place the AG said she was not investigating
The Second Mile Exec Director Jack Raykovitz was told about the incident and the ban in 2002. Raykovitz, never contacted police. Raykovitz was assured by prosecutors that The Second Mile was not a target of investigation.
How weird is that?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 14, 2012 9:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
probably because they were smart and got their bribes lined up properly
PSU had too much hubris for that.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Franco Harris:
"If I had to choose today between the moral integrity and character of Joe Paterno and the politicians and commentators criticizing him, I would pick Joe Paterno, hands down, no contest every time."
by showtime on Jan 15, 2012 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
one word explains, Corbett
I just read.
by BMAN13 on Jan 15, 2012 1:04 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
This is such a simple statement
but speaks truths that a lot of people haven’t been willing to look into. You can do something “right” but for immoral reasons (see: donating openly to charity for headlines and personal reputation “what a great philanthropist”) or you can do something wrong without being immoral. It’s not always cut and dry.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 2:33 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Inappropriate!
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
by psume06 on Jan 14, 2012 5:57 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I read that as he didn't immediately get involved because he didn't want to be seen as pushing for or against Sandusky.
It says nothing about if he ever followed up after sufficient time for an investigation to have occurred.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 5:59 PM EST up reply actions
Read between the lines.
This was the most favorable media person to Paterno, and this was the relevant section:
Paterno’s portrait of himself is of an old-world man profoundly confused by what McQueary told him, and who was hesitant to make follow-up calls because he did not want to be seen as trying to exert any influence for or against Sandusky. "I didn’t know which way to go," he said. "And rather than get in there and make a mistake . . ."
He reiterated that McQueary was unclear with him about the nature of what he saw — and added that even if McQueary had been more graphic, he’s not sure he would have comprehended it.
"You know, he didn’t want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it."
In other words, no, he didn’t follow up. He says he would have expected Curley and Schultz to follow up on it, so he didn’t.
OR read between these lines
Paterno was frustrated that Sandusky spent so much time working on his youth foundation, The Second Mile, that he was not available to help in recruiting and other coaching duties.
"He came to see me and we talked a little about his career," Paterno said. "I said, you know, Jerry, you want to be head coach, you can’t do as much as you’re doing with the other operation. I said this job takes so much detail, and for you to think you can go off and get involved in fundraising and a lot of things like that. . . . I said you can’t do both, that’s basically what I told him."
and you get the way Joe viewed Jerry
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 14, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
reading just that section
especially the, “So I just did what I thought was best, I talked to people that thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it” at least indicates that Paterno considered the matter settled at that point, since the appropriate positions (since let’s be honest, the position of the people he reported it to should have been enough, even if the specific people were less than adequate) were involved and nothing came of it. Was this a mistake? Yes. Was it a morally corrupt decision? I still don’t think so.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
This is what I thought also, and what I have been saying for 2 months
People point to the fact that nothing came from this as proof of a coverup. To Joe, at the time, I would assume he took it to mean that Schultz had done his job and found that no crime had occurred.
I don’t really understand why it is a bad thing to assume other people actually did their jobs.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 6:15 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
people get a bit clouded/prejudiced with the whole child abuse aspect
and think that an investigation should be much more thoroughly carried out. Maybe they are right, but there is a limit to how thorough one should be. The question is, for the average person in JoePa’s situation (without holding him to a higher standard), did he do enough?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
and obviously not with the benefit of hindsight
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions
I think this is the key
People are looking at this with the knowledge of repeated accusations of sexual assault. If Joe were aware of that, then I can see the outrage. But if this is an isolated incident, things change.
Results oriented thinking is a killer here.
this is a situation of incomplete information, like poker is a game of incomplete information. Just because you drew to an inside straight only getting 3 to 1 odds, and made it does not make it the right decision.
It takes most people some study and rearranging of their thinking to see why. It is not intuitive after the fact that choosing to draw to the inside straight was a bad move, even if they won that instance.
Decisions made with incomplete information can be very difficult for many people to evaluate once more relevant info is available.
I’m sorry, but blanket statements are proven false 99% of the time, and if you make a blanket statement about college football, there’s a good chance that one exception will be Joe Paterno. - AdamShell @ BSD
Also; Always carry a bottle opener and the beer will provide itself.
by bconway6 on Jan 14, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
god I'm remembering a time where twice in a game I got beat by someone getting 4 of a kind on the river
to beat my flush on the flop that I couldn’t chase off with betting. Some people will make stupid decisions to their benefit, and sometimes people will make smart decisions to their detriment.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And to follow on that
I have no idea what a D1 head football coach deals with day to day, suffice to say it would bury the average ‘manager’. This current generation might "go to general quarters’ over the mere suggestion of ‘something sexually innapropriate’, but a guy of his era not only doesn’t understand it or want to hear about it, but is inclined to do just what he says he did: hand it to the man who was paid to deal with those uncomfortable things.
I’m just old enough (55) to finally really know my own dad, who is long gone now. His generation didn’t explain awkward things to their sons, or anyone else. My “talking to” when I once came home at 3 am was along the lines of “if you get a girl in trouble you’ll destroy this family’s name”. I was a Penn State grad (on his dime) and a brand new Marine lieutenant sitting at his kitchen table sharing many beers before he would finally even acknowledge he did in fact go ashore on Omaha Beach on D-Day, and he didn’t want to say even that. His message was “I hope you people today have your act together so nothing like that ever happens again”. Familiar refrain. It’s how that generation dealt with things outside their comfort zone. I’m not making an excuse for anyone, and doing a terrible job framing this, but I can absolutely grasp Joe’s mindset in dealing with this, and I imagine he is baffled that any more was expected of him at the time.
On a more precipitous note, as a son who lost both parents to cancer, Joe’s return to the hospital causes me to hold my breath. Neither of my parents left the hospital upon their return after "initial successful treatment’. That was many years ago and things have improved greatly, but I would love to hear every word this man chooses to share with us while we still have him, and I’m concerned that may not be as long as we’d hope. His concerns vis-a-vis Bear Bryant’s fate are germane.
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them
by PSUMarine78 on Jan 14, 2012 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 11 recs
well, I think it was reported that he went home soon after
so not likely TOO bad.
Still, the double whammy of broken pelvis immobilizing him, and the cancer….ugh
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
78, I'm 53
and went through the same thing with my Dad. I was in Special Forces, doing some crazy things, and he still didn’t talk about his WW II experiences.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:16 PM EST up reply actions
I'm 86 and this is 99.
Where’s agent 13?
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Getting coffee.
It’s still a sexist world . . .
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
I told you it was 3am
And we don’t talk about those things
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them
Just hope you remembered
this time that I like my coffee black.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Well you SF guys are admittedly a little nuts
but I say that with the greatest admiration
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them
Gee, thanks!
(I think . . . ) Coming from a Marine pilot, I blushingly accept that.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:44 PM EST up reply actions
Of the things this draws to mind
are reflections on great people, and how they knew what to do at a time it was anything but obvious. Most people won’t ever get it because they’ve never been remotely responsible for “everything the organization does or fails to do”. Which no one truely can pull off so it’s like waiting for the axe of fate to fall. The fact Paterno ran it as clean as he did for as long as he did deserves no small acknowledgment. The lesson is in how he did it for so long.
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them
And he (JoePa) deserves major props
for convincing so many of us (other coaches, staff, alumni, players, et al.) that his Grand Experiment was worth embracing. Even when there was discontent with the football program and Joe himself, the “Success with Honor/Grand Experiment” concepts (primarily authored by Joseph V. Paterno) were rarely called into question. The “win at all costs” that appears to have pervaded other schools never really made an impact in Happy Valley.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:09 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Hey guys
I know it’s been said on here many times before (never enough, imo), but not by me: Thanks very much for your service to our country. I really appreciate it.
The depth of both my sadness and anger is unfathomable.
We (Still) Are...
by PSU_Buch on Jan 14, 2012 8:20 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Thanks Buch
I for one am always embarassed when someone says that, but the sentiment is truly appreciated. It’s the younguns who need to hear it now, I pretty much stand in awe of what they did and keep doing.
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them
Funny, that is my main reaction, too, 78.
It was far and away the most interesting time of my life, and I got PAID, too. I sometimes feel like I took advantage of the American taxpayer . . .
Does that make me a politician? Oh, no!!
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:32 PM EST up reply actions
Speaking for myself, Buch,
I had a great time in the military. Most importantly, met the lady who is now my wife while I was in the Army.
You are welcome!
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:30 PM EST up reply actions
How was it a mistake JuggerNitt
Joe was not told of a crime
and even if MM had told him everything
“I heard 3 slaps and caught two 1 or 2 second glances of JS back”
“Saw no pain or distress”
“I left the boy with Sandusky and didn’t ask him if he needed help”
“I didn’t even go back to check on him”
“I saw little if any movement, no hands, no genitals”
Even with all of that there was no crime observed.
and Joe would still have hooked him up with people who should be involved.
Joe is the football coach and he is not in charge of ex employees behavior on PSU property.
Joe did the right thing and following up was not his moral responsibility because there was nothing seen by MM to follow up on.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
it was a mistake because in the end the right thing did not happen.
Even if the ultimate mistake was that Gary Schultz and Tim Curley didn’t properly investigate, it is then, retroactively, a mistake for Joe to have gone to them (if that makes any sense). Maybe mistake isn’t the best word to use, but it was ultimately the wrong decision.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
I don't see a mistake by Curley or Schultz either
What MM reported was not credible or criminal
The mistake was McQueary’s. He should have confirmed his suspicions
He should have asked the boy if he needed help and gotten his name from Sandusky right then.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
It isn't necessarily their authority to decide that, though.
They were obligated to pass the information along to those who were. Even if we’re going to assume that McQueary and JoePa thought of Schultz as the head of campus police, and even assuming that he actually is in terms of administrative power, he is still not a detective with investigative powers. Sure, an actual investigation may not have turned up anything worthwhile anyway, but they are still obligated, by law, to pass that information along.
McQueary likely also erred, but that doesn’t absolve future mistakes by other people.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:46 PM EST up reply actions
Pretty much this
Whether the claim is credible or not, McQueary described it as sexual. Even without proof, this HAS to be passed on to the cops. If they decided it’s BS and drop the case, then so be it. But that is the job for a sworn law enforcement officer, not a university administrator,
Gotta disagree here
Using the logic that poor results = poor decision just doesn’t work. The intent and actions taken to achieve that intent are what count here, and that’s where we should stand in support of Paterno.
If I get into a car accident while driving to see a sick friend instead of staying home, you can’t say I made the wrong decision by going to see the friend. Unfortunate results, absolutely; wishing I had stayed home, sure; but the decision to go was motivated by the desire to do the right thing. That motivated Joe here, and we shouldn’t lose sight of it because it turned out as it did.
by kflintosh on Jan 14, 2012 9:53 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
As I said, mistake is perhaps the wrong word,
but (and obviously with the benefit of hindsight) JoePa did make the wrong decision at some point. Whether it was to whom he reported the events (though legally he did the right thing here) or not strongly following up (which may normally be the right course of action so as to not influence the investigation), or just in trusting that Curley and Schlutz would handle it correctly (and here’s where I think the actual mistake was) something went wrong. If he had done something differently then there’s the likelihood that it wouldn’t have gone wrong.
If you read other things I say on here, I fully support JoePa, and I think he did what he thought was best at the time, but I also think it is reasonable to say that what he did, ultimately (and with the benefit of hindsight) was wrong. Even he realizes that.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 15, 2012 10:01 AM EST up reply actions 3 recs
naive maybe
not morally corrupt
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
Read between the lines = create facts that support M1EK's position
If I were to read between the lines, I’d say that if McQueary had been more explicit, then Joe would have followed up. That said, we’ll never agree because we don’t agree on what kind of man Paterno is.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:41 PM EST up reply actions 6 recs
when I read between the lines
I got the same thing you did. But upon re-reading the quote in your post, I realized that might not be so. He was “hesitant”. This allows the possibility that he followed up at some point.
Then I re-read the whole article. Very early in the article: “Almost as difficult for Paterno to answer is the question of why, after receiving a report in 2002 that Sandusky had abused a boy in the shower of Penn State’s Lasch Football Building, and forwarding it to his superiors, he didn’t follow up more aggressively.” This quote allows for potential follow-up, which, for any type of follow-up, could have been more “aggressive”.
Recall, his lawyer was present for the entire interview. Also, the AG investigation is continuing, with more interviews of football staff. Most relevant, Curley and Schultz have not gone to trial yet, and it is one or both that joe, if he followed up at, would have spoken to. If joe did follow up, I do believe it would be off limits & not reported in this article, with respect to current charges against Curley and Schultz.
That said, I’ll wait for the trial.
by skins4ever' on Jan 14, 2012 6:46 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions 1 recs
The appearance of "aggressively"
makes it obvious that there was follow up on some level. Otherwise, why is it there. Jenkins is not sloppy like that, and this was obviously vetted by Joe’s attorney.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
good point about the "off limits" due to the trial
It could be bad for Joe if he starts to discuss material important for either party during the trial
Did you know that Merle Haggard is a big Toronto Maple Leafs fan?
I read it over on Pension Plan Puppets — he just loved Dave Keon.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
"In other words, no, he didn’t follow up. He says he would have expected Curley and Schultz to follow up on it, so he didn’t."
Boy this must be a great day for you, asshole.
"It was an attrition football game and you know we like that."
Franco Harris:
"If I had to choose today between the moral integrity and character of Joe Paterno and the politicians and commentators criticizing him, I would pick Joe Paterno, hands down, no contest every time."
by showtime on Jan 15, 2012 10:21 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Follow-up Occurred
Grand Jury Testimony by Tim Curley:
Tim Curley: … Then, to the best of my recollection, I circled back around and informed the president of my actions and then Coach Paterno, Mr. McQueary. I guess that’s the people.
Perjury Pre-Trial Testimony by McQueary
BEEMER: So, in other words, you never spoke with them again about this — about Jerry Sandusky and what you had seen?
MCQUEARY: No. Let me correct that. When you say them, Coach Paterno did ask me in recent months after that, two or three months, a couple of times if I was okay.
BEEMER: Asking about your general well-being?
MCQUEARY: Yes, in relation to what I had saw and if I was handling it okay.
Maybe not as rock-solid as we would like, but bear in mind that it was not as relevant to the cases at hand, therefore the questioning was not as pointed.
Page 4
Paterno’s portrait of himself is of an old-world man profoundly confused by what McQueary told him, and who was hesitant to make follow-up calls because he did not want to be seen as trying to exert any influence for or against Sandusky. "I didn’t know which way to go," he said. "And rather than get in there and make a mistake . . ."
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:03 PM EST up reply actions
Those things are not the same.
Following up on the end result is not the same as pressing the issue for an investigation.
I knew you would be in this thread.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
I dub thee Nostradomus
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 9:47 PM EST up reply actions
This isn't true though.
While he may never have followed up with Curley or Shultz, he DID follow up with McQuery. McQuery had the opportunity to scream holy hell to Joe that ‘enough’ wasn’t being done, and he didn’t take it. And I believe (someone correct me if I’m wrong) that McQuery’s father and/or the other doctor family friend guy followed up with Schultz, as they were all ‘friendly.’ So if Joe asked McQuery how he was doing with ‘it’ and McQuery doesn’t say anything to raise Joe’s suspicion at that point – then I cannot fathom how Joe is at fault.
by PSUEnrg02 on Jan 15, 2012 10:13 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Exactly. My biggest question is, what was he told.
Even if he didn’t really follow up, I’m assuming that Schultz would have told him something about the outcome. Most people see nothing being done as proof of a coverup. I think if it turns out Schultz told him something like “we looked into it and it didn’t seem to be serious” or shrugged it off in some other way, it might help give him more backing to the people who think he should have done more.
Yeah, cuz per McQueary's own testimony, he was totally straightforward the first time.
Period.
"Every player we have, someone-maybe a parent, a grandparent, someone-poured their soul into that young man. They are handing that young man off to us. They are giving us their treasure, and it's our job to make sure we give them back that young man intact and ready to face the world."
-J.V.Pa.
by psume06 on Jan 14, 2012 5:58 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 5 recs
I'd like to know what was said there as well.
