Really, the only reason I'm linking to this is because a few items in particular really need to stop...but won't.

There will be talk about how so many people in the Penn State community suspected what Sandusky was and yet did nothing.

Yeah, OK. Either name names, or admit that you're just perpetuating a misleading, lazy meme. "So many" where? Penn State? Second Mile? Who are so many of these people? Why not just come out and say Joe Paterno, because that's really all you're interested in trashing here. And how do you define "nothing?" It's not the same as "not enough," usually, which we'll all concede. But please cling to that broad brush.

More of the same here:

Why Jerry Sandusky was allowed to prey on children for so long when his trial revealed an intense level of suspicion of him over several years by people in sufficient position to stop him.

Again, this sounds great. But two minutes of hard thinking reveals this to be wishes and dreams. Do pedophiles con adults or don't they? Was Sandusky a popular, gregarious-seeming guy, or was he lurking in shadows with a trench coat? I guess Bryant is much smarter than all those not already in on the coverup. And, again, I want names, buddy.

One more time with the "allow" crapola:

While Sandusky must stand alone, responsible for his individual choices and pathologies, the answer to why he was allowed access to kids, why no one stood up to stop him, why so many people felt it necessary to make phone calls to everyone -- to their fathers, to the coaches, to administrators, to each other -- but not to the police, is simple: Joe Paterno and Penn State football. There is no other reason.

The word "allow" is a pretty interesting word. In this case, it's a loaded word. How does anyone "allow" or not "allow" another human being to do anything manipulative, in secret, even when there are suspicions. I suppose in Bryant's world we should shoot first and ask questions later, but the real world is far more nuanced and tougher than that. Ah, that 20/20 hindsight.

The rest of the article is made-up conjecture and connect-the-dots-with-crayon stuff about Joe that borders on libel. I'll spare you that if you don't want to scald your eyeballs by reading it. I know, this stuff is so easy to ignore, but each one of these columns just cements false narratives into the history books.