A Heavy Heart…. The Penn State Scandal

I have gotten a few emails and messages asking my thoughts on the Penn State scandal over the last few days. It doesn’t surprise me that I am being asked an opinion. I am an alumni. I have met Joe Paterno and spoken with him. I am a staunch advocate for the University. I love my school. I will admit that this is all a little painful. Not only the treatment of Paterno, which I think borders on ridiculous. But just the overall black eye that it being given to my beloved alma mater hurts. But I won’t back down here from writing about it. And I won’t stop loving PSU either…

UPDATE: As many of you may be aware, Between my writing this article early Wednesday night and the publishing that will happen in a few hours, the board of trustees announced that Joe Paterno has been fired, effective immediately, as head football coach at Penn State. In my opinion, this is a travesty. A sad PR move that punishes a scapegoat. Now someone needs to fire the board. Do you think they didn’t know? Now, back to my original article.

Let me first address Sandusky. I used to admire the man. He is, after all, the architect that built “Linebacker University.” Two national championships won primarily with defense, defense that he controlled and built. I remember seeing him on campus. Everyone knew who he was. He always seemed like a really nice guy. Tough but compassionate. But he is a monster. I would prefer that, if he is guilty, and I am assuming that he is at this point, that they hit him as hard as humanly possible for what he has done. Sharing a cell with a well endowed lifer who makes Sandusky his bitch is not nearly enough punishment for what he has done, but it will be a good start.

There is no defense for Sandusky. He is the lowest form of human being.

Then there is then graduate assistant Mike McQueary. I remember Mike as a Quarterback at Penn State. In the mid-90’s he was a damn good QB and set several records that still stand. He was a graduate student at the time, but is now a full time assistant, acting as the WR coach and recruiting coordinator. He was the one who allegedly observed Sandusky sodomizing a ten year old in the shower and went to Paterno.

I don’t understand his reaction. Had I witnessed what he did, I would have immediately run in and stopped what was happening. I would have pummeled Sandusky and removed the child from the situation. I then would have reported the issue. McQueary only did that last part. Why he didn’t go immediately to the AD, who also happens to be the head of Penn State’s nearly 300 strong police force, I don’t know. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt on who he reported it to as he did report it to the person he felt had the highest moral compass of anyone he knew, Joe Paterno. I cannot fathom why he didn’t run in and stop what was happening. Mike is not a small guy and certainly shouldn’t have been physically intimidated to face Sandusky. Even if he was, sheer concern for the kid should have overridden that.

Should he be fired? I haven’t made up my mind. He reported it as he should have. And he doesn’t have enough power at the university to go any further than that. But I think less of him for not stopping the behavior right then and there with a swift blow to the side of Sandusky’s head. But he did follow up some. He spoke to the people investigating the incident a month after reporting it and they told him it was being investigated and that Sandusky had been banned from the campus.

The university officials. If there was a cover up, here are the people to blame. The AD was also head of the university police force. As such, the incident should have been reported to the local police department and the state police as soon as it was verified. That two of them (Tim Curley and Gary Shultz) have been charged with lying to the Grand Jury is appropriate. If they didn’t do everything that they were supposed to do to stop this monster, they should be ashamed of themselves. I will wait for the details to come out before determining which ones I hold responsible. But it at least appears on the surface that this is where the cover up was and they should pay for that.

Then there is Paterno….

Here is where things get hard for me. I know this man. I know what kind of integrity he has. I know what kind of compassion he has. He reported it to the person who he was supposed to report it to. Everyone has been clear that he legally did the right thing. Further, the grand jury noted that Paterno was especially forthright, honest, and as helpful as possible with the investigation. In short, when it comes to him doing the right thing, there is little question that he did so.

The knock on Paterno is that he didn’t do enough. There is a mythical sense out there that Joe was all powerful at Penn State and he could do whatever he wanted to do, that he controlled whether this was followed through on or not. That is the focus of the media witch hunt on Paterno. And I tell you that all those who believe that don’t know a thing about Joe Paterno. Was he powerful at the university? Sure. If you asked him if he was powerful at the university would he think so? No, he wouldn’t. He would have never assumed to get in the way of an ongoing investigation the way that people claim he should have done. That just isn’t who Joe Paterno is….