There were some reports from Joe’s camp early on that he talked with McQueary a few times to see if he was ok with the situation. I’d really like to hear McQueary’s responses were.
The fact that he (McQueary) didn’t feel the need to press the issue further, leads me to believe he wouldn’t have told Joe anything that would have caused him (Joe) to press the issue himself.
McQueary testified at the prelim for Schultz and Curley that Joe followed up with him
and asked how he was handling. That is based on coverage I read, but I don’t know if McQueary testified to anything more specific.
I understand
you think Paterno failed a moral obligation, but I am curious, what is the source of your moral code?
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:00 PM EST up reply actions
The one that says
you protect children from a predator – even if it means you have to make people you work with pissed off.
you didn't really...
answer the question, but thank you.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:05 PM EST up reply actions
I'm a Catholic
but I don’t think that’s the sole source of my moral code, since I was pretty fucking disgusted with their own scandal and the shameful behavior from apologists who tried to make it all about homosexuality instead about bad actors in the church hierarchy.
And now that...
we have more information as to his reasoning for not following up, I think Paterno made the wrong decision not to pursue it further. I don’t think it was immoral. You may disagree, which is reasonable.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:11 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Concur with your agreement.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
why didn't I concur?!?!?!
/catchmeifyoucan’d
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
I'll place my imprimatur on all this concurrence.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
I think he..
should have been put on administrative leave.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 7:01 PM EST up reply actions
I would say no.
He followed University procedure. That procedure failed. I don’t think he can be held responsible for that.
I would have understood administrative leave until things calmed down (or more facts were known). But in the long run, I definitely don’t think it was a fire-able offense,
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
bingo
“you did everything you were supposed to do. In the end it wasn’t enough because other people with more responsibility screwed up, so you are relieved of your duties”
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:06 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree with admin leave until things calm down. I would have fired everyone involved as soon as I found out what’s going on.
At some point, the argument that “I followed procedure” stops being an acceptable excuse.
Steve Jobs used to tell a story to new Apple executives:
Jobs tells the VP that if the garbage in his office is not being emptied regularly for some reason, he would ask the janitor what the problem is. The janitor could reasonably respond by saying, “Well, the lock on the door was changed, and I couldn’t get a key.”
An irritation for Jobs, for an understandable excuse for why the janitor couldn’t do his job. As a janitor, he’s allowed to have excuses.
“When you’re the janitor, reasons matter,” Jobs tells newly minted VPs, according to Lashinsky.
“Somewhere between the janitor and the CEO, reasons stop mattering,” says Jobs, adding, that Rubicon is “crossed when you become a VP.”
I think the same is true when you become a head football coach. If Paterno had followed up and been lied to, I think it’d be a different story. But the argument that “I followed procedures” doesn’t make it OK when there’s this level of failure, especially when it’s a guy who you hired and worked closely with for 30 years.
So you are telling me
That Joe is supposed to assume other people didn’t do their jobs? That is bullshit. If society worked like that this place would fall apart.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
My boss, who is an executive, spends a lot of time
worrying if our parking garages are adequately cleaned. In the meantime, we have multi-million deficits and those same garages need tens of millions of dollars in repairs.
Jobs was not the fount of all managerial wisdom. Sorry to burst your hero-bubble.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Steve Jobs
Was a marketer (ie: a storyteller). There is a reason Apple computers NEVER in their existence since the dawn of time have even commanded a double-digit (10%) share of the personal computer market. They just don’t work well for the 90% of us who use them for actual work. If you want extremely expensive toys, Jobs was your man. But as far as management — the man was lost.
*
^ This.
He had a cult status that accorded him respect for/in areas in which he really had no expertise.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:45 PM EST up reply actions
I disagree...
the analogy is faulty. Paterno did fail to meet his job description. Now, the coverage of the matter precluded him from leading the football program, thus he should have been placed on leave.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
I appreciate what you're saying
but the analogy falls apart when you’re plunged into circumstances outside your realm of responsibility. If Joe had been responsible for the hiring and firing of Schultz, Curley and Spanier then I would say, yes – the buck stops at Joe. In this case it’s just the opposite. The buck should have stopped at Spanier/Schultz.
Yeah
Joe was certainly closer to the VP than the janitor, but Spanier was the President and there were a couple of layers between him and Joe.
Also, while Apple makes many beautiful products, Jobs was widely acknowledged as a terrible manager.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 7:43 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The talent almost always is.
A terrible manager that is.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
It's mostly a truism
that great entrepeneurs make lousy business people. That can be extended to genius-level inventors being not great “people” kinds of managers.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:34 PM EST up reply actions
I HAVE PEOPLE SKILLS!
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
by letsgopsu on Jan 14, 2012 8:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Where did THAT
come from, letsgo?
Obviously your skills as either a great entrepeneur or genius-level inventor have gone undetected by this old guy.
I hear you make a mean cupcake, though.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:42 PM EST up reply actions
I think it's me and cupcakes...I don't remember letsgo making them
thought she’s awesome in many other respects.
Fire Dan Snyder
by Cari Greene on Jan 14, 2012 10:09 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, NC.
Didn’t mean to credit the wrong diva.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 11:16 PM EST up reply actions
one of my favorite movies ever
![]()
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
don't forget the Jump to Conclusions Mat
not that there is any connection
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 9:32 PM EST up reply actions
My major professor was a great researcher but a mumbler teacher!
Respected him but he could put me to sleep in class.
No
But I the longer I’ve thought on this, the more I think Joe couldn’t coach in the environment that was being laid out with the giant assumptions the media was making about him.
I don’t think you should be fired for doing what you were supposed to do.
Joe shouldn’t have coached, but more because it was unsafe for him and there were far too many distractions, not because of a decision he made that, even thought it was with all good intentions, turned out to be the wrong one.
I am Sandy's bitch.
Penn State Forever
I think it is safe to say Joe coaching the Nebraska game would have been
a bigger PR disaster than any of the others that have happened. Including deciding to fire him at 10pm.
With that being said, I think you handle it by stripping Spanier of being President and put Joe and anyone else with demonstrated knowledge of the 2002 incident on leave pending further investigation (looking at McQueary). You immediately follow that announcement by explaining that Spanier was relieved of duty on the basis of him being the top of the administration that failed to do their jobs (similar to what they did). Then say that all other parties who are being put on leave are, according to current information, believed to have acted appropriately according to law and University policies. However, complete investigations need to be conducted and the current circumstances surrounding the case would make it difficult for any involved parties to function effectively in their positions.
This would have been a board showing that they were placing blame where it belonged (by firing the president that publicly supported the two people charged with the cover-up) and controlling the perception that although they couldn’t let Paterno coach the next Saturday, they actually believed him to be innocent.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 15, 2012 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Whoa there
You’re bringing competence and reason into this decision.
Seriously, that would’ve made a LOT more sense and would’ve demonstrated balance. Totally agree with you.
Agree. I couldn't despise the board it they'd approached it
in this sort of a manner.
by PSUEnrg02 on Jan 15, 2012 10:19 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So would...
his responsibility been altered if it was woman in the shower and McQueary thought JS was raping her?
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:07 PM EST up reply actions
Somewhat
I see some difference between a child and an adult victim. McQueary should still have stopped it in both cases.
interesting...
I would hold him to the same standard.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So would I.
It’s necessary to do so in order to maintain the legitimacy of our institutions — be they formal structures or vague ideological commitments to something called the “American Way.”
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
That fallacy that there is a diff
between a child and an adult victim is why the pornography industry — an activity that degrades (mostly) women and relegates them to that of a disposable commodity — exists and flourishes.
And please don’t say the participants in pornography are 100% volunteers . . .
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 6:57 PM EST up reply actions
some are, but that's not really relevant to this discussion
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, some are.
The relevance of my comments relates to the fact that there is an individual on this thread who has consistently held Joe to a very high standard of conduct in this JS situation, but who is now on record as stating there is a difference between child and adult rape. Many posters — many of whom are Joe supporters or wait-and-see folks — don’t see that difference. I find the dichotomy interesting.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I meant my comment isn't relevant to the discussion
but still wanted to point out the admirable stars (stars! no less, not just mere actors) who perform their job completely willingly.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
Sorry, Nitt, I was focused
on what I see is a moral/ethical contradiction espoused by everyone’s favorite “Devil’s advocate”.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:12 PM EST up reply actions
There is a difference between child and adult rape.
There is a difference between date rape, and raping a stranger in an alley. Many things are analogous, very few things are the same. Two months ago I wouldn’t have bothered with this, but with the “They’re all just as guilty” hysteria surrounding this, I think it’s important to realize that things are different. And when I say “Paterno has culpability” it’s not the same thing and “he’s the same as Sandusky”.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Expound, please, jesse.
How do you see the differences?
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:20 PM EST up reply actions
Between what?
“child” rape and “adult” rape? How am I supposed to quantify that? Is the child 12, or 17? Was the adult the drunk girlfriend of the perpetrator or a coma patient?
There are an infinite set of possibilities, how can there not be differences?
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
You seem to accept there is a difference;
on what grounds do you base that? Nitt just provided a distinction that seems plausible, but I would submit that in all cases rape is an attempt to exert dominant and degrading control over another person. That that other person is 2, 12, 22 or 102 (yes, old people get raped) is immaterial, imo.
Not trying to challenge any of you; just trying to understand a distinction that I personally do not see.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:31 PM EST up reply actions
Then you're missing the difference.
attempt to exert dominant and degrading control over another person
Is this what you think Jerry Sandusky was doing? In his mind, he loved those children. It’s demented, but to a guy with the pathology of Sandusky, he is expressing love in the same way as person would with their Wife.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I don't know if all are cases about dominance/control.
I look back to the Michael Jackson case(s) and see some similarities to the Sandusky case where you have an adult who, in some aspects, never “grew up” and feel they have more of a connection to children, and sometimes that gets twisted into something sexual.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:36 PM EST up reply actions
Thanks, Jesse. and Nitt.
I’m beginning to see the distinction, but it is difficult. To me, if my wife says, “Not tonight, honey.” I am a shit for forcing her, even though up until recently I had the legal “right” to do so. How could someone inflict sexual pain on a child (I’m presuming it would be painful), possibly hear that child protest, and justify it by saying, “This hurts me more than it hurts you.” or some other rationalization.
Trying to get my head around this — thanks for your patient explanations.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:40 PM EST up reply actions
Here, I'll freak you out...
What if you and your Wife are drinking, and she gets a bit bombed and is technically too drunk to consent. Then, a bit blown up, she lets you do that thing you’ve always wanted to do, but she doesn’t like. She wakes up the next morning, doesn’t remember, you tell her, she’s pissed.
Did you rape her?
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Can't answer the q
because the context is faulty. We don’t drink (alcohol) so I can’t conceptualize your scenario beyond saying, "Your phrasing says "she lets (me) do . . . ". In my defense with her, I would probably say, “But, darling, you know you always wanted me to rub your feet!!”
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:50 PM EST up reply actions
That's kind of cheating.
But the answer is, technically, “you” raped her. The point being, there are degrees and distinctions to everything.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
meh... see my point just below. I'll add that it depends a lot on what you did to her while she was drunk. Some tickel play vs. heavy S&M.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
There is a saying that goes,
“If you ain’t cheating, you aren’t trying hard enough.” but I do not espouse that philosophy.
Thanks for the education, guys.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:55 PM EST up reply actions
depends on where you fall on the question of "consent."
being in a committed and generally mutually agreeable relationship implies a level of “consent” for touching. if the drinking was expected to lead to sex, then more “consent” can be attributed to the situation.
I could go on, but you get the idea.
Frankly, in my view, what we really don’t like is violent brutal bloody raping against people that really really really don’t want to have sex.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions
My sexual assault classes at PSU disagree
As members of a fraternity, we were required to go to lectures/classes on sexual assaults (as well as hazing, drinking etc) every semester. According to them, there is no implied consent in a relationship.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 7:56 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
So of those three things:
going to classes on assaults,
or hazing,
or drinking
Which did you enjoy the most? :-)
I plead the fifth.
Let’s just say college was fun. The fact that I earned a good degree is an added bonus.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
well, okay... i misspoke. I was saying a "level" of touching is impliedly consented to in a relationship.
If a husband is dancing with his wife and gropes her boob on the dancefloor = not rape/inmpermissible touching.
some stranger does it = impermissible touching
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
I understood what you were getting at.
I think most people would agree that there is a level of consent between them. But that’s strictly between those people. Legally speaking, this implied consent does not exist.
I went to those as well when I was pledging
One of our instructors: Joe Amendola
by danpsu97 on Jan 14, 2012 10:08 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Now that you say that
I think he did one of ours as well. I guess now I support child abuse too?
mutually agreeable relationship implies a level of "consent" for touching
Yeah, if your Dan Savage. The law is not nearly as evolved.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
wow, sorry ... sorry seemed to have stepped in on that one. bad phrasing.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
Look
If Dan Savage is the arbiter of sexual disputes in your relationship you’re doing well.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Well..
You’re stealing his ideas. Sorry.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
wow... btw, i enjoyed your most recent fanpost and many of the things you post.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 8:14 PM EST up reply actions
I teasing.
Sorry.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
what if "that thing you always wanted to do, but she doesn't like"
was rape roleplaying?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:56 PM EST up reply actions
It doesn't matter.
It could be kissing her ear.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
One view says all sex without consent = rape. By this view, if the boy with Sandusky “consented” (e.g., just thought it was good fun in the shower), then no rape.
However, of course, the law, ethics, religion and morality assign different capacities for being ABLE to consent. Thus, the law in some states say a fully developed 15 year woman cannot “consent.” So any form of sex with her is “rape.” Likewise, with Sandusky’s boy. No matter how much “fun” the kid was having, no matter how much Sandusky said it was a form of “love,” any form of sex with the boy is “rape.”
Even where consent is “given,” some ethicists argue that various forms of coercion degrade/invalidate the “consent.” Economic need is a form of “coercion” and, thus, every prostitute and porn star is being “raped.” Some further argue that a sufficiently large power differential between the persons involved is a form of coercion. So, Clinton ’raped" Lewinsky.
Additionally, “rape” is often combined with a physical battery, a separate moral and legal issue. Thus, a forceful penetration along with a beating is a “rape” and a felonious battery.
Additionally, every “rape” has a range of length and behavior. One unpermissible “boob grope” on a dance floor vs. one horrific brutal penetration vs. multiple penetrations by multiple rapers on a bar-room pool table.
Each and every one of the foregoing “rapes” is different. We are right to make moral, ethical and legal distinctions among them.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 7:50 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Thank you also, WB.
I have to say, if I am ever called for jury duty on a case that involves a(n alleged) rape, they would not seat me. I try to be objective and remember the “innocent until proven guilty” in most cases, but that is one that truly bothers me.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:54 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
there is a difference between child and adult rape
but I don’t know if one can reasonably say one is worse than the other. I’m probably wrong, but my view is that adult rape is more violent/dominance driven while child rape is usually a manipulative/mental disorder type of thing that is sorta “passed down” (i.e. Sandusky may have been abused himself)
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:21 PM EST up reply actions
Our legal system has to do this all the time
hence the difference between different degrees of murder and manslaughter.
Are there degrees of rape?
(Defining “rape” as involuntary penetration; I know there are charges such as sexual assault, which I assume means unwanted touching or some such.)
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:42 PM EST up reply actions
It's not funny,
but a lot of folks made fun of whats-her-face Whoopi Goldberg when she started yapping about someone only committing rape versus RAPE-rape on the View last year.
Seriously, there are real lawyers on here that can answer that question better than this engineer.
93, am getting good feedback
and education from some others, and appreciate your input as well. Some of this is “my” generation as well, since my Dad’s/Joe’s generation passed along some of their mores to me: Never hit a woman, never force a woman to have sex, etc., etc., etc. Not saying you guys’ viewpoints are different, but sex is much more casual and open than it was in my day — even though I grew up in the “peace and love” 60’s and 70’s. “Friends with benefits”, for example, is totally alien to me, because of the way I was raised about sex (e.g., as being part of a monogamous relationship).
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
Being an engineer
involuntarily sets you back a generation or so anyway. Friends with benefits? Ha. Dare to dream!
93, I'm an American Studies major
who was exposed to a heavy dose of “liberal” literature that presumably could have colored my thinking/viewpoints.
Still, wound up in finance, which is pretty black-and-white black-and-red, so I guess I am not geared towards subtleties.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:13 PM EST up reply actions
The answer to this question should be no.
But I think you’ll find that most people hate child rape more than regular old rape because they view the victim as being more defenseless (which may be true, but defenseless is defenseless… the reasons so many women are assaulted and don’t report are the same reasons children don’t… they are scared, experiencing a range of emotions they don’t know how to deal with, and often know the person doing it reasonably well).
A similar question to ask is whether we think Joe would have acted differently if he heard it was his grandson in the shower? Most people think the answer to that question is yes because most people think that they would go to the ends of the earth to protect their kin. And people have used that measuring stick against Joe even though most people would do more for a relative than a non-relative (it is documented that people protect relatives more than strangers). But why? Morally, it is not just to do more for your kin. Is your child/grandchild any more defenseless than another child? However, I think most people would acknowledge that a mother or father, morally, must do more.
I think all of this comes down to responsibility. We feel more responsibility for these situations when it involves a child because we can’t reasonably expect them to have responsibility for themselves and they may not know enough about how to even respond themselves. And if it is your own child, you have complete responsibility (not to mention more invested in the raising of a happy/healthy child). So people expect you to do more.
Joe didn’t know this child, he was not a witness, he didn’t even know who the child was, and he didn’t get that many details. He put the witness in contact with people that should have been more qualified to deal with the problem and (at worst) he did what most people would have done after that: assume that the people who should deal with it would work with the witness to address the problem. When he later asks the witness if he’s ok and opens a dialogue about the outcome, McQueary doesn’t give an indication to Paterno that things were not dealt with appropriately (according to his testimony). What more of a responsibility does Joe Paterno really have?
And before you answer, think real hard about the fact that you don’t know about any other JS incident that would establish this incident as a pattern. Also, remember that JS is no longer an employee of yours and that after this incident (as far as we know), you never saw Jerry on campus with boys again (something which may trigger a reason to follow up more on this).
I can acknowledge that Joe could have done more, and in hindsight I think most people would have don more, without also believing that Joe acted unreasonably (or immorally) in the situation as he was aware of it between 2002 and when he was first questioned about Sandusky by the police.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 15, 2012 6:53 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
So let me get this straight.
I am not trying to be an ass with this comment. I am seriously trying to understand your stance here. So don’t take this for anything other than that.
Lets say I made a bullshit claim to one of your coworkers and said that I saw you molesting a kid. Later, when nothing comes from that investigation, you’d be perfectly ok with that coworker shouting from the rooftops that there had been a coverup?
Because it seems to me this is the response you expected from Paterno. And it seems like you’ve either completely written off the possibility that no crime occurred, or you don’t care either way. I know it looks bad for Sandusky right now, but from Joe’s point in 2002, you have to consider the fact that he just assumed McQueary was wrong.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 6:13 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I don't think he assumed McQueary was wrong...
He’s said, about everything, from the beginning (and again in the video when asked about Sandusky), “Let the facts play out. Let the legal system run its course.” (paraphrasing)
Which, indeed, is what we should all be doing. We are so far (unfortunately) from this thing being finished. And for many, even at the end of the trials, this will never be ‘over’.
Sorry if I misunderstood your last comment ppfcpp.
Well, my point was more along the lines that
Joe could have seen inaction from towards as a sign that no crime had occurred. It’s quite possible that Joe just thought McQueary hadn’t seen what he thought he saw (maybe he bought Schultz horseplay lines).
M1KE seems to be of the opinion that Joe needed to go further and contact outside police departments, confront Sandusky etc, without giving thought to the possibility that a crime hadn’t been committed.
Basically, my point is that assuming there has been a coverup is a dangerous game. I’m curious if M1KE would expect people to act the same if it were him being accused.
Joe was not told of a crime
and even if MM had gone into detail he would have 3 slapping sounds and a couple of 2 second glances of a back.
That is not a crime either.
We all need to realize that MM did not see a crime
He did not see pain or distress
and he did not convey that he had seen anything much in his 2 second glances
and he left the boy with JS and didn’t even bother to go back and check on him or offer to help him if he needed help.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
well, wether he witnessed a crime or not is up for debate
An adult exposing his privates to a minor can be a crime.
Did McQueary witness rape based on what he heard and saw, it’s a possibility but not a likely one.
am I seriously the only person to recall being in the showers with adults as a kid?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:41 PM EST up reply actions
As a kid
did you spend time alone at night in a deserted locker room naked with an old man who wasn’t related to you?
by M1EK on Jan 14, 2012 6:42 PM EST via Android app up reply actions 2 recs
I actually don't recall if I did or not.
Probably not, but I was also never athletically gifted enough to have a 1 on 1 trainer. If Sandusky and the kid were legitimately working out in the building, and both needed to shower, assuming no actual inappropriate behavior I don’t necessarily see it as a wrong thing to shower together.
I know when I was a camp counselor I was the lone adult in a room full of naked 8-10 year olds who were changing to go swimming. Is it somehow better that there were a dozen naked boys instead of just one?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:49 PM EST up reply actions
Then again this wasn't "an old man"
This was Jerry Sandusky – Second Mile Charity founder and foster father of six as far as Paterno, Curley and Schultz were concerned
and this icon of the community known for his good works is up against a grad assistant with a story about 3 slaps and 2 second glances who left a boy there after observing no pain.
So they aren’t making decisions based on “an old man” and a boy – they are making decisions based on a foster father and charity founder not knowing if the boy was a foster grandchild or a foster child staying with the Sandusky’s who happened to come with Jerry to an after dinner workout and was playing around in the showers.
It’s easy to dismiss this as “an old man” showering with a boy – but not as a foster parent or charity founder.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
I actually don't recall if I did or not.
Probably not, but I was also never athletically gifted enough to have a 1 on 1 trainer. If Sandusky and the kid were legitimately working out in the building, and both needed to shower, assuming no actual inappropriate behavior I don’t necessarily see it as a wrong thing to shower together.
I know when I was a camp counselor I was the lone adult in a room full of naked 8-10 year olds who were changing to go swimming. Is it somehow better that there were a dozen naked boys instead of just one?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:50 PM EST up reply actions
though maybe there was another counselor around
really don’t recall. Memories are funny like that.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:52 PM EST up reply actions
you can't recall...
something that happened years ago with HD clarity? You monster!
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:53 PM EST up reply actions
The cultists got to him
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:54 PM EST up reply actions
Actually not alone...
but my brother and I had a one on one trainer (or technically one on two) and yes we did…
All of our comments are irrelevant - LetsGoPSU
No, JuggerNitt, it's context
Being in a shower with your parent, and/or with other adults in a public place like a swimming pool is one thing. Having an adult take a child that is not his into a shower late at night with nobody around is completely different.
I’m not saying conclusively that it was a crime, but the context matters.
Depending on peoples ages, I'm not surprised by that at all
Hell, kids don’t even shower with other kids anymore. Most public showers have become single stall showers. I actually have some friends who are appalled by the fact that I showered at the IM building after judo class. Personally, I’m appalled that anyone would consider NOT showering after that, but that’s another story.
Point being, nowadays, this is becoming a rarity.
I had a gym teacher in 6th grade, Manheim Twsp
Stood to watch and make sure everyone showered and when it was a last period gym class, would shower with the students. If you misbehaved in gym class you got paddled, naked when getting ready for your shower. Never really thought it perverted back then but sounds that way now. This would have been around 71 or 72,
I just read.
Interesting. I went to school one disctrict over
A little later though, I graduated high school in ’06.
I can tell you that from my experience in school, kids never showered after gym. Kind of gross looking back, but that’s just how it was.
I don’t recall ever doing it, but it might be generational. Early 30s here. Hell, in Boy Scouts, we got a lecture on what to do if adults tried to shower with us at camp.
I know about the scouts.
I was in the Scouts from 84-91 and can tell you that that was the exact period where they finally started to understand this problem. When I first joined, there were stories of cases of child molestation, but we were never taught about it. By the time I was out, talking about it was part of the “curriculum” and I know for a fact that background checks went from “well, he seems like a nice guy” to “let’s make some phone calls” during that period.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 6:27 PM EST up reply actions
Anyone who is 30 years old or older and has gone to the
YMCA or YWCA and has used the showers…
Has been in showers as a youth with adults.
Even if you just used the locker rooms there were young and old people all over the place naked getting changed, etc.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
Absolutely the YMCA, Boy Scout Camp
on the Swimming Team, YMCA camp, even Church Camp
all those places had large group showers where it was common to see the same sex of all ages in the showers.
The only thing was gender – age was never a consideration in the 50’s or 60’s and even the mid 70’s.
I don’t know when it changed
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
I don't know when (or if) it changed, but people are very sensitive to this stuff now.
I have a male friend who is a shop teacher and wrestling coach. They have the boys shower after practice and, naturally, they have to supervise things to make sure that nothing inappropriate happens between the students (especially with bullying being such a big deal in schools these days). They actually have a policy that two coaches must be present at all times (more for the protection of the coaches than the kids)… and obviously those coaches are not allowed to be naked and in the shower.
As a male that does research on children, I constantly worry about how my actions are perceived by parents and I work very hard to never have to physically handle children in situations where my female co-workers would just grad the kid up in their arms and walk them where they want them. That’s because of cases like this, where the interpretation of actions could very easily skew the truth (which I assume is the conclusion the administration came to about this incident with Jerry).
You would have to be a real dunce, these days, to allow anyone to catch you in a shower with a boy at all, but especially with no other adult witnesses. Of course, I’m not sure this is something that would register as being nearly as odd for someone Joe’s age or even someone that graduated in the 70’s vs. the 90’s. Especially with how many naked guys he’s probably seen in the showers over his career.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 15, 2012 7:14 PM EST up reply actions
I'm not saying now...
But years ago… this wouldnt have been this huge red flag to a lot of people. Today, yeah it sounds crazy. When people started realizing “Yo, this is not right” has probably evolved with our civilization realizing “Hey there are child molesters out there”.
It just seems like nobody was worried about child molesters 20-30 years ago. I think everyone was much more naive. With the benefit of hindsight… it wasnt a good idea for little kids to be showering with adults.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
by The Heel on Jan 15, 2012 11:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
They worried about them
they were just a lot easier to spot since they always had the sterotypical trench coat and mustache.
So why wasn't Sandusky charged in 1998?
well, wether he witnessed a crime or not is up for debate
An adult exposing his privates to a minor can be a crime.
Obviously it is not up for debate – it is not a crime
He fully admitted to Child Services and Police that he showered with the kid in 1998 and was cleared of all charges
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
No difference at all
Cleared or Case Closed it’s the same thing – no crime was found to have been committed

Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
right click on image above and click
view image in a new tab to see the whole thing
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
but that's akin to taking the red pill
and then you have to live in the grimy, disgusting, imperfect real world
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:09 PM EST up reply actions
no. that is false. "cleared" and "case closed" is not the same thing and both do NOT mean "no crime was found to have been committed."
Cleared = evidence demonstrated innocent
Case closed = not enough evidence to prove guilt or innocence
Aurobass: Please tell you me you understand and accept this.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 7:30 PM EST up reply actions
but if you read the transcript
Q: And the case was closed because it was determined no crime had occurred, correct?
A: That’s correct.
Doesn’t get much more straightforward than that.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:33 PM EST up reply actions
Thank you - Exactly
No crime had occurred is definitive
that is innocent of committing a crime
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
That is straightforward, but
Warbuck’s point is more subtle, and highlights the incredible ambiguity in the English language, and demonstrates how open to interpretation the written word really is (there is a whole other subset of English that intends to eliminate ambiguity, legalese, but we still have lawyers to translate it and argue it… sorry for tangent)
I read your posted quote as implying no evidence supporting that a crime was committed
I read Warbucks definition of “cleared”, with evidence supporting innocence, as quite different than “case closed” due to lack of sufficient evidence to bring charges
by skins4ever' on Jan 14, 2012 7:46 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
I don't know
“was determined no crime occurred” doesn’t leave much room for interpretation. It wasn’t like they said, “insufficient evidence to pursue a charge” or anything like that. Something was determined: that there was no crime.
And heck, for all we know, there was no crime ever committed by Sandusky, however pervy and creepy he may be.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
that second paragraph means to include ALL the allegations against him.
That whole presumed innocent thing.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 8:00 PM EST up reply actions
Sure. Second section of the paper
Fifth page. Lower inside corner. Two column inches.
*
by Smee on Jan 14, 2012 8:14 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
That is my fear, too.
With all this pre-trial publicity, will some judge decide JS cannot get a fair trial? Part of me thinks JS keeps wearing Penn State gear so the media can harp on the “Penn State” scandal, further tainting the jury pool.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It isn't hard for me to imagine...
that the prosecution is going to have a hard time proving these beyond a reasonable doubt. lt’s a high bar and any physical evidence is long gone.
Opportunity does not equal guilt and he’s already admitted opportunity.
He’s also admitted that he isn’t good at drawing boundaries which might put him in situations where his actions can be misinterpreted by witnesses (and maybe the victims).
It’ll be interesting… and I can’t imagine the vitriol if he does get off. Then the mob line will be that Penn State successfully stonewalled the investigation(s) and we’ll be guilty for enabling a pedophile all over again.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 15, 2012 7:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
my memory is fuzzy
So maybe I need some help. The transcript references the 1998 shower incident. I believe CYS found it to be a boundary issue (or words to that effect). So, certainly right on the edge or near the edge of being a crime. But with CYS terming it as they did, I think that influenced Gricar’s decision not to prosecute. And it was This decision that would have led to UP police chief to direct that the case be closed.
by skins4ever' on Jan 14, 2012 8:27 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
CYS didn't even notify Second Mile...
that Sandusky shouldn’t be working with kids after the 1998 investigation, and they absolutely had that authority. The fact that there wasn’t even that level of ‘guilt’ on Sandusky’s part should be enough to dismiss any questions about who did or didn’t know about the investigation then.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 14, 2012 9:58 PM EST up reply actions
again to fuzzy memory
I don’t recall reading that CYS did not notify second mile, but I will trust you on that. I do remember reading that Wendell Jeremy was (or should have been) notified that UP police closed the case. And that as Jeremy was also counsel to second mile, he notified them (perhaps that was only inferred in what I recall reading, in that he should have notified them). Nonetheless, I’ll read the book by Posnanski in a few years & maybe all this will be clear (hope he makes use of the A.D., the Aurabass Database)
by skins4ever' on Jan 14, 2012 10:50 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
Let me clarify -
CYS may have informed Second Mile as to the fact that there was an investigation conducted, but they did not order Second Mile to keep Sandusky from working with kids.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 15, 2012 7:29 AM EST up reply actions
JN
Meant to reply to you. See “memory fuzzy” post below
by skins4ever' on Jan 14, 2012 8:29 PM EST via iPhone app up reply actions
@ skins4ever: confession: i did not read close enough. i focused on what Aurobass wrote (which I still assert is a misstatement).
however, reading the transcript more closely, I would interpret was is said as the witness saying that the evidence was sufficient to show innocence, not merely that not enough evidence existed either way.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 8:18 PM EST up reply actions
okay, yes. The page is very clear that, at least based on this testimony, the case was closed because the evidence
showed that no crime had been committed. Further down the page, use of the word “closed its investigation as unfounded” also conveys the idea of being “cleared” of wrongdoing.
sorry for any confusion I might have caused.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
That’s the testimony of a cop interpreting the prosecutor’s decision. Not the prosecutor who made the decision.
well, unfortunately, we aren't going to get the prosecutor's testimony
so the cop is all we have to go by.
Fire Dan Snyder
by Cari Greene on Jan 16, 2012 10:16 AM EST up reply actions
Line 18 and beyond seem to indicate
that the investigation was closed because the allegations were unfounded. I’m not a lawyer — I know many of you are — but that seems to say that the alleged perpetrator was innocent.
Was OJ guilty or innocent? Many may say he was guilty, but a jury of his peers said he was not guilty. Maybe not guilty =/= innocent, but he walked around as a free man for a few more years. Same-same Casey Anthony. The court of public opinion is just that — opinion.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:35 PM EST up reply actions
Acquitted at trial = 'not guilty'
Charges dropped before you even get to the level of evidence that would warrant an arrest? Yeah, really not guilty.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 14, 2012 10:00 PM EST up reply actions
Possibly more to the point
in the 1998 case, was the fact that Child & Protective Services (or whatever the agency is called) decided not to put Sandusky on a watch list . . . which required a lower standard of proof.