Joe Paterno has for 46 years ran the cleanest football program in the country. He doesn’t cheat. He doesn’t lie. He doesn’t take shortcuts. He would rather lose the right way than win the wrong way. How many people in your life do you know whom you can truly say that about? He was the epitome of everything that is right in college athletics. his integrity is beyond reproach. These aren’t the ravings of a Paterno “Fan Boy”. These are the observations of someone who gained a small insight into who he was.

For members of the scandal loving media, who cherish the idea of tearing down an icon, this is gold. There is nothing more that people such as Jamele Hill at ESPN cherish more than the opportunity to tarnish the image of someone who is simply better than them. The idea of bringing him down to their level is too much of an opportunity to miss. So it has become a “pile on Paterno” circus, with everyone making all sorts of judgements with very little in the way of facts to go on. They are screaming for his head without knowing anything about who he is, let alone what he did or didn’t do surrounding this situation. But for anyone to claim that he in any way intended to help cover up, or sweep under the rug, this situation to protect the university or his football program, is ridiculous. Anyone who makes that claim doesn’t know the first thing about Joe Paterno.

Like any other HR issue, the details become confidential. If you reported something like this at your workplace and then went back to HR a month later and asked for an update, you would get the standard answer” “We are investigating the allegations and our investigation is confidential.” It would not matter that you were the one who reported it. Joe’s situation is no different. We don’t know how much he followed up on the incident he reported. All we have heard is that he himself admits that he wishes he had done more. You know, that same statement anyone close to a situation makes when things go horribly wrong. The people around Amy Winehouse all wish they had done more. Same for Michael Jackson. Same for every situation. Wishing you had done more in hindsight is not an admission that you didn’t do enough.

So it saddens me that he has announced that he will retire at the end of the year. I don’t see it as him trying to dictate to the board of trustees what will happen. I see it as the sad decision that a man who is heartbroken by the events that have taken place was forced to make. I have no doubt he is heartbroken by what happened. And I have no doubt that he made this choice because of that. It wasn’t done to mollify the press or anyone else. It wasn’t done to attempt to dictate the terms of his departure at Penn State. It was done because he is heartbroken and at 84 years old, he simply wants to let Penn State work on getting past the damage done to the university.

It saddens me but I knew it had to happen. The fact that there are those who are calling for him to be fired now, with only a few remaining games, is ridiculous. Claims that he should not be allowed to watch his seniors play their final home game this weekend. Claims that he should not be allowed to ever coach another down. All utterly ridiculous. How quickly people forget who this man is and what he has done not only for college athletics, but for thousands of student athletes who he took under his wing and turned into men. How quickly they forget all that he has done to serve his community, the university, and anyone else he could help in any way.

And how little credit they give him for not even hesitating to report an incident that he knew would ruin a man that he loved as one of his family. Sandusky was a coach under Paterno for three decades. Their bond was strong. Yet Paterno did not hesitate to report the incident, less than 12 hours after he was informed himself, calling the AD the next morning.

At this point, leave Joe Paterno alone. He is a great man, with a great heart, and more integrity than almost anyone that I know. He has done great things, and he deserves to finish out the season and then retire. If he isn’t allowed to do that, I will be extremely disappointed.

And on top of that, if the university doesn’t have the balls to stand behind this man, who did nothing wrong, I will wager that the alumni donations to the university will drop by 50% next year. I know that I won’t give them another dime.

Say a prayer for the children in this story. They are the real victims. My defending Paterno in no way implies that I don’t care about them.

I am Penn State. That won’t change.

Advertisements

Comments

  1. This whole situation is quite sad. Those who are guilty of wrongdoing should pay a heavy price.

  2. Good article USW. Definitely fubar! I feel sympathy for JoePa but I feel worse for the kids. Maybe the other sixteen could have been saved the same fate if Joe was more involved in the whistleblowing. Who knows. I sure wouldn’t want to be Nebraska, OSU, or *cough* Wisconsin for the next few weeks. The Nittany Lions are on auto pilot from here on out. A team on a mission, the way I see it.

    • Correction..scratch the sixteen.. I heard that number yesterday and see several different numbers now.