"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring". ~Rogers Hornsby
There's no difference
We’re all innocent until proven guilty. No charges means no charges. There are just as many formal charges against Sandusky for that incident as there are against the Queen of Denmark. Zero.
It doesn’t mean the cops couldn’t reopen the case of new evidence comes to light, but that’s always true regardless,( except when double jeopardy attaches, of course.)
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 3:09 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Lets say I made a bullshit claim to one of your coworkers and said that I saw you molesting a kid.
If I was ever caught alone with a child in a shower in a deserted building, I’d expect that the cops would be called, and I don’t think anyone would say that it was a bullshit claim.
Look, it's weird, creepy, and suspicious
But if that was truly all he did, it’s not a crime. Is it something I’d be ok with if it was my kid? Hell no. But there’s still a big difference between that and molestation.
But if you were showering with your kid
or foster kid
or grandkid after a workout
you would not expect anyone to report you for a crime either would you?
MM made no attempt to help the kid – ask him if he needed help – or even ask who he was and why he was there.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Yes, but there is the possibility it was a crime
Molestation, no, but corruption of a minor, maybe. The law can be vague and the context of the situation matters
I'm looking at this from Paterno's point of view.
From his point of view,this has been investigated and they found nothing wrong with it. So in this case,we’re assuming (as far as he knows) that they were just showering, nothing else. In that case, it would be wildly inappropriate to keep up accusations of molestation.
by ppfcpp on Jan 14, 2012 6:56 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
which is how I see it as well.
This is a very grey scenario, though, with many interpretations. Some people recognize that when you read between lines you may read different messages, and some people believe they are the authority on all that is right in the world. I guess it will be up to the future to decide who is right and who is wrong (but it doesn’t take foresight to realize that adamant and unchanging stances can be quite detrimental).
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions
oh, okay, I didn't realize you were writing from his point of view
That case, I would agree with you. If he didn’t hear anything back, then I think it is reasonable to assume there wasn’t a crime.
Possibility of a crime
But we have to view this in Context of 2002 and how Jerry Sandusky was regarded by the people who heard from Mike McQueary
Sandusky was known as Successful Charity for Kids Founder and
Foster Father of Six
this is not just “some old guy”
Schultz goes on and on about Jerry being very likable and loved by kids because he behaved like a big kid himself – physical, always with the shoulder punch and headlocks.
So we can’t view this in a vacuum. Who knew if this kid was a foster kid or Grandkid of one of Sandusky’s foster children?
Who knew if he was a substitute foster father for a short time of a kid who needed a place to stay
and if that was the case and he decided to go work out after dinner at 8pm and took the kid with him …… well how weird is that really?
Remember the context of who is Sandusky in the minds of Curley and Schultz
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 14, 2012 8:58 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
if not the cops, Child and Youth Services
I’ve read that Curley told the investigators that he called CYS, but it was from a commentor so take that for what it is worth. I am very interested to hear what Curley and Schultz exactly did with this information. We’ve already seen the AG mislead people in this case already.
Check the preliminary perjury trial - I think it was Schultz's GJ statement read into the record,
where he thought they’d referred it. I kind of remember him stating it more than once.
This could be interesting....
The Grand Jury Presentment essentially says no.
Department of Public Welfare and Children and Youth Services local and state records were subpoenaed by the Grand Jury; University Police records were also subpoenaed. The records reveal that the 2002 incident was never reported to any officials, in contravention of Pennsylvania law.
However someone else has suggested that by the time the time lapse between 2002 and the GJ investigation was long enough that such records would have been destroyed. Moving on to the actual testimony next…
CYS stated that any unfound reports are purged after two years
so there would be no record of a report from 02 if they found no wrongdoing
I just read.
Correct on the lack of records
I thought this was neat X-examination. The guy from the AG office said that there was no record of the 2002 incident filed with CYS. Under X-examination he had to admit that.
Curley was directly asked in the GJ Interview if he had referred the matter to SCPD or CYS to which he said, “I did not.”
Schultz on the other hand, comes off as worse. I won’t transcribe it all here, look around page 227 of the PDF from the perjury prelim. He keeps saying that he thought that it was turned over to the authorities, yet he was never interviewed and can’t explain which agency it even is. It’s one of the more damning series of questions in the whole saga.
He doesn’t sound like it was a little out of his area of expertise, he sounds like he’s just downright dim.
Yes, the repetition by Schultz did seem odd.
Had he said the “referral” only once and thereafter said he didn’t recall exactly (it was 9 years), I’d have felt it more a matter of memory than anything.
He was scared shitless
By the time he was called to testify, some additional knowledge may have leaked out about what was going on with JS and he realized that between the AD and the VP in charge of Police he was the one that was going to look most responsible. I think it sounds like he was grasping for straws to try and make it sound like the right thing happened, even if he didn’t do it. I say there’s about 1:30 odds that he is the only one found guilty out of the 3.
After poring through more of the testimony
It really seems that Curley and Schultz limited their outside reporting of the 2002 incident to Second Mile. As I have mentioned earlier, I wonder if they really had it in their heads that Second Mile was somehow synonymous with CYS and therefore, they had done their duty?
Again, a mis-step, but I would be more sympathetic to that excuse than the flubbering around that Schultz presented in his testimony.
by cs93 on Jan 15, 2012 2:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
He did go ask McQueary again
read the transcript of testimony
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Transcript

Joe asked Mike if he was OK a couple of times – Ok with what had happened
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Thanks for all your input here
As others have said, your work is much appreciated. I am curious, do you know if it says somewhere in the transcripts exactly what Curley and/or Schultz told MM? All I remember was that they told him Sandusky would be banned from bringing kids into the facilities. I’d like to read the actual quote if it’s available.
I will be happy to look for you
I’ve already put most of the transcript into 200 images.
I know they informed Mike that they had notified Second Mile which I think was the appropriate thing
Jack Raykovitz had a mom complain in 98
and he had Curley tell him about the ban and the 2002 shower incident
Raykovitz then knew two of his Second Mile kids had showered with his friend JS causing problems for Second Mile. I don’t know how he could have ignored that problem. If I were he I would have immediately looked for other boys that JS was paying close attention to and asked their parent or foster parent about it in order to head off these problems
But the AG told Raykovitz that 2nd Mile wasn’t being investigated???
This was clearly a problem more for Second Mile than Penn State
So they donated 25 grand to AG running for Gov Corbett
That is extremely suspicious given that he could have charged JS in 2008 when victim one came forward but he did not and 3 years passed
Between 2002 and 2011 Second Mile took in 24 million dollars and Raykovitz and his wife made 2 million – we don’t know who else profited from Second Mile except the Gov who got at least 25 K
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
I have a complete Fanpost ready to go in 24 hours or less
That will lay out my case against the Attorney Generals and Second Mile for their part in extending this horror story while blaming Penn State as a distraction.
Second Mile was a very lucrative charity with 10 million in assets and 2.7 million per year in revenues. Jerry Sandusky was most closely identified with Second Mile and his friend Jack Raykovitz was the exec director and there seems to have been a very cozy relationship with Gov Corbett who was the AG in 08.
This is where I think the real problem lies because Second Mile had the resources and the personnel to do an internal investigation of JS based on the showering complaints of 98 and 2002.
The haven’t really even been mentioned by the AG in this and that’s very bizarre since Second Mile was the hunting ground for Sandusky.
Second Mile is a lot more culpable than Penn State in this situation
Penn State was trying to help Second Mile by providing facilities and PSU got screwed because 2nd Mile failed to check out what Sandusky was doing with Second Mile kids.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Thanks for the invite, aurabass.
Got your e-mail earlier today, then got sucked into this place. Will try to get over to that site ASAP.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Page 113 of the pre-trial for perjury
Mr. Beemer: You described a phone call that you received from Mr. Curley wherein he indicated that he took several steps, including calling the Second Mile and telling Mr. Sandusky not to bring children up to the Lasch Building or Penn State, correct?
McQueary: Right. That’s right.
by cs93 on Jan 14, 2012 8:37 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Here is part of it

Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Mike McQueary
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Page 37 also
The follow-up from Curley to McQueary is mentioned several times.
Don't want to lean too heavily on this,
but Joe followed up with the primary witness, and was apparently satisfied (or at least not alarmed) that that person was himself okay and (big assumption) was okay with the way the situation was handled.
I know there are many who wish Joe had gone all Rambo, but there could have been negative consequnces to that, too. It’s a mad world . . .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvPkLG-tvzM&feature=fvst
/NoRickroll
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:26 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I would think most people
wouldn’t follow up if the guy who told them about a crime didn’t seemt o be pissed off about nothing being done. Which is how I took the onversations between Mike and Joe to have gone from the prelim.
Not trying to excuse Joe 100%,
but am interested in pointing out that there seems to be an expectation of a higher level of involvement from Joe than from anyone else — that just strikes me as unfair.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Completely.
And the media says it is because he put himself out there as haing a higher standard. In many ways that is true, but in manys ways it was also a myth that they perpetuated. I never thought he was perfect, just most better than most. I have always felt that in this case he did what he thought was best, like always, and this time, like many others it didn’t work out. If like a majority of the time other people did their jobs too, it would have worked out in everyone’s favor.
Agreed.
Also, a higher standard in one area does not imply a higher standard in all. As you all know by now, I work in finance and am VERY particular (fussy) about my numbers; at home, I am sometimes slack about chores. (Ask my wife how long the new garbage disposal has been sitting in the kitchen, waiting to be installed.)
Far different with Joe, Big Red, and a possible rape of a child, but we all have our idiosyncracies.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:48 PM EST up reply actions
And it is true that this was a more
grave situation than almost any other, but if he acted in what he thought was the best manner, and inline with morale behavior, I don’t hold anything against him at all.
Same here.
We all have feet of clay in one regard or another.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:54 PM EST up reply actions
I said this in another post over a month ago
Joe asked his players to be better men. I never ONCE heard him say he was a better man than anyone else.
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
by letsgopsu on Jan 14, 2012 8:52 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
^ Truf.
People want to believe Joe was arrogant because they don’t want to believe how humble he is.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:55 PM EST up reply actions
"only the true messiah would deny being the messiah."
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 12:23 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
I believe in Joe Paterno
more than I believe in anything else
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 15, 2012 1:40 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I kinda wanna see Paterno in a skit similar to the Chapelle/Wayne Brady one.
“Don’t make JoePa choke a bitch”
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And keep asking until...
all the way up to Kofi Annan tells you you can rest?
If nothing came of an investigation the first time, what would make a reasonable person not involved with the investigation think going through the cycle again would produce a different result.
Not to mention the presupposition that there SHOULD be a different result in the first place which is absolutely not obvious at the time.
At some point you have to trust people to have done their jobs right.
I’m sorry, but blanket statements are proven false 99% of the time, and if you make a blanket statement about college football, there’s a good chance that one exception will be Joe Paterno. - AdamShell @ BSD
Also; Always carry a bottle opener and the beer will provide itself.
by bconway6 on Jan 14, 2012 7:49 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
He did ask McQuery
McQuery testified that Joe asked if he was “ok” with the situation. McQuery said he was. He should have said no.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 12:09 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Mike says Joe followed up with him more than once
according to the way I read it.
Something like “Two weeks, a month… a few months after”. was what I remember MM saying in his testimony as far as if Joe followed up with him.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
See above for quotes from the record.
I was concerned that the lack of addressing follow-up in the WaPo interview was damning, but looking at the court records, I am more sure that while the actions taken by the University may not have been stellar, they were conveyed back to Paterno and McQueary. From that point, I leave it to the rest of you to determine whether they should have convened in Penn’s Cave, donned their Batman and Robin suits and swooped out into the night to mete out their own form of rough justice.
He didn't follow up.
Had he, someone would have made sure that information got to this reporter. The omission or follow-up is significant.
The question is how one judges that. I see this through a sociocultural lens. So for me, Joe is Joe.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Also, some bullshit
Why is he headline for that article “In hindsight, I wish I had done more” Not only is that headline not really applicable to the interview, it isn’t even correctly quoting him.
Two names that will live in Infamy:
Steve Garban and John Surma
While Tarring and Feathering is now passe, if ever there were two more deserving people, it is them.
My thoughts and prayers are with Coach Paterno, his family and their fight against cancer.
by ljdevine on Jan 14, 2012 6:19 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
The more I read, the more my views have not changed since the beginning
Impeach the governor.
Impeach the attorney general.
Fire noonan.
Get rid of the BoT.
Give Joe his job back and let him decide who gets to be head coach.
*
by Smee on Jan 14, 2012 6:20 PM EST reply actions 10 recs
Amen Smee
The Attorney General made this the Penn State Scandal all by herself
and it is her fault alone that JoePa has been made a villain
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 14, 2012 6:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Aura
From a Penn Stater who spent years living in SEC land, your efforts have been truly appreciated. Thank you for all your efforts on “our” behalf.
*
Seconded.
Follow my antics: @djv5030
Its the name on the front of the jersey that matters most, not the one on the back. -Joe Paterno
by Dan Vecellio on Jan 14, 2012 6:59 PM EST up reply actions
appreciated
even if I completely picture aurabass as a crazy internet nutjob typing away in the dark (and I say that with all fond intentions).
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:03 PM EST up reply actions
From me as well.
Your efforts have been Herculean.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Thanks to all
including The JuggerNitt -- I think? :-)
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
;-)
I know I can be longwinded with my rants on here, but I think you put even me to shame.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:40 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I do tend to go on and on don't I :-)
I type faster than i think maybe
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
And Sub Lime
I would appreciate a private chat with you via emai if you would be so kind
my screen name at gmail dot com if you have a minute
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Joe did exactly the right thing then and now
He’s one hell of a man and a great example
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
OH HEY AURABASS
I just found out there’s a new verb named after you when someone tries to make a point! AURABASSING.
I can’t wait until somebody starts “ArtieFufkin-ing” here.
by Artiefufkin10 on Jan 14, 2012 6:21 PM EST up reply actions
Is that good or bad?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Depends on who you're talking to I guess.
“Aurabass” away. It doesn’t bother me a bit.
by Artiefufkin10 on Jan 14, 2012 6:24 PM EST up reply actions
FYI This is Who You All Are Dealing With
“And none of the cultists at BSD will admit they were wrong either.”
Sorry to be a dick M1EK, but you can’t have it both ways. You play the “poor me” card when people here don’t agree with you, and then you seemingly go behind their backs and call them “cultists” on Twitter.
by Artiefufkin10 on Jan 14, 2012 6:20 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
I don't think I would apologize to him Artiefukin10
You are a more patient man than I
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
Cry me a river.
others here have been trashing me on twitter for a long time, directly (i.e. individually named).
by M1EK on Jan 14, 2012 6:32 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
So you're no better than anyone else then.
Quit it with the self-righteous bullshit.
by Artiefufkin10 on Jan 14, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
No, that’s better. Read it again and note difference.
by M1EK on Jan 14, 2012 6:41 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
I get it
You get to call names, play the victim and Chris threatens to ban anyone who calls you on it. Must be nice.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:44 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
I know right.
I seriously question the morality of anyone who could be friends with a guy like this.
by FB6244 on Jan 14, 2012 7:48 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
maybe he has a charming way in real life
sorta like Sandusky.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 8:01 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
No. There’s a difference between attacking a person by name and attacking a group.
by M1EK on Jan 14, 2012 9:37 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Only if it suits you.
It does, so there’s a difference to you.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 9:48 PM EST up reply actions
And attacking them on Twitter behind their back?
Really?
In my opinion you have totally wasted your second chance. Right, wrong or indifferent your writing has no credibility with the audience you are writing for.
You can respond if you want. And I personally absolve you of any restriction placed on you by Chris or anybody else in replying. I suspect you’ll make my point.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I'm an adult, so I don't tweet
If someone has something to say to or about me or a group that I associate with, I’d hope they would have the “stones” (it’s all relative since we’re quasi-anonymous here) to do it here. Like this: M1EK is a hypocrite.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 10:04 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
I’m completely comfortable with the difference between generalizing a bunch of folks as cultists and calling somebody an asshole by name.
by M1EK on Jan 15, 2012 11:51 AM EST via Android app up reply actions
The fact that you can't see the faulty logic there isn't surprising
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
The KKK completely agrees with this philosophy
I just read.
by BMAN13 on Jan 15, 2012 2:52 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
It also allows you to lump everyone together and call us whatever you want..
While restricting us from responding to you.
The more you talk, the more you prove that not only are you not the smartest person in the room… you’re not the smartest person in the blurb.
Your words prove you to be nothing more than an ignorant, hypocritical, attention starving scandalmonger.
Everytime I tell myself I’m not going to respond to something you write… you come off with a remark like this one. You’re like Andrew Dice Clay with less tact.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
by The Heel on Jan 15, 2012 11:51 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No restriction
and calling a group of people, without identifying their individual members, “cultists”, is, again, far weaker sauce than calling somebody an asshole by name.
Sorry I couldn’t put more commas in there.
by M1EK on Jan 16, 2012 11:47 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Must be nice to be able to feed yourself bullshit like that
and like it
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 16, 2012 11:59 AM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Now you have a problem with my commas?
Believe me, I would love to tell you to your face what I think about you.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
That was a joke at my own expense
go read my comment again, Einstien
by M1EK on Jan 16, 2012 6:08 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
My reply was half joking, which I thought was big of me
considering what I think of you.
"Publicity is like poison. It doesn't hurt unless you swallow it."
Joe Paterno
I maintain
That it is much more honorable to directly call someone an asshole who is acting like an one than to go into a different forum and say “man, there are some people that are acting like assholes.”
Basically what you have to be saying for your viewpoint to make sense is that you’d never call anyone a cultist to their face, but you’d characterize a group of individuals as cultists.
And I understand that “cultist” isn’t per se as “bad” as “asshole”, but asshole is just a generic word that is a bit stronger than jerk. If I called someone something like a completely miserable failure at life that should die alone, penniless and cold in a sea of their own shortcomings and insecurities, I’m not going to be censored on TV, but I am saying something far stronger than “asshole”.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
And because the implication might be out there
I wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t directing those insults at you, M1EK, just providing a hypothetical. I haven’t even gotten that upset with you lately, except for the several recent occasions on which you’ve tried to slither out of some kind of accountability by using passive construction instead of being direct with your criticism.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Honorable, perhaps.
Civil? No.
Characterizing a group of people, which you are free to consider yourself part of or not part of, outside the forum in question, is very different than calling somebody an asshole directly by name inside that forum.
If you honestly believe otherwise, your own bunch of twitter pals should be getting a large portion of this ire, yet oddly enough I have never seen you do so.
Fair enough
People with more than 390, but fewer than 400 twitter followers are monumental assholes and aspire to be douche bags.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 9:09 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
How about
smug self-righteous misanthropes who blame Coach Paterno on BSD threads while calling opponents “creepy perverts” using a Simpson cartoon avatar are all simpering nuless nimrods.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 16, 2012 10:36 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
This is the stupidest thing I have heard in a while.
By your logic, why question the motives of one minority in a robbery when you can generalize the entire race?
Jesus Christ.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Jan 14, 2012 10:21 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
People have killed in the name of Christ
all Christians must be murderers. Should probably arrest them.
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 15, 2012 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
That's the distinction of a technocrat.
As much as I hate sharp distinctions, either it’s OK to denigrate your fellow human or it is not. The individual vs. collective construct is laughable in that sort-of-funny-but-pathetic sort of way.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Jan 14, 2012 10:58 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
First and foremost, criticism is criticism, regardless of whether it is directed at one or many. No matter what excuses are used, if you allow criticism of any kind, it is a double standard to now allow it to be reciprocated. It is unfair to claim you deserve an exception simply because you are outnumbered. NO one is forcing anyone to comment and give their opinions. If you choose to give your opinions, you are subject to responses.
Secondly and more importantly, it is never acceptable to claim generalizations are accurate or acceptable. There are many different opinions on this site, and to generalize them as “cultist” is inaccurate and disingenuous. Claiming it is ok to attack a group is saying it is ok to allow racism. It’s apparently not ok to take exception with an individual, but it’s allowable to project that exception onto a larger group and then attack it collectively. This is very dangerous (such as with racism and other forms of group hate), especially when you use the wrong criteria to define the group. It’s apparent that M1EK doesn’t just hold others to a high standard, he also hold them to complete double standards.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 15, 2012 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Although I'm guessing that stereotyping is another double standard.
Wrong for us to do it, but ok for M1EK.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 15, 2012 1:42 PM EST up reply actions
Besides, I'm no cultist
I’ve accepted that the actual evidence shows that several Penn State people are not as admirable as I thought they were.
I always thought Sandusky was maybe not the sharpest knife in the drawer, was almost a saint for his work with kids. It’s very upsetting to find out otherwise.
I always though Curley was a great guy because he has hired so many great people. But the way his testimony repeatedly makes a vague distinction between “inappropriate” and “criminal” bothers me. It sounds like he’s been coached up tO much by his lawyer and isn’t being forthright.
McQuery always struck me as a guy who was going places and had his head on straight, but some of his actions are bizarre suggest, at the very least, overwhelming indecision. It seems like at some point in the last 9 years, he should have made up his mind to make a decisive move. Either tell the cops he saw a crime, or concede that he’s not sure what he saw. Disappointing lack of maturity.
Schultz – you’d think PSU would have VPs that know their own job description.
Spanier – has done so much for PSU, but it seems he deluded himself here. Even if he honestly believed there was no crime, he should have prepared better for all of this.
Paterno – His decision to more or less recuse himself from the case made sense. But he should have asked advice from an independent lawyer or other expert. He should not have been so afraid to go outside PSU for help. I think that years of taking shit from the press have made him retreat into footballand a bit too much.
The Board – panicked. Needed to at least have a calm discussion with Joepa. Needed to gather evidence and get outside legal advice before making a move. Maybe keep Joe away from the Nebraska game as a precaution, but have a man to man with the captains first.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 3:28 PM EST via mobile up reply actions 3 recs
And you can make another list just as long
with the people outside of Penn Sate that failed. The more I read about what Raykovitz and the Second Mile knew, the more my blood boils. the press should be all over that, but it won’t make the national wire like a good ole Joe-bashing now, will it?
by cs93 on Jan 15, 2012 3:32 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes, but I had no opinion on them before this
So I’m not really disappointed or disillusioned with them. I am bummed to learn that Second Mile isn’t doing as much good as they appeared to be doing, but I’m hopeful another group will pick up the slack.
I was specifically challenging the false assertion that I (or others who do not believe Paterno willingly abetted and concealed a serial child rapist) am not merely a biased “homer.”
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 8:25 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
I see your point
Wasn’t challenging your list, just reminding everyone that the scope goes way beyond Penn State.
I did know of Second Mile and hoped they would do better.
I do believe that school administrators like the ones that told Victim 1’s mom to go home and think about it would know their requirements as mandatory reporters.
I do wish that CYS and SCPD had found something more tangible to stop JS back then.
Forgive me for thinking it as I write this, but when I think of all the people that JS must have fooled, I almost wish that he is an innocent man with boundary issues, because the alternative is that he was an absolute psychopath.
by cs93 on Jan 15, 2012 11:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
No, there isn't
You want there to be a difference though, because you want to absolve yourself of any wrongdoing.
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
by Kyle_Martin on Jan 15, 2012 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
You're a prick.
Twitter that.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Jan 14, 2012 9:27 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
As if you would expect anything else.
A terrible person, no way around it.
So we are left with this...
So we are left with 2 options:
1) You believe Joe when he says he is an old guy who didn’t know how to handle the situation, didn’t really understand the concept of an adult male raping a child, didn’t have an understanding that Sandusky had previously been investigated for showing with a child, and turned it over to the administration to check out the story that he was told and assumed those people would do their jobs
or
2) You believe Joe knew Jerry Sandusky was a child molester, intentionally covered it up to protect Penn State football from the repercussions of news articles that would have reported that a former coach was again being investigated for child molestation and was reported to the police by Joe Paterno and his staff.
I still do not understand the argument that protecting Sandusky is in the best interest of Penn State University. I can understand being generally upset by the incompetence that appears to be have occurred in the administration but not the vitriol that comes from the assumption this was an orchestrated cover up.
by Dlkshanghai on Jan 14, 2012 6:30 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
No.
There’s a third option in between those two poles, which you exaggerated to ridiculousness for rhetorical effect.
Your option 1 paints Joe as a helpless cog in a machine who didn’t know anything about anything. At 75, remember, not 85.
Your option 2 paints Joe as the main villain, which nobody except a few of the more stupid media people does.
Option 3 is: He’s a guy who did something right and then never followed up to make sure other people did the right thing despite being our moral compass for decades. And the result was that because the other people didn’t do the right thing (and because Joe didn’t follow up to make sure they did the right thing), more kids likely got molested.
I think the chain...
of causation becomes too attenuated for me to agree with the last part of your last sentence.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 16, 2012 2:17 PM EST up reply actions
That's his move
Start out reasonable – the truth is most certainly somewhere between the extremes presented – and then going to the Joe is obviously an enabler extreme that is not supported by any known facts.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 9:11 PM EST up reply actions
So that's it?
Joe Paterno made a mistake, it’s pretty clear. He’s a sick old man. I get the impression that he’s dying.
I choose to forgive him before he does.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 6:33 PM EST reply actions 7 recs
What mistake did he make?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
He could have followed up...
But it sounds like even if he had he would have accepted whatever explanation they gave him anyway. And I don’t completely discount Paterno’s statement that he didn’t want to influence what was going on. When Paterno speaks, people listen, and I do think that he would have been concerned that his weighing in on the issue would have influenced the decision makers either for or against Sandusky.
At the end of the day, when the course of action you take leads to sexual abuse continuing for six more years, some introspection about what you did and didn’t do is appropriate. I have no doubt that Coach Paterno is second guessing his actions. It’s pretty clear at this point he didn’t “cover up” sexual abuse. I don’t equate errors in judgment with moral failures. That’s just my opinion.
Like I told my Wife, as to Penn State/Joe Paterno’s role in this, I pretty much consider the matter closed. Curley, Schultz and Sandusky will have their days in Court. And Penn State will move on. I thought we knew about 85% of the facts three days ago. I think we know more than 90% of them now. I’m not counting on any Perry Mason type revelations at this point.
It is what it is.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
It sounds like Joe followed up
with Big Red, which I see as important. If MM said, “Nah, it’s all good, Coach; had a good talk with Curley and Schultz, and, after thinking the incident through, I may have mischaracterized what I saw.” then Joe may have figured the whole thing was over.
If the primary witness changes his/her story, the whole case falls apart. Prosecutors see that all the time, I’m told.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:07 PM EST up reply actions
Honestly, whatever.
We all wish Joe Paterno did more. He wishes he’d done more.
He wasn’t twirling his moustache laughing maniacally protecting kiddie diddlers. He was an old man that didn’t appreciate the gravity of the situation, that was let down by he people he justifiably depended on. He’s not a hero, he’s not a goat, he’s just the most famous guy that didn’t fix this.
It’s hard, and a bit strange, to think of Joe Paterno as just a guy. A mortal guy, that isn’t perfect.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 7:21 PM EST up reply actions 23 recs
I mostly agree.
I could see a lot of my Dad in Joe and vice versa, so Joe has always been “human” to me, I guess.
To me, it comes down to this: What is the sum total of Joe’s life? My answer is, he was a hugely positive influence in the lives of literally hundreds of players and thousands of others. Did he make a “mistake”? Yes, as we with 20-20 hindsight interpret it. Did that mistake involve a child/children? Sure does look like it, and as a father that is heart-breaking for me to accept. However, I will remember Joe as a great, but not perfect, man whose body of work was truly amazing.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 7:27 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
The problem with doing more
is the very likely probability that JS would have come out of an investigation of this incident exactly the same way he came out ot the 1998 investigation.
Now that would have avoided the current shitstom that the Attorney General has single handedly put PSU into but it would not have changed the game with JS>
What would have changed the game is for Jack Raykovitz to have done an investigation with Second Mile kids who were paid special attention to by Sandusky.
He was in a position to find out which kids were getting JS’s attention and in 2002 he knew of two complaints about JS in the showers with his Second Mile Kids.
Those kids were his responsibility and Second Mile was being put in a bad position with the institution that helped Second mile by providing facilities.
This was clearly more of a Second Mile problem than a Penn State problem but the Attorney General told Second Mile they were not a target and Raykovitz had too much to lose Plus the Gov was getting donations from Second Mile
The AG’s decision to make PSU “Equally Significant” to Sandusky and to blow the Grand Jury Victim 2 section out of proprotion to the truth is what put PSU here – not the decision by Joe Tim or Gary that MM’s report was flawed and useless.
HIs account is flawed and useless to any prosecution of Sandusky.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
A Shakespearean character...
with a fatal flaw.
Sadly fitting in a way.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Jan 14, 2012 9:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes
I never had problems thinking of him as just a guy. That’s why people like him so much.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 12:28 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
What "more" could Joe have done? And why would you have done it?
Can we agree on a couple of facts?
1) Mike McQueary did not do enough – he did not confirm his suspicions, he did not offer his help to the kid, he did not tell a convincing story. ARE THOSE FAIR
2) Jerry Sandusky had a good reputation with Joe, Tim and Gary.
He was a popular charity founder and foster father of six. They had no reason to suspect he was a deviate. He was ‘cleared’ in the 98 investigation.
3) Joe Tim and Gary had to weigh MM’s unconvincing suspicions against Jerry Sandusky’s reputation.
4) Second Mile Kids are the primary responsibility of the Second Mile and Jack Raykovitz.. Raykovitz knew from a Second Mile mom about the 98 complaint and he knew from Curley about the 2002 complaint. Yet he evidently did nothing to check and see if there were other Second Mile kids at risk.
Did Second MIle think it was ok for Jerry to shower with kids even though it led to a serious investigation and complaint from a Second Mile mom and sever risk to the relationship between Second Mile and PSU in 2002?
5) Joe Paterno is a football coach who’s primary responsibility is a football team
Tim Curley is an AD responsible for athletics
Gary Schultz is a VP with administrative PSU duties
but
Jack Raykovitz is the exec dir of The Second Mile primarily responsible for Second Mile kids and Second Mile’s reputation.
Why isn’t the blame for a lack of follow up laid on Jack Raykovitz and Second Mile
Why didn’t Raykovitz ask to speak with McQueary
What did Raykovitz do to try to curb Jerrys behavior that was casting suspicion on him and Second Mile/
Why isn’t Jack Raykovitz under the microscope here?
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 15, 2012 3:34 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
A guy
that deserved the chance to resign with honor because of the people that didn’t do enough he did more than many – but did not deserve to keep his job. Please don’t forget that.
Honestly, none of what you just said is really germane to what jesse. wrote
It’s an entirely different discussion. I feel like you actually agree with what jesse. said, but don’t have the capacity to actually directly agree with anyone, so you had to expand it out to a separate but related issue to find your conflict. I’m not even disagreeing with you here (though I might, it’s irrelevant), just pointing out that I find it strange and fascinating that you made this comment where you did.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 3:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Octa, check out today's "Success with Hyperlinking" thread.
You’ll find more of the same, including what appears to be an attempt by a certain poster to misinterpret one of your posts to substantiate his view that “Everyone in State College has known for decades that JS was a ped.” (Last comment slightly hyperbolized.)
Junny closed out that thread, unfortunately, but you might find it interesting. No one changed their mind, as far as I can tell, but the thread had to happen.
84
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 16, 2012 3:26 PM EST up reply actions
Yeah I see that it's closed
In case anyone was wondering what I’d have said over there, it would have probably been something angry and may have contributed to the thread being shut down earlier.
M1EK pulled a quote from me out of context that said
“He almost definitely heard rumors and he almost definitely was completely skeptical about them, just like 1000 or more other people, myself included.”
What I was trying to convey with that quote was the idiocy of attacking Tom Bradley because he “knew”. I thought it was implied in my post that I was referencing his hearing of some sort of rumor after 2002. I wasn’t saying that I was sure he heard any rumors, just that even if he did I’m not so sure there’s anything morally wrong with his treating it as a rumor and being skeptical about it.