  3. It always is a tough call. Paterno runs a great football program and he is an icon. He has been caught in that middle area where he will be a scape goat and that is the sad part. Whether he should have done more is always going to be in question. You think he should have and I also think he should have but could he have done something more? Was he bound by a procedure that he had to follow? He did follow up and inquire and was given the traditional ” brush off ” by saying it is under investigation. “Under investigation” 30 days later is interpreted as being swept under the rug. It appears to me that the board rolled the dice and it came up snake eyes. The board at colleges are all powerful. More powerful than a chili fart in a sleeping bag….( and that is powerful ). We do not know what happened behind the scenes. I am willing to bet that Paterno did follow up and ask and he was told “let us handle it”. The sad thing is that Paterno was probably ham strung and, I am willing to bet, that Paterno is of the moral character to be quiet and take what the board dealt out. He appears to be of the character that prevents him from participating in the blame game. It happened on his watch and he reported it and he has been fired. Politics at its finest.

    So, the issue for me is….what would I have done, I am like USW….if I had seen it, I would have stopped it. The animal that was molesting would have fit in the shower head when I was finished with him. I then would have dragged his beaten and broken body to Paterno and said this is what I saw and this is what I did. Then I would have probably been fired and charges levied against me for assault. This Texas boy would have had a hard time not killing this person……it is what we do to depraved animals here. And before anyone says it is none of my business…..yes it is….. if I observe something like that…..I MAKE it my business.

    Hindsight is always 20/20…..I am sure that Paterno is beating himself up saying that he should have done more….Yes, probably. A terrible end to a stellar football program. The board handled this all wrong. I had somebody ask me if Paterno should have called police. I said no, he reports it up. It is up to the President to report it. The board blew it…..Paterno pays the price. It is the way of things

    • I agree. McQueary should have defended that boy first. Second, he is required by law to report a violent crime to the police, not his boss. Him trying to pass the buck is costing everyone now. It may be that he would have been fired for going directly to the cops, but why put campus politics ahead of legal and moral obligations?

      • @LOI – that is incorrect sir…..

        Under PA Law he was required to report this specific type of alleged crime to (a) the Police or (b) Child Protective Services or (c) his direct supervisor – he chose (c) either w/ or w/o knowledge of the law.

        • Dammit Ray, don’t confuse me with facts, I’ve already made up my mind! I think my point is still valid, McQueary did what was safest for him and maybe the school. He abandoned the child.

          • Me and LOI agree?

            Well, yep, we do. McQueary guaranteed his paid position on the staff by being the pissant coward piece of shit he was.

            Has he hung himself yet?

            Apparently not … and neither has Penn State fired him yet. The coverup continues. Lord knows what McQueary knows; why they won’t fire him.

      • Charley, this was as great a reply point as I perused regarding this great post. Moreover, I happen to agree with your post — in basic part — than most of the others. Therefore without further adieu, the entire situation at the great Penn St. University, also known for its world renowned academic programs, not just football is a travesty of the worst sort. Everything that Weapon put in the original post was as heart-felt and genuine as imaginable. Where I differ however and you may well have hit the main vein here, is that McQueary should have been on the firing line well before J.P.

        Can you imagine (based on the Grand Jury report) that he went into the building later than usual and as he approached the offices to see if anyone was in, it is at this point where he alleges that he heard rhythmic sounds (like slapping) with the showers running and then and only then does he admit two different versions which I find suspect. He first told J.P. that he’s heard noise coming from the shower area and when he looked inside he saw Sandusky and the victim. Paterno could have used this as his defense against the Board of Trustees for wrongful termination, but personally I believe he has far too much class for that.

        The second version told by McQueary was to the Director of Finance and the President of the University. Please Weapon don’t misunderstand me but PA has some pretty strange laws governing these kinds of acts, such as: McQuaery was only required to tell his immediate supervisor and/or his next up in the chain of command. My difficulty here is that I don’t believe a grad-assistant on the field or otherwise during 2002 has Paterno as his immediate boss. I believe that Sandusky may have been; nonetheless, he was out of sequence talking to Paterno first. Furthermore, he made no mention of sexual abuse to Paterno, just that he’s seen Sandusky bear-hugging the kid.

        I think you’ve nailed it; it is unfortunate for Paterno and the University that the Trustee’s acted so quickly and without just cause; moreover, he’s the young coach who stands to get canned at the end of the year. Anyway, thanks again for your position and I agree.

        jps

        • Make no mistake, Jon-Paul, I do feel sorry for what has happened to Penn State (the university/the football program), but I also believe it was a calculated risk (perhaps because of the law they lobbied for wherein they don’t have to turn over internal investigative results to the media) they took without a moment’s thought about kids. It was the program/university first and McQreary was probably thinking career first … a huge mistake (kicking the problem down the road) … now it’s bitten them on the ass and it’s going to sting for a long time.

          I’m upset that Paterno opted to protect the program first. I was a huge Paterno fan. My favorite linebacker of all time (Shane Conlan) came from that program … it’s a bummer across the board.

    • Colonel,
      I think you summed up my thoughts exactly. I just don’t know how a man could walk away from that without doing something. I guess that is people us do what we do, though.

      -On an off topic side note: You weren’t observing the “Occupy Fort Worth” folks yesterday around noon, were you? I walked by a Sean Connery-esque gentleman yesterday who was watching them from a vehicle matching one that I think I remember you saying that you drove.
      –In a related story to my off topic post: I saw one of the occupier’s cars sporting a “Free Palestine: End the Occupation” bumper sticker, I’m still amused by the irony 🙂

      • My but you are an observant one. I drive a dark blue Caddy SUV. 2007 model….You would not have missed it…..it has a small US Army Veteran magnetic sign on the rear hatch….and a NRA Golden Eagle sticker (small) in the rear window. I was down there at 1140……

        I do have shades of grey hair and a whole lot less on top than I did many years ago. Why in the world would I be watching the OWS folks?

        (heh heh)

    • http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/09/opinion/dowd-personal-foul-at-penn.html?_r=1&ref=maureendowd

      Says it all.

      This was a massive coverup. I doubt Joe Paterno is a “bad” or “evil” man, but his decision to protect the brand is more than obvious. The entire coaching staff had to know about this psycho. I didn’t talk to Joe Pa but I coached college football and you better believe the coaches know the gossip. Do you really think McCreary ONLY told his daddy? That piece of shit should hang himself.

      It is unfortunate that all the good Paterno has done (or might have done) is wiped out by this, but it is. He, his program and his college, in this incident, are absolute disgraces.

      • Do you really think McCreary ONLY told his daddy? That piece of shit should hang himself.

        What a shitty thing to say. It is good to see that you and others like you want to punish the few people who did something. They didn’t do enough, that is obvious. But it wasn’t McQueary molesting a child. So quick to judge another for the actions that they took. I am sure you would have handled it better.

        By your own admission, you used to harm people for money. Yet no one on this site has ever suggested that you hang yourself for the things that you did to people. Instead we accept that despite your failings you are a good person with good intentions. That you don’t offer the same to others is troubling.

        • I reiterate, he should hang himself.

          Actually, harming people for money probably fits well into the Ayn Rand philosophy/fantasy world you abide by, but that’s another story for another day. Besides, there’s a lot more implied drama to what I used to do than actual violence (but you probably haven’t spoken to many guys like me the way you spoke with Joe Paterno). Oy vey.

          And you should always feel free to suggest I hang myself. It is your right as a proud American, USW.

          The diference, my naive friend (and try to follow this): I dealt with adults who knew full well what they were involved in. Can you see the difference yet or do you need further explanation? Dealing with adults doesn’t justify illegal activity (unless you’re a corporation), and I’ll suggest (or submit, if you prefer that word) to you that witnessing the RAPE of a 10 year is worse than collecting on a debt from a guy looking to beat you for something he owes with the full knowledge of the consequence. Ity’s a lot worse in my book.

          You stated somewhere in here what you would have done to Sandusky had you witnessed what he claims he did. Is that a shitty thing to say?

          You’re still young, though … plenty of time to grow up.

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

            Sorry Charlie,

            Harming people for money is what PROGRESSIVES do, it defines their entire existence. Take Nancy Pelosi’s insider trading for example….

        • What a shitty thing to say. It is good to see that you and others like you want to punish the few people who did something. They didn’t do enough, that is obvious. But it wasn’t McQueary molesting a child. So quick to judge another for the actions that they took. I am sure you would have handled it better.

          No, USW, apparently you’re the tough guy here … (see below):

          I don’t understand his reaction. Had I witnessed what he did, I would have immediately run in and stopped what was happening. I would have pummeled Sandusky and removed the child from the situation.