M1EK introduced this quote in response to a chain of comments that had sprung out of Joe’s claimed ignorance of the 1998 case. That he took my quote out of context to support his contention that Joe probably heard something about 1998 is pretty angering. Here are some facts about the “rumor” that I heard:
1. I heard a vague rumor that wasn’t about any particular incident or investigation (not 98, nor 2002), but just the vague idea that JS suspected of indecent activity with children and area child welfare agencies were looking into it.
2. I heard about this in 2004 or 2005
3. My information came from a source that was in no way affiliated with Penn State, but was instead tapped into some sort of child welfare agency in some way. Obviously I’m being discreet here.
There is a substantial probability that neither Bradley nor anyone else heard the same rumor that I did.
From my point of view, I heard what I heard basically due to overhearing a conversation somewhere. I knew that it was a very vague, yet powerful rumor, so I pretty much refused to share it with anyone. I may have told 1 or 2 other people until the news came out in November. I never heard anyone else talk about it.
When I talked about 1000s of people hearing rumors and being skeptical, I was talking about more recently, like when the story that there was an investigation going on came out around last March. I didn’t mean that there was some sort of well-known rumor floating around State College prior to 2010.
Read my whole comment if you want. Maybe I wasn’t explicit enough about the period of time I was referring to when I said 1000s of others had heard a rumor. But I never expected anything I wrote there to be co-opted by someone, divorced from its original context, and used to support a proposition that I not only disagree with, but would actively argue to be completely false.
I’m trying to remain calm, but this is absolute bullshit M1EK. I don’t expect you to apologize, but you should know that you fucked up with this one.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
Your comment didn’t have a year attached, and many others have insisted now that nobody said they had ever heard any rumors ever before the presentment itself.
Context was not absolutely clear. I had a minute to spend on homework. Apologies if anyone was confused into thinking you were referring to 1998.
Now I expect a response from the others.
by M1EK on Jan 16, 2012 6:12 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Keep on weasel-wording.
You claimed multiple times that “many” people heard the rumors, implying it was rife in Happy Valley for years. You then cited Octa’s post, knowing you were lifting it out of context and shamelessly using it to bolster a point made by you out of tissue.
Here is your response from others; your turn, Dr. Goebbels.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 16, 2012 6:18 PM EST up reply actions
Context was not absolutely clear
And yet you had no problem ascribing it a context that would be favorable to the point you were making. Why did you comment make it seem like this is my fault?
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
I was operating quickly
was headed away from my desk for a meeting. I apologize if I misrepresented you in any way. As I said, I was searching on “Sandusky rumors” (quotes not actually used in the text field), and yours was one that happened to come up that mentioned rumors further back than the GJ story in March.
Bear in mind that many others in this thread and that thread have now claimed nobody ever heard any rumors of any kind at any time until the GJ time period. All of those people are begging correction now, too.
Here's more evidence you've talked about this
I "knew" about Sandusky in 2005. I mean, I didn’t hear any specific incidences, but I heard a very reliable and authentic rumor that he was being investigated by certain child welfare agencies.
I’d bet that some people had heard the rumors, but I doubt anyone "knew".
The others here should follow my lead and admit they were wrong, too. We’ll see how many do.
From somebody working at my old barber shop
and likely where many of you got haircuts too:
http://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_scandal_involving_j.html
Some long-time residents of this tight-knit community said they weren’t surprised a scandal at Penn State took years to come to light.
"It was something that was swept under the rug," said Rebecca Durst, the owner of Rinaldo’s Barber Shop across the street from campus. "It’s been in the rumor mill for a long time — Sandusky’s behavior. But to think that there were other people involved that didn’t come forward and should have to make this right, it reminds me of a brotherhood, a priesthood, that protects someone."
From the evil media
http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/11/18/more-evidence-that-sandusky-abuse-was-an-open-secret/
Some investigators said they were convinced that the idea that Sandusky had an inappropriate interest in, and relationships with, young boys was a fairly widely held suspicion around and even outside Penn State’s football program over the years.
"This was not the secret that they are trying to make out now," one person involved in the inquiry said. "I know there were a number of college coaches that had heard the rumors. If all these people knew about it, how could Sandusky’s superiors not know?"
So
that should be enough for now, shouldn’t it?
Again, I’m sorry for mischaracterizing OctaShield’s comment into something much bigger than it really was. These others should prove the point much more aptly than his comments do.
No rumours
I’m pretty plugged into the gossip around State College and PSU and I never heard anything of the kind.
Contrast that to “Rene Portland hates lesbians.” The media treated that like a scoop when that lawsuit happened, but I’d been hearing that for years and years and I don’t even follow basketball.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 6:35 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
But, RJM, he never directed the
comments about rumors at you — they were attributed to the nebulous thousands of other State College/Happy Valley residents who were in that area anytime in the last 20 years or so.
As Octa said: M1EK’s comments are never directed at any one individual. That way, when he gets pushback he can claim, “I never directed any comments at you — why are you picking on me?”
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 16, 2012 6:40 PM EST up reply actions
To be perfectly clear
there was no gossip. I never said I heard gossip. I heard a rumor on one occasion, which I only ever told one or two other people and I never heard anyone else ever saying anything like it at any point until March 2010 in the thread on BSD where someone posted the P-N article about the GJ investigation taking place.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Everybody knew Rene Portland was not into lesbians.
Everybody. While that wasn’t what I was thinking about, but yeah, it was nothing like that at all.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
jesse.
just FYI, you’re the poster who’s articulated opinions most closely mirror my own on this topic. The two above comments in this thread are pretty much taken from my brain (or perhaps had been developed in my brain after reading similar prior comments that you’ve made). Well done.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
In the absence of hindsight
in other words in the here-and-now, how do you know when you’re done? How much is enough? I had a young kid who worked for me who was alcoholic, back in the day when the military would try to treat you for that and keep you on active duty. He was a good Marine sober, one of my better ones. I would query his NCO from time to time to see how he was doing. I had 143 other “children” I was responsible for so I didn’t dedicate alot of time to him. Couldn’t. He and another went out a saturday, took aboard a load, and tee-boned a family in their mini-van. Seriously injured two young kids. To this day I wonder if I could have done more. Should have restricted his liberty (ability to go off base), just on a hunch he’d get drunk. I could have done that 30 years ago, today they’d call the ACLU or something. At some point individual responsibility becomes just that, beyond the point where others can extend their reasonable reach as a guardian angel.
In God we trust. Everyone else, keep your hands where I can see them
by PSUMarine78 on Jan 14, 2012 9:07 PM EST up reply actions 4 recs
It is unfair to base your actions on fear.
In your example, you can not make decisions on worst case scenarios. If we begin doing that, we start restricting our rights, and that is something I can never support. It ultimately comes down to personal responsibility, and that’s all there is to it. It is unfair to punish people prior to any wrong doing.
Regarding Paterno he makes his position quite clear. He didn’t know what to do, so he placed the responsibility in the hands of people he considered more capable. If I am presented with a situation I don’t know how to handle, for example car trouble, I seek someone who I expect to handle it. If I take my car to a mechanic, I may inquire about what is being done, however I trust their judgement. I do not interfere with how they feel is best to deal with the issue. Paterno basically admitted to placing the responsibility in the hands of someone he felt was more capable of dealing with it, and it is unfair to judge him on his admitted inadequacy.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 15, 2012 2:03 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
And it seems fair - to follow your observation
that Curley and Schultz were determined to
place the responsibility in the hands of people he considered more capable. If I am presented with a situation I don’t know how to handle, for example car trouble, I seek someone who I expect to handle it. If I take my car to a mechanic, I may inquire about what is being done, however I trust their judgement. I do not interfere with how they feel is best to deal with the issue.Raykovitz is the expert on Sandusky, Second Mile kids, at risk kids, and has the counselors and contacts with Child Services.
He also has the responsibility for the kids in The Second Mile family, the access to data to determine which kids spend time alone with Sandusky, and the legal requirement as a mandatory reporter report the suspicions.
That isn’t a cover up or failure to follow up. It is particularly appropriate. If an expert on at risk kids and Jerry Sandusky better positioned to handle the McQueary suspicions i can’ t think of who it might be.
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
So well said
Thank you. I think Joe screwed up but he’s still a good man. Somehow, many people aren’t able to think 2 things at the same time.
by speedomike on Jan 14, 2012 8:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The money quote and why Jenkins is among the few who could have written this.
“Underneath the tension is the complicated knowledge that if Sandusky is guilty, he was as good at seducing the adults as he was the children.”
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:45 PM EST reply actions 4 recs
Which to me...
is what this story really should be about so much more than PSU’s tangential role.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:46 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
There will be a book in a few years
and we’ll learn how Sandusky had an entire community deceived. And how it would have been so easy to stop him if people had just been willing to examine things with a critical eye, like they would have with someone new to town.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 6:51 PM EST up reply actions
I am so much...
more interested in that part of the story. That’s the one where the lessons really are.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 14, 2012 6:55 PM EST up reply actions
it's rare to hear about a pedophile with one victim
Think about it. When the news comes out, there are multiple victims. Everyone is always “shocked” and had “no idea”. People generally don’t look at people and go “I wonder if he is a pedophile”.
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
Then again
do you really want to live in a world where we automatically suspect everyone is a pedophile?
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
If we did
Cory Giger would have to answer if he’s a pedophile or not.
I don't understand the Giger-hate
I find him to be benign. He talks about minor-league baseball well.
Of course, I haven’t listened to him in months because many of the people who call his show about football are so stupid.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 8:55 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Exactly
This didn’t happen because “good people did nothing”, as much as it was abuser are typically so well respected in society
That's what the idiots don't get
Sandusky kept this a secret and it wasn’t that hard for him to do it.
He picked his spots – off hours in the off season at Lasch, in his basement, etc. The only witnesses were the scared kids. By the grace of God, or whatever, that kid in Clinton County spoke up.
The rest of the staff wouldn’t know. Why would they? Think about the people you work with – what are they doing this weekend? Do you know? For certain? No. Secrets aren’t that hard to keep if one tries.
And this is a very typical pattern. Look at the Graham James case in Canada. Similar situation. Or check this one out near where my parents live. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Bradley
Similar pattern of people almost catching the guy but not quite being able to put it together. Maybe just because it’s too hard to believe.
Molesters do not drive around in vans looking shady. That’s not how it works. I think the people who are claiming that all the coaches knew just want to believe that molesters are obvious. They aren’t.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 12:44 AM EST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
that would mean people actually care about victims, and understanding this type of crime and how to prevent it in the future,
and not about a witch hunt and mob mentality and self-congratulations on who can should about hating child abuse more without actually doing anything of substance to combat it.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 6:55 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I agree about the money quote
But how did Sandusky fool his good friend Jack Raykovitz the exec director of Second Mile?
Raykovitz knew of the 98 investigation and Curley told him Sandusky was banned from bringing kids to PSU after the 2002 incident
So why didn’t Raykovitz do anything to find out if he was at least showering with other 2nd Mile kids?
Raykovitz had 2 complaints – one from a 2nd Mile mom in 98
and one from Curley at PSU in 2002 that hurt the relationship with PSU
So why wouldn’t Raykovitz move to see if Jerry was maybe causing problems with other kids at 2nd mile AND MORE IMPORTANT why didn’t the AG both Corbett and Kelly go immediately to SEcond Mile and RAykovitz to try to find other victims in 98
Why didn’t Corbett immediately arrest and charge Sandusky in 2008 with the Victim ONE charges?
Questions on the Way Corbett Handled Sandusky Investigation "How many more victims were victimized by Jerry Sandusky during the course of that three years? … He should’ve been cuffed and stuffed as soon as the first allegation came in the door," Philadelphia attorney Dan McCaffery said. "Everybody talks about a bureaucratic breakdown at Penn State," said Lackawanna County attorney Kathleen Kane. "What about the Attorney General’s Office? It was either the product of politics or inexperience. And either way we cannot allow that."
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
by aurabass on Jan 14, 2012 8:02 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Culture has both spatial as well as temporal dimensions.
We typically tend to think of the spatial – e.g., "those people over there" – at the expense of the temporal. However, a generation gap is a cultural gap. This is why I’ve suspected this place would be the destination for some time. Joe’s three years younger than my amazingly-still-alive-and-coherent dad. Even if entire world-views are never perfectly incommensurable, parts of them might as well be. Sometimes culture won’t let you think certain thoughts.
Accordingly, I can’t brand Joe a moral failure. To so would make me the sort of ethnocentric whom I despise.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Jan 14, 2012 7:05 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
Or to put it in a less educated way...
Joe Paterno wasn’t the right guy to be handling this situation. He knew it, and he passed it off to people he thought were more qualified to handle it.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 7:10 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
and the sad part is,
if Joe actually spearheaded this investigation, things probably would have gone down correctly, but people would look at it and think there was something “deeper” that JoePa was hiding/trying to protect, because why would HE be the one to do this and a not someone “more appropriate”.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:13 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
No matter what Joe did regarding this
he would get backlash. I am sure of this.
Fire Dan Snyder
by Cari Greene on Jan 14, 2012 10:26 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
agree with the statement
I make this argument all the time when I challenge people’s use of racial descriptors
My father is the most fair, pluralist individual I know,
someone who has truly internalized “without regard to race, color, or creed.”
Yet, he will still launch into loud, public discussions about JAP cars or something another. He’s incapable of understanding the problem. He actually admires the Japanese people. He just can’t call them that.
I’ve had my face in my napkin at many a restaurant.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
My grandfather too
Sometimes people are just old, and the don’t necessarily realize it.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I don't think it is so much that they are old,
just that their conventions and stylings are old. I sometimes wonder what crazy things we find normal to say now will be completely offensive in the future.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:38 PM EST up reply actions
My guess is that it will have to do with communicating on the internet.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
my guess is stuff along the lines of, "that's so gay" and "that's retarded"
Two phrases with which we’re already starting to see the tides of public opinion change. I know I’ve effortlessly and thoughtlessly said both of these without any regard to their actual deeper meaning.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 14, 2012 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
The joy of language
these things morph over time. My kids love the “Dork Diaries.”
“you’re a dork!” “No you are!”
Use that word a generation or two ago and you’s be eating Lifebuoy popsicle.
I'm in my mid 20s
Throughout my youth both of those phrases, as well as a certain 3 letter word associated with the first one were commonplace. They didn’t have any malice in them, they were just things we said. Only since college there’s been a hard push to stop those. Having gay friends also helped to quickly push the three letter word out of my vocab.
I think about the South Park episode where they call the motorcycle gang a bunch of fags.
It isn’t so much that people use certain words to denigrate or reference a specific original group, they just have the word associated with a general sense in their own heads. I know I consciously make an effort to not say gay, fag, retarded, etc, but sometimes it slips out. When it does, though, nowhere in my conscious mind (and I don’t even think in my subconscious mind) am I equating what the target does to homosexuality or mentally handicapped people, or trying to compare or anything. Just somewhere along the lines the meanings of words can change or get diluted, or split into multiple directions.
Unfortunately people don’t always know which definition one may be using. For example, if I were to say that our former senator from PA was a Santorum, would I be implying that he came from the Santorum family, or that he was a frothy mix of lube and fecal matter?
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 15, 2012 10:22 AM EST up reply actions
One of my ME friends in college was deeply religious.
He looked like a punk skater with his spiky blonde mohawk and chains, listened to christian metal (it sounded identical to death metal, but they were screaming about christianity), and the ONLY curse word he would ever utter was “FAG.” Why? because homosexuality was an abomination to God. Besides that and the whole ‘radio carbon dating is crap because the world is 5000 years old’ thing, he was a cool guy to work on thermodynamics problems with at 2am.
I don't usually use those phrases
but I’m also big on what the intent behind the phrase was.
Formerly known as kmart93
Black Shoe Diaries
There are no...
bad words, only bad intentions.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 15, 2012 9:15 PM EST up reply actions
Meanings are in people, not in words.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
my grandfather frequently used the N word
I don’t think he meant anything bad by it. He ever actually knew a black person, it was just a word that he knew.