          So does McQueary running home to Daddy make him less of a man than you?

          Or perhaps more of a company man than you? Because his inaction sure didn’t seem to keep him from getting hired on as an assistant coach.

          I don’t know how you watch a 10 year old getting raped and do nothing. I’m pretty sure I know what I would have done (and I can guarantee you I wouldn’t have called my Daddy [we didn’t get along]), but you’re the one pummeling people …

        • By the way, that is your “implied thought” about my harming “people for money”. I never admitted any such thing (putz). I admitted to being a loan shark and a bookmaker (and having beein involved in some other non-violent stuff), but like I said, maybe if you talked to guys like me the way you did to Joe Pa, you’d know us as well as you seem to know him.

          Nice try.

          • Now Charlie-we all know under that angry, condemning exterior-lies a heart the size of Texas. We just don’t want your empathy to condemn all of us, to a life that is totally controlled by the government. 🙂

            • V.H. You’re confused. It is my stomach that is the size of Texas.

              My heart is fairly big too … but I’ve always been a romantic.

              Trust me (regarding government). I’m more convinced of the anarchist argument every day. If you’ve been following my blog (as you should be–just to know how the other side thinks), you’d notice I’m all over Mr. Obama … especially his ties to Wall Street; their success under his administration (they earned more profit in his 2.5 years than under Bush’s 8 years), etc. … I’d love to believe in the fantasy (or utopia) of “free men” not screwing each other but human nature hasn’t convinced me anything but the opposite would happen.

    • This Texas boy would have had a hard time not killing this person……it is what we do to depraved animals here. And before anyone says it is none of my business…..yes it is….. if I observe something like that…..I MAKE it my business.

      And that is why I suggested (and continue to suggest) McQreary go hang himself. He opted for a job (the only conclusion I can come to for why he went to Dad to discuss it first (they’re options) rather than act and stop the RAPE OF A 10 YEAR OLD!

      Whether that’s a shitty thing to say or not, I could care less. He (McQreary) is a piece of shit for what he did over what he didn’t do.

  4. Common Man says:

    USW;

    The real issue with all this is how fast and furious the media and community members jumped on Joe Pa; and without knowing all the details. It was like a feeding frenzie of starving zombies. It is a shameful example of how the majority of people crave scandels and an opportunity to smeer the reputations of those they percieve to be higher up on the podium. The irony of this is the fact that most of them have all done far worse.

    I wonder how many of those nay-sayers would have had the guts to even go as far as Joe Pa did, especially when you consider that the person commiting the crime was a trusted and dear friend. I am willing to bet that a large majority of them would let it slide. But then that is another demonstration of how scewed our nation’s moral compass really is.

    The decisions of the board to fire Joe Pa was the act of desperate men who were more concerned about damage control that righteousness.

    Joe Pa did noting wrong and before anyone gets all hyped up on what he could have additionally done, they should first consider their own moral compass before sticking their heads into the frenzie trough.

    It is a shame that after 47 heartfelt years filled with fortitude, kindness and dedication that the nay-sayers percieved ideals of how Joe Pa should have conducted himself determine this great mans final moments.

    To those that initiated the witch hunt as well as those that piled on….go f..k yourselves!

    CM

    • So, CM……I wish you would quit beating around the bush……tell me what you really think. ( By the way, you are correct ).

      • Colonel, Sir!

        Had I witnessed an act like this I would have pushed the bad guy into the shower drain, regardless of my relationship with that person. However, individuals of our moral charater seem to be an exception not the norm. A breed which I fear is dwindeling in numbers especially in the political and educational arena.

        Hope you are well and dry

        I am off to set in a tree this afternoon as the rut is advancing. Winds are out of the WSW, the skies are cloudy and we have had our first snow shower so far this year. Hopefully we eat venison steaks tonight

        CM

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @CM – you’re saying it takes a lot of guts for Paterno to report Sandusky to the AD? Huh? He took the path of least resistance – that isn’t “guts” – its cowardice.

      • @Ray… I would say that I don’t think it took guts to report Sandusky. It was what the proper procedure was. So I also don’t feel it was cowardice. The AD was head of the campus police, hence the legal authorities. The issue seems to be that people are not satisfied with which police force he reported it to. That doesn’t seem to be cowardice to me. It seems to simply be a choice to trust that the PSU police would do the right thing as well.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Well that is a valid point – I didn’t initially realize that the AD was also head of campus police. On the surface that seems to be…..odd? This is a huge University with a massive athletics department AND a rather large police force. Not sure how one could manage to lead both.

          I would guess that the marriage of these two will lead to speculation that it helped contribute to a culture that enabled Sandusky and the non-action that went on for years.

          I have strong suspicions on that but need to try and hold my tongue on that – maybe something more will come out in investigation.

          My low blow on this could simply offer that the two functions needed to co-exist under the same man given the criminal element in Penn State athletics. (ouch and sorry….)

          • Ray

            The dual responsibility does seem strange, but maybe it was because a significant part of the Police job is crowd control/safety at athletic events.

            Just speculation as well on my part.

        • It was the start of the cover-up and nothing more or less than that. Going to the AD, in Joe’s mind, lifted the burden of responsibility from his shoulders. Sorry, that dog just won’t hunt in this case.

          Did Joe ever see Sandusky on campus after that incident. It seems they sure did pass each other, speak at each other’s engagements, etc.

          How Sandusky’s “keys were taken away” somehow mitigates the fact he’s a sexual predator is pretty friggin’ absurd. Joe thought what all company men think, that problems once avoided will go away and stay away. And this one might have except for the kids who went to the police on their own. Now the gamble Penn State and Joe Pa took came back to bite them in the ass.

          We are Penn State alright … everyone involved in this fiasco are a bunch of hypocritical asswipes.

      • Common Man says:

        Ray;

        What Joe Pa did or did not do was not the point of my comment. My point was that those in the media and community who made a specific point to judge, convict and hang Joe Pa prior to knowing all of the circumstances do so as a result of indignant moral stature; and to feed their own sick sense of worth. It is a reflection of how warped the average person reacts, and an example of how the media likes to dramatize news about respected and admired individuals; especially if that individual has a long and strong track record of a good and decent life. Additionally, I don’t have any respect for those who condem others for actions that person did not take. Until one has been faced with a circumstance and acted they really don’t have any room to condem how another acted.

        As I said in my initial comment, had I witnessed what the Asst Coach did I would have put the bad guy in the shower drain and then dragged his sick ass to the local police.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          Working backwards…..

          “I don’t have any respect for those who condem others for actions that person did not take.”

          You won’t respect me then – I condemn McQueary completely and wholeheartedly and with every ounce of my being. This isn’t about you maybe seeing someone pocket a dollar they just saw someone else drop on the floor right in front of them – and then not doing anything because maybe you just don’t want the hassle. This is about a grown man admitting he saw a former coach sodomizing a kid – and doing jack squat about it. If that does not deserve condemnation then I do not what does.

          My take on this and what I have seen – I live in PA, the coverage has been endless, I count a number of friends and co-workers as Penn State alumni and I train regularly with a former Penn State Defensive Tackle who played under Sandusky in the mid/early 90s AND was grad assistant into the late 90s.

          The indignant view is best parlayed by Joe himself – he knows he could have and should have done more. As in my lengthy post below – w/o regard to the disposition of Sandusky’s legal case – and specifically because of Paterno’s inherent obligation in a program that places him and his staff in a power position over kids (the football players) – and specifically based on the observable and indefensible lack of judgement he showed – little else is needed to conclude that he should have rightfully been fired effective immediately.

          • Ray;

            This is more of a personal view point. I by no means believe McQuery acted appropriately, and in my opinion the acts he did take demonstrated his lack of moral character. Do I understand the circumstances involved with which McQuery imposed upon himself that led to his efforts…no i don’t. I would have acted differently, as I have stated before. If McQuery was a friend of mine at the time our relationship would have suffered or ended once I learned of how he decided to proceed. And that is simply because I would have determined that McQuery was no longer deserving of my friendship. And the circumstances of and why he made the decision he chose would have not mattered as it related to our friendship. However, I would not have gone on a witch hunt to ensure his public and professional demise. I would have gone forward and reported the crime to the appropriate authorities, named McQuery as the source and ensured that key University officials were notified of my actions.