"There are too many Irish guys on this team"
Joesph Vincent Paterno
April, 2010
a generation gap is a cultural gap
times two, in this case. Joe was, what? 75, and MM was 26-28. Shoot, here in North Carolina that’s like four generations apart.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
excellent piece from the media/public relations standpoint; media narrative is becoming more favorable.
So, no taking Paterno’s name off the library, no melting down the statue. It is important not to forget that such were serious discussion points on Thursday and Friday following Coach Paterno’s firing.
This kind of article is moving Coach Paterno from “monster” into the territory of “flawed icon.” Not sure his name will ever get back on the trophy, but in 3-4 years, Coach Paterno’s face can be seen/used on the BTN again.
also, pretty excellent day for the article to come out. lots of people watching sports; lots of this getting covered today and tomorrow with the NFL playoffs. i already saw a long piece on ESPin. Yes, we hate them, but a positive spin from ESPin is a good thing.
Coach Paterno clearly hired some good media/public relations people.
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 14, 2012 7:21 PM EST reply actions 2 recs
He's really fucking smart.
It’s scary sometimes.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 14, 2012 7:22 PM EST up reply actions 3 recs
Unlike
the rest of the PSU leadership team, who are in way over their heads on this one.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Jan 14, 2012 7:59 PM EST up reply actions
The BoT's collective brain
balanced on the edge of a razor blade looks as tiny as a BB in the middle of an eight-lane highway.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:04 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Joe's greatest asset that goes along with his smarts is he is not afraid to admit that he doesn't know something
The problem with many corporate and academic types is that they don’t know what they don’t know. People constantly make business and political decisions based on their own perceptions rather than taking the advice of people in the trenches. Joe is excellent at deciding to seek advice and to question people closer to situations rather than make all decisions on his own, especially off the football field, where he is the buck stop.
I just read.
by BMAN13 on Jan 15, 2012 3:10 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
It's definitley a skill to be able to identify and admit known AND unknown unknowns
to quote Rumsfeld.
All politics aside...
I was unencumbered by employment for a few months after 9/11/01, and got to listen to Rumsfeld’s daily press briefings – that man may be the smartest person to ever hold a cabinet position, and the biggest reason why the press corps hated him was because they didn’t understand what he was saying most of the time. The wisdom required to differentiate what you know, what you think you know, what you might know, and what you definitely don’t know is an invaluable asset, and one in which the great majority of people have no talent.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 16, 2012 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
Re: unemcumbered by employment
May it be on your terms, i.e. your chosen retirement with full benefits!
When I stand before God at the end of my life, I would hope that I would not have a single bit of talent left, and could say, 'I used everything you gave me'.
Erma Bombeck
by ComfortHePuHuTh on Jan 16, 2012 11:13 AM EST up reply actions
It's not all it's cracked up to be...
At least not with substantial savings to get you through.
Unrepentant Joe Paterno Apologist®
by leeharvey418 on Jan 16, 2012 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
Re: Being afraid to admit that you don't know something
Easily the biggest problem in the history of leadership.
Man, I hope this is one of those changing tides that will come with the evolution of the Internet.
jtothetweet
Yet, bag or not, it’s nigh on impossible to mistake a cat for a pig.
I agree WB.
While it doesn’t meet my most ideal scenario, the narrative does appear to be moving in a more positive (and authentic, I think) direction.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Jan 14, 2012 7:24 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Why can't the University do this?
Was Joe really the only one holding up this whole-kitten-caboodle? Man, they are really going to miss him…
Tho’ much is taken, much abides; and though we are not now that strength which in old days moved earth and heaven; that which we are, We Are - Tennyson
I think we are all going to miss him.
Well I think there are probably three of us who wont, but they are all a bunch of Noonans anyway.
A decent read
but changes nothing. If prior to 4pm today you thought Joe was the root of all evil, then this reinforces that he didn’t do enough to stop it.
If you think he did the right thing in passing this on and then stayed out of it so the appropriate parties could determine a course of action, then you still think these things after reading this article.
There is nothing that will come down the road to make everyone agree to one answer or another. This isn’t an either/or, there’s too much gray in-between.
All I take out of this is that we should appreciate Joe while he’s around to share his story or spend time with his family – the time will come when he’s not.
365 beers from 365 different breweries in 365 days. Game on.
http://www.blognamedbrew.blogspot.com/
by Tailgate Shogun on Jan 14, 2012 7:59 PM EST reply actions 5 recs
This changes nothing for me
Joe was too old to be the head coach of a major college football program. I still maintain that if this kind of thing came to him in 15 years earlier he handles it differently.
The BOT is full of cowards. Can you imagine being the guy who had to deliver the phone number to the Paterno house? Talifiero in 2012.
This is all sad. Sad sad sad.
I think it was more generational than a product of his age in 2002
Also, I don’t want to blame McQueary any more than he already has been, but I think if you tell a guy of Joe’s vintage about something uncomfortable, but without details, then his mind might not immediately go to “my God is this Michael Jackson?” (as mine might). If McQueary had been more specific with Joe, this may have been handled properly.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 8:43 PM EST up reply actions
Yes....
in Joe’s mind, not to be a wise-ass, if you mentioned a Michael Jackson type “situation”, he might think you are talking abot Kenny #82 Jackson’s younger brother. THIS just does not relate to Joe’s generation.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 14, 2012 10:44 PM EST up reply actions
Off-topic but relevant
the Patriots are pass-heavy so far: Brady is on fire: 8-for-8. Pats lead 14 – 0 with 6:37 left in the first quarter.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
Honestly, I just flipped over
to the game right at the second score.
But, up until Brady threw the pick to the DB, the commentators have been very complimentary of the Pats offense. Hope potential recruits are watching/listening/being impressed!!
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 14, 2012 8:52 PM EST up reply actions
Gawd......
I really hope that BOB brings Brady with him to Happy Valley….he’d be a lot better than what we have now, huh?! HaHa.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 14, 2012 10:46 PM EST up reply actions
Bottom line for me
Is that Joe Paterno is a man who has done more good in his lifetime than 10 normal people do in their lifetimes. No matter what outsiders think, we as Penn Staters know what WE ARE PENN STATE really means, and the one person who taught us that is Joe Paterno. Whatever happens to you coach, know that there are people who know what you are all about and what you stand for. God Bless you and your family, and the victims of this horrible situation. WE ARE!!!!!
by PSU_Brian on Jan 14, 2012 10:04 PM EST reply actions 6 recs
Most feelings are like yours I would hope......
I am older than most on this wonderful Blog, not as old as Joe, but closer to Sue in age….to those of you that know me simply tDerryPharmer and to those that really know me, know that I do NOT write “fiction” in my statements. My background, which only in part, appears in my “bio” here is as my sig says, “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. In my lifetime I have had the opportunity to report to PulicWelfare and Childrens Services a number of abusive situations (including sexual) regarding minors. Allow me to say that if you are not involved personally, but actually are just reporting suspected abuse, it is very “tough” to get the authorities to cooperate and check into these cases. Old men like my Father(92 yrs old) and Joe, both of whom are great men in my eyes (not saints, but great and moral men) have a really tough time comprehending pedophilia, as do I. I do know that it exists, but I just have a tough time with the “why” of it too. It may be a generational thing as far as the understanding part goes. When Joe turned this mess over to a more proper authority than himself, and rightfully so because he was not a witness to the act but to a testimony, I can have no problem as to his “re-actions”. Joe is a sick man now and I feel for him as I do for any victims of abuse(there, I said it, so it makes me a proper blogger because I am against pedophilia and still support Joe and most of PSU’s governing body—not the Usual Suspects of course). It will be awhile for the dust to settle and I, as do many, are waiting for final answers to this JS Evil….tBoT has many answers to give, such as why did you really fire Joe….why did you fire Spanier….why is the 2nd Mile not being investigated…why wasn’t this bullshit nipped in the bud….I could go on……..
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 14, 2012 10:38 PM EST up reply actions 8 recs
I think the investigation of 2nd Mile and the reason JS was not charged in 08 need to be completely addressed by the governor, Atty General and State Police Chief.
If not withing a an outside investigation by the FBI then any and all questions should be addressed during the next election. I’m shocked that NO news media has jumped all over these situations. These are questions for everyone that lives in the state of Pa. because obviously, donating money and not complaining about state contrbutions and budget cuts gets you special favors from this governor.
I just read.
That was just a local decision
The AG and governor had nothing to do with the 1998 thing.
I think. I’m fairly certain that’s how it worked.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 8:13 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Your insights are greatly appreciated.
I really don’t know how to reply to Joe’s statements as they thoroughly scare me. Not what he said, thought or did, but in the outcome. I’m reminded of the story of Socrates and how he was the wisest man in Greece for being aware of what he didn’t know. I’ve always valued that type of self honesty and tried to do the same in my life. To see a situation where a person acts on the self awareness of not knowing, and to be vilified for it terrifies me.
This was not a situation where Paterno acted on ignorance and people suffered because of it. It is a situation where people suffered in spite of Joe doing what he felt was best. While the outcome is regrettable, to expect him to have done more holds him to the Herculean standards that we are accused of worshipping.
It is easy to go down into Hell; night and day, the gates of dark Death stand wide; but to climb back again, to retrace one's steps to the upper air - there's the rub, the task.
by Succss With Honor Always on Jan 15, 2012 8:34 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Graduate school:
A worthwhile masters or doctoral program will make you feel dumber, not smarter.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
by SubLime on Jan 15, 2012 9:39 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
ESPN is fucking absurd.
Bennett, who clearly is a not-bright individual:
Sandusky had been investigated by local police in 1998, but Paterno said he was unaware of that.
"You know it wasn’t like it was something everybody in the building knew about," Paterno said. "Nobody knew about it."
That, too, seems hard to believe. In a best-case scenario, Paterno’s insistence that he was unaware of what was going on in his own football building confirms what many had long suspected: that the now-85-year-old was far too out of touch and ineffective to be running a major college football program. In the worst case, it shows negligence or willful ignorance.
Negligence or willful ignorance?
Joe had a duty to ask his staff whether they were aware of any sexual-assault crimes perpetrated by staffers?
Or…
Joe often pondered whether sexual-assault crimes occurred, but put those wonders out of sight, out of mind?
Bennett, you dumb shit. Your arguments ring as hollow as your claims that Joe’s ring hollow.
I cannot wait for the weather to warm and to wear my many pro-Joe shirts. Pride first. And my desire to anger others second.
"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Jan 14, 2012 11:26 PM EST reply actions 10 recs
Speaking of not bright
Rob Gronkowski. That is all.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 14, 2012 11:28 PM EST up reply actions
What a shitty game
And the SF/NO game was a total classic. What a let down.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
I'm expecting jumpers headed for the Mississippi river bridge. . .
With this on top of the game Monday night, several of my neighbors no longer find meaning in life.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Has anyone talked to ESPN's ombudsman about this?
It’s getting out of hand.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 15, 2012 12:51 AM EST via mobile up reply actions
Bennett/Rittenberg
I stopped reading those two long before the scandal and would advise everyone to do the same.
Its a damn shame that those two are probably paid well to post the garbage you read on that blog. And thats the other funny thing, the quality has gone down since they added Bennett.
by Artiefufkin10 on Jan 16, 2012 11:27 AM EST up reply actions
On a little tangent here...
There is a common misconception that pops up with this whole episode that irks me — that is assuming the goals of quality academics and athletics are, or should be, mutually exclusive. The “Penn State should get out of or downplay sports and get back to their real mission — academics” line of thinking.
Here’s a question I throw out to make a point — If I asked you to name the colleges or universities in this country that offer the largest number of varsity sports to their students, could you? If you attended an “academic school” I’ll bet you could. Because the answer is the Ivy League schools, headed up by Harvard with 41 sports. Here’s a teaser from Harvard’s website… “Oh yeah, did we mention that Harvard has the largest Division I Athletics program in the country with 41 varsity sports – more athletes than any other school in the country!”
Here are some other teasers Harvard uses on its website to tout it’s athletic prowess:
“Best sports town in America”
“342 Ivy championships, 138 national championships, 206 Olympians”
“It’s cool to be smart and athletic”
Doesn’t look like a supposedly top “academic” school has any problem “pushing” athletics. Perhaps academically-oriented schools understand the value intercollegiate athletics adds to their student’s experience. I just hope Penn State doesn’t throw the baby out with the bathwater…
*
by Smee on Jan 15, 2012 7:00 AM EST reply actions 3 recs
difference is, Ivy League schools don't give scholarships for their sports
so they may have 41 varsity sports, but any that qualify are already in academically. I don’t know if that fits in with your theory or not, I just wanted to put that out there.
Fire Dan Snyder
It is true that they don't give free rides just for "athletics"
But that somewhat perpetuates a myth, because they give so much financial support to everyone who goes there — by their own admission the “Average financial aid grant = $37,000”. Let’s say a kid comes from average means – parents make $80K a year, have one other child, $65K in equity — Harvard’s low-end estimated scholarship for the kid is $48,000 (they have their calculator online). And if Harvard wants the kid for a marquee sport — football, hockey, b-ball, wrestling — they will find the rest (a middling $8,000) if the kid doesn’t have the finances to cut it. And although the kid will have to pass admissions judgement — it’s not necessarily true they were “already in academically” meaning they are free to be judged by “Harvard’s holistic admissions process” which considers factors such as schooling, intensive test preparation and socioeconomic background. The Ivy League schools DO recruit.
*
My understanding
Is that if you actually academically qualify to get into Harvard (as opposed to getting in because you’re are rich) it’s pretty much free. I think it was Easterbrook that put the calculations up that Harvard could operate as it does presently for like 300 years without accepting a single donation or charging any tuition at all.
Harvard is richer than most countries.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
Harvard's endowment...
is $32 Billion. The fact that a.) they charge any tuition at all is insulting and b.) that people give money to them when there are so many causes that need it is even more insulting.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 15, 2012 9:20 PM EST up reply actions
The wealth of Harvard surfaces manifold obscenities.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Reason #19 for......
wanting to take my weapon out of the safe and regain my intent to harm with predjudice status…..tE$PN’s Jeremy Schapp on the Joe interview last night, “……Paterno, wearing a wig and sitting in a wheelchair….”. Aaaah, Jeremy Schapp, balding and barely able to stand….Excuse me, but what in hell does the comment have to do with the interview? Bobby Knight was wrong, Jeremy is not half the man his father was, he is not a man at all. Joe is physically sick and lung cancer is not a pleasant sickness to have. But I guess that is how a reporter may gain attention to him/herself. I know it got my attention.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 15, 2012 10:49 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
that is mentioned in all the stories of the interview...even the interview itself.
Didn’t read Schapp’s article (I mean it’s on ESPN, c’mon), but I don’t judge based on stating that fact.
by The JuggerNitt on Jan 15, 2012 10:55 AM EST up reply actions
I'm just commenting.....
Is it really pertinent? Why not just say that Joe looks sick from his treatments for the cancer and orthopedic problems. The wig? To what purpose? Is it for our sight-challenged “viewers”? Noone, I assume, will say that Joe is dying, except for the bloggers that have it in a Dead Pool.
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Jan 15, 2012 11:11 AM EST up reply actions
i think this thread has died out, but I'll chime in anyway. the wheelchair and wig: those are in the original article. those are two facts presented in the WaPo article to make Coach Paterno
more sympathetic. along those lines was the phrasing in the article about how Coach Paterno can’t speak very loudly anymore; the lung cancer having, ya know, literally taken his voice away.
in this day and age, you get sympathy from being old and infirm; we’re supposed to help the old and infirm.
there definitely IS a generational difference here. it used to be that appearing weak was a bad thing; self-reliance, strength, do-it-yourself and all that.
quite different now. today, we are taught that a “life of significance” is helping the weak and infirm (usually in the form of donating money).
in this respect, Sally Jenkins did very well; she presented Coach Paterno in a sympathy-generating light. It is good from the media/public relations perspective that such facts as the wheelchair and wig are oft-repeated.
(Having said that, I realize that Coach Paterno is probably mortified although, being a smart man, I am sure he knew it was inevitable.)
by WarBuck46410 on Jan 17, 2012 7:33 AM EST up reply actions
I just finished reading the whole thread
and I’d once again like to thank BSD for being everything that Audibles on FOS and Lions247 are not.
by PSUEnrg02 on Jan 15, 2012 11:21 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
With you dude
Love this place.
jtothetweet
Yet, bag or not, it’s nigh on impossible to mistake a cat for a pig.
My main response to this whole thread
There were many people on this site who excoriated the people holding positions like mine, assuming Paterno had followed up.
Each and every one of those people should now post admitting they were wrong. And not like jesse did – a weak “so he made a mistake” response, but rather, “you were right; I was wrong; he didn’t follow up, so at a minimum he didn’t do what he morally should have”.
Because I would have admitted I was wrong if it turned out he had gone to the SCPD or the state police. And none of you would want to be worse than me, right?
by M1EK on Jan 16, 2012 11:52 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
/GIANT WANKING MOTION
Listen M1EK, I get that apparently being the “lone voice or reason” on this is something you’re interested in. However to blatantly lie about facts that are well known at this point, completely destroys your attempt to build your desired reputation as a voice of rational thought in a sea of blue tinted glasses wearers and kool-aid drinkers.
To perpetually insist that there was zero follow-up in any form is simply false and serves nothing more than self satisfaction. Joe clearly at least on one occasion “followed up” with McQuerry to see if he was satisfied with the results. He apparently was. That is “follow up”.
It is clearly not the sort of “follow up” that satisfies your demand for more. Perhaps a reasonable case can be made in that regard, however you have zero credibility to make it as you consistently fail to see the shades of gray and repeatedly make senseless absolute statements that are often blatantly false.
I’m sorry, but blanket statements are proven false 99% of the time, and if you make a blanket statement about college football, there’s a good chance that one exception will be Joe Paterno. - AdamShell @ BSD
Also; Always carry a bottle opener and the beer will provide itself.
by bconway6 on Jan 16, 2012 12:35 PM EST up reply actions 2 recs
Sorry
I am not buying this at all. Clearly we were talking about following up with Schultz and Curley, and clearly Paterno and/or his handlers knew this was what the public wanted to know, because that’s what they obliquely made excuses for in this interview.
I myself have Paterno in a quite grey position – it is those on your side who are unable to make distinctions between “did nothing” and “went vigilante”.
Here is the difference between you and I.
First, I remember what I said. Three days ago I said two things; 1] "I … that it is unlikely that we’ll ever hear a Joe Paterno side of the story that makes us feel better and 2] “based on a review of the standing orders we know that if he had [followed up], he would have met with substantial resistance within the Administration, and a flat stone wall had he gone to the BOT”. This was before the Joe Paterno interview on Saturday, and nothing has been reveled that makes either of those statements false.
Then after the interview I said this; But it sounds like even if he had he would have accepted whatever explanation they gave him anyway. And I don’t completely discount Paterno’s statement that he didn’t want to influence what was going on.
I said I forgive him for his mistakes. I never said he should have kept his job. In fact I said this;
….on November 8th the house was on fire and we were arguing over which buckets of water to throw on it. Right, wrong or indifferent is nuts to think that Paterno could have finished off the season as head coach, and that’s notwithstanding the fact that he has lung cancer.
And I didn’t even get too far into bitching about how he was fired;
Complaining about the mechanics of how Paterno was fired is similar to complaining about the wrapping paper on a shit sandwich. Yeah, that sucked too, but it’s hardly the point.
So please mischaracterize somebody else’s position on these matters.
Second, and this is really the big difference. I don’t hold myself out as spokesperson for an entire society outside of the people that you deem to be a part of a cult. And I don’t hold out my moral judgments and opinions as facts.
So on the “follow up” issue, you guessed right. Congratulations. It does not however prove what your continue to allege as “facts” but which are in reality your opinions. It makes them more based in fact, but nothing more and nothing less. Now you know that Paterno followed up, doesn’t follow that your conclusion that Paterno is immoral is correct. That remains for each person to decide on their own. If what you’re trying to do is change people’s minds to see your position, you’ve done a terrible job.
Because I would have admitted I was wrong if it turned out he had gone to the SCPD or the state police
For somebody who accuses people of making “straw-man” arguments, this one sure is a dozy. Insofar as nobody has ever alleged that Paterno did that. Many people have correctly stated that neither one of those two police forces had direct jurisdiction over the case. Six weeks ago three separate people posted the relevant statutes in response to your posts demonstrating that they don’t have jurisdiction over the matter. Moreover, I certainly never said that Paterno could not have called them, I (correctly) stated that neither one of those two police forces had direct jurisdiction over the case and opined that failure to call them is hardly immoral. Your continue ability to simply ignore the jurisdiction fact is baffling, notwithstanding your belief that Paterno should have taken the matter off campus, which is reasonable.
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
by jesse. on Jan 16, 2012 12:55 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
For somebody who insists that people remember what he says
you missed the point on the SCPD/state police. Somebody asked me what it would take to get me to change my mind completely, and that’s what I said I’d have to hear.
Likewise, others have insisted that it would take knowing for sure that Paterno didn’t follow up to change their mind completely. Well, here we are, and yet nobody has said “you know what, you were right”; instead it’s a bunch of moaning about how Paterno was fired.
And by the way
it was a guess; but it was a hell of a lot more an educated guess than those who guessed the other way – because for Paterno to have followed up with Curley and Schultz didn’t make much sense in most logical scenarios – they would have had to lie to him, which was quite a bit more risky than what they apparently already did wrong.
You should get more credit for not believing things that require more, rather than fewer, flights of fancy.
I'm not sure why Curley and Schultz would have to lie at all.
They would simply have to tell Joe, “we have reason to believe it was a misunderstanding, but to ensure there are no more misunderstandings, we have decided to ban Jerry from bringing children on campus.” In fact, based on the inaction of Curley/Schultz (and without starting under the assumption they intentionally covered this up), it seems quite likely this is what they actually believed.
At the least McQueary knew of what Curley/Schultz ultimately decided to do (and I would assume Joe). Barring major objections by the eyewitness, who should have been pretty obstinate if he was actually sure of what he saw and that there was no room for a misunderstanding, I don’t see any reason why Joe wouldn’t accept their actions on face value.
I see nothing immoral about his course of action. People in all organizations readily pass situations onto superiors when they recognize they are in over their heads.
You don’t agree that reporting up and accepting your bosses response qualifies as the moral way to handle such a thing. That appears to have been about what happened in terms of Paterno’s involvement.
He didn’t sit on the information, he didn’t talk McQueary into not saying anything about it, he didn’t interfere with Curley/Schultz to bury it, he didn’t demand that Curley/Schultz do more, he didn’t get a complete story from McQueary, he didn’t insist that Mike never talk about it, he didn’t feel like he was the right person to handle it because he didn’t have any training or familiarity with such matters, he didn’t go to the police immediately most likely because the crime was not still in progress and University policy says to pass it up the chain, he didn’t have other reasons to suspect that this was a bigger problem than a misunderstanding.
In short, he recognized that he didn’t know how to handle it, probably had too much of a conflict of interest in dealing with it, and passed McQueary off to someone that should have been better equipped to deal with it. He then assumed that McQueary would work with that person to find a suitable resolution to the problem. If McQueary had talked to Galen Hall about this, rather than Joe Paterno, there would be no outrage over Galen’s “moral failings” because there really are no moral failings. There is a course of action that resulted in a response from superiors. In hindsight, it is clear that what was done about it was not appropriate, but that doesn’t make Joe’s actions at the time inappropriate.
The only way to hold Joe to a higher moral code than we would hold anyone else is to deify him, treat him as someone that should have been privy to more information than he probably was, and/or to assume he had no superiors that would be considered more qualified to handle it. This is why almost all condemnations of Joe Paterno are accompanied by statements like: “Paterno was a God at PSU,” “Paterno ran PSU and should have known,” or “Joe knew everything about what everyone was doing in his football program.” I think it is safe to say that Joe is not a God (or he wouldn’t have cancer), Joe is not omniscient (or he would have never lost a football game), and that he did have superiors (or he wouldn’t have been fired).
M1EK, I know you are going to say that all you needed to know is that he called the police, but he didn’t. He followed University procedure as thousands of other PSU employees have. That procedure failed and Joe did not identify the failure. I assume he didn’t identify the failure because action was taken and because Joe assumed his superiors were competent, which may be a mistake but it is not a moral failing. You can believe whatever you like about why he didn’t identify that failure and take another course of action. The simple fact is that whatever any of us believes about why Joe did not take another course of action or why he didn’t identify the failure will determine how we judge him. But make no mistake, if you are claiming that he should have reacted differently to fulfill a moral obligation, you are automatically claiming that he had to know and recognize that what he was doing either would fail (and he still did it) or had failed (and he didn’t do more). This is exactly where you are losing people. I think most people are ready to accept someone else’s position that Joe may have made a mistake and that that mistake (maybe rightfully) cost him his job. Most people are not ready to accept, especially considering the actions he did take, that Joe willfully ignored Sandusky getting a slap on the wrist for something that was clearly a much more terrible offense.
by BNittsDeMilo on Jan 17, 2012 10:05 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
What exactly are you "right" about?
Somebody asked me what it would take to get me to change my mind completely, and that’s what I said I’d have to hear.
This statement is what M1EK needed to hear to have his mind changed as to the moral culpability of Joe Paterno.
So you wanted to hear something, and that wasn’t what was said? All that means is that M1EK is dissatisfied with Joe Paterno and that instead of there being a small chance of him being convinced of something else, now there is no chance.
So What?
...may we compete with fierce intensity, with the gifts that we have been given...
No.
I was right that he didn’t follow up. It didn’t make much sense given the facts we did know, and I made that case and was called an evil conclusion-jumper for doing so by a bunch of people who said they weren’t just blindly believing in Joe Paterno but were instead calmly waiting for the facts to come out.
The facts are now out, and none of those people have admitted they were wrong.
When you admit you were wrong
In your insistence that Joe should have called the SCPD, I’ll consider admitting I was wrong about something.
Not going to do that.
Joe should have called police outside the campus. If nothing else, a paper trail would have existed to prove that something happened (or not).
Somewhat more likely is that the SCPD would have called the UPPD to ask if they had investigated this, and everybody would have found out then that nobody did shit – years earlier, saving many kids from abuse.
I'm stupid. You're smart. I was wrong. You were right. You're the best. I'm the worst. You're very good looking. I'm not attractive.
CONGRATS, YOU WON THE INTERNETS!!!!!
by TheWrathofQBEagles on Jan 16, 2012 1:15 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was wrong too
The evident M1EKopathy that led to my Homerphobia wasn’t as bad as I though
It is far far worse
Self-aggrandizing smug misanthropes have negative consequences on everything they touch and the evidence of that permeates too many threads here on BSD
A man bent on thinking the worst of good people and making certain everyone knows it is a sad example of humanity. It isn’t a matter of disagreement with a point of view. Even with total agreement I would feel soiled by that shared opinion. Turning people off to this degree has to indicate a terribly sad and light deprived existence but feeling sorry for this guy is almost impossible.
Joe Paterno has nothing to be ashamed of unlike his constant detractor
Born in Fort Sanders - 1st Residence Aconda Court (Alumni Hall) - 1st games at Neyland 1947 - Mother = TORCHBEARER - Dad grad of UT & UT Law + professor BORN ORANGE and BLEED ORANGE .......
To be honest, I disagreed but I wasn't wrong
I talked sometimes about the realistic possibility that it might come out that he followed up. You held a strong opinion that he absolutely did not follow up.
If I said “there’s a realistic possibility that this kicker will make a PAT” and he shanks it, was I wrong? Do I have to admit that I was wrong?
Even after your manifold logistical boners, this still shocks me. Or, wait – you weren’t directing that comment at me or any other named individual, just a general, nebulous “side”? I think I finally got it.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 3:38 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
Logistical = logical
Maybe both though.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
Did it say “to OctaShields alone”?
by M1EK on Jan 16, 2012 6:16 PM EST via Android app up reply actions
Nor did it say, "Not directed at OctaShields."
If you want to play word games, don’t be surprised if you get called out — again/still.
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 16, 2012 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
The "genius" of your rhetorical style
is that you can levy claims against a large group of people, but when any individual tries to refute your claims on any particular subject, you can claim that you weren’t directing it at that person, but some nebulous construct of “others.” And since no one can be one individual and an “other”, you can never be confronted.
Do you really think that people don’t see this? I mean, honestly. You might think you’re scoring points and putting people in their place, but it’s really quite pathetic.
"We gon' get down. We gon' do the do. I'm going to hit these mother****ers" - Dock Ellis, May 1, 1974.
by OctaShields on Jan 16, 2012 6:26 PM EST up reply actions 5 recs
^ Mucho truf
"Make haste to reassure us, I beg you, and tell us that our fellow citizens understand us, support us, and protect us as we ourselves are protecting the glory of the Empire.
"If it should be otherwise, if we should have to leave our bleached bones on these desert sands in vain, then beware the fury of the Legions."
by PSU_Lions_84 on Jan 16, 2012 6:29 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
Bullshit.
If you wanted to make your actual point in relation to what you, as an individual, said, you could have left out the last paragraph. When you left that in, you turned it into typical passive-aggressive nonsense. Don’t be surprised to get back the same when you do.
Man, I just reread this.
And I cannot stop laughing.
Leeza, tell him what we all have concluded!

"Is that a shot at me? 'cause that makes me want to read it all the less."
by MainLion on Jan 16, 2012 7:02 PM EST up reply actions 7 recs
I'm now convinced that you have multipersonality issues
There were many people on this site who excoriated the people holding positions like mine
YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE HOLDING POSITIONS LIKE YOURS.
There are differing points of view, but only one M1EK with a persecution complex and a one note argument.
"WHY IS EVERYONE THE FREAKING STUPID?" BMAN13
by kijana's acl on Jan 16, 2012 9:22 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
I was not wrong.
I had my doubts and expressed them. Did some more research and found the following:
Grand Jury Testimony by Tim Curley:
Tim Curley: … Then, to the best of my recollection, I circled back around and informed the president of my actions and then Coach Paterno, Mr. McQueary. I guess that’s the people.
If you can quote the testimony or on-record interview that disputes that, then I will reverse my opinion. In the meanwhile, my friendly suggestion is that you drop saying there was no follow-up since such false statements reduce your credibility.
I would imagine what he told Joe and MM...
would be off limits for any interviews because of the perjury cases. So far all that was said in the court transcripts was that Schultz informed MM about the actions taken against Sandusky. It’s still unknown it he explained why he thought those were the best actions to take (e.g. he found no evidence, he believed Sandusky’s ‘horsing around’ story). I’d be very interested in what his explanation to MM (and Joe) was, if there was one.
This thread
makes puppies cry.
Consider this my official declaration of non-support of child molestation.
by 06Lion on Jan 16, 2012 9:44 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
Context and quotes
“You know, he didn’t want to get specific," Paterno said. "And to be frank with you I don’t know that it would have done any good, because I never heard of, of, rape and a man. So I just did what I thought was best. I talked to people that I thought would be, if there was a problem, that would be following up on it.”
The first time I read this, I scratched my head ‘cause it made no sense. How could Joe not know of such acts? That makes no sense. A lot is being made of this, but in re-reading the whole thing, I more convinced that he is struggling for the words to describe what McQueary didn’t tell him. The audio would be very helpful in understanding this.
Or maybe I’m just being too much of an apologist?
It's nonsense
I addressed this on another thread.
If Joe knows how to use rape in a sentence, he has heard of men being rapists. Maybe, he meant he’d never heard of rape of a boy by a man. But that’s unlikely, and besides, he certainly understood it well enough to know it was something that Curley and Schultz would have to be in on.
I guess he meant something along the lines of he didn’t know if McQuery was likely mistaken or not and he didn’t know how to investigate it so he kicked it up to Schultz and Curley.
Given everything else he said, that’s probably in the ballpark of what he meant, but word for word, it’s meaningless. Nobody should scrutinize that too much and expect it to reveal anything.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 11:24 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
To clarify
I think he just misspoke because he was fumbling for the words. People not on chemo do that. I’m not surprised he did it a few times.
by reedjohnmiller on Jan 16, 2012 11:29 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Based on the context of the article..
I took “not heard of” as to mean “not personally familiar with”.
Sigh.
by Esteban d' Amur on Jan 17, 2012 7:33 AM EST up reply actions

by 


