            I don’t appreciate those who choose to make it a personal mission to ruin any and everyone’s life that they believed to be vunerable as a result of not doing what they thought was the appropriate action around their own set of newly defined standards.

            Yes, things should have been handled differently (in my opinion) and yes the University and those in charge acted poorly, and should be dealt with according to established law. Promoting the destruction of certain individuals lives because you have a podium and can does not help things; it only serves to add fuel to a fire.

            The real saddness to all of this is that Joe Pa will no longer be remebered for all that he gave and it is highly likely that given his failing health, age and these circumstances will not live to be 88.

            Maybe he should have done more, but it was not our decision, it was his. And I chose to remember the decisions he made that benefited as they add up to a lot more overall….

            CM

          • Common Man says:

            Ray;

            And to further my point: Apparently there was a strong relationship between McQuery and Sandusky, which does factor into how McQuery chose to act, and I assume how Joe Pa chose to act. No one can dictate or predict how another person is going to act when faced with circumstances like these. Granted we may all believe we would act appropriately, but things and circumstances are different when friends and family are involved. I don’t believe anyone can claim they would act in a certain way when faced with unknown situations. Now, depending upon a persons overall makeup we might be able to predict how a person would act, but until that situation presents itself, it is a guess.

            Put yourself in McQuery and Joe Pa’s place and tell me you would act as you state they should have. What if you were faced with the same situation as McQuery and the bad guy was your best firend, business partner, father, uncle, son or boss. You might try to convince me you would not act any different, but I am willing to bet that would not be reality. It is no different than being able to predict how you would act if you found your best friend in bed with your wife or your son or daughter….

            We can agree that the correct and moral act would to be to notify the police regardless of the circumstances, but what and how you would really act might be a different senerio depending upon the people involved.

            Condeming another persons actions with malace without knowing all the factors, and in some peoples cases, just because you have a podium to do it from does not serve to right the wrong. (I am speaking about those in the media that initiated and fueled the witch hunt for and on Joe Pa). They are not doing it to right a wrong as much as they are to crush a legacy and/or put themselves in the spotlight.

            Hope you are well sir, enjoying life in PA and were able to dig out from the snow weeks back.

            BTW: I have spent some time in PA, as my brother-in-law lived in Ephrata for many years. As a result found out that I have some limbs to the ancestory tree from that area that are of the Amish clan. Interestingly some of my fathers relatives use to suppliment their income by transporting liquor during Prohibition via their buggies. Really did like the area and the people.

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @Common Man

              Ephrata is a beautiful area – far enough away from the city that you can trek to the city as warranted to enjoy the good w/o being punished by the bad. The snow wasn’t too bad in my area – I’m born in NoDak so anything less than a foot is just a minor annoyance. 🙂

              As for situations – had to think about this for a bit…..

              Years ago when I worked in the restaurant business I had a corporate quality evaluator visit my establishment. On that day I had one of the younger girls on the team in doing some admin work in the office. She was mid-20s and was by any measure a very attractive young lady. Important to me was she worked her ass off and did a great job. Anyway – this evaluator was a fat chauvinistic pig – as soon as he thought the girl was out of earshot he came to me, grunted like a pig and made some very offensive comments about what he’d like to do to her. He must have thought I’d find it funny or just horsing around with one of the guys. Well – I don’t think that way – I was offended by what he said and later I find out the girl heard him as well. I told the evaluator he was a f’ing asshole for talking like that about one of my people – that he should complete his work and get the F out of my restaurant. Later that day I used an online evaluation system to report him to my superiors and his.

              I could have realized that my actions would not result in a reprimand of the evaluator – but would result in a target being placed on my head as I was now confirmed as “not being a team player”. This was a company I had worked for for years. Soon enough – I had evaluators in my store every other day – ripping me and my employees and store apart – often fabricated evaluations or “marks” for things they made up. The writing was clearly on the wall – I’d pissed off the wrong people. Less than two weeks after the incident I was visited by executive level management – before they could offer me some half-assed story about why I should be let go and politely invited themselves to go fuck themselves and I quit on the spot.

              I spent several weeks unemployed which created temporary hardship. But I eventually rebounded.

              My point is not that this is the same thing as witnessing a child being sodomized. My point is – you sometimes consciously think through “what would I do if…..” and check that against your values, morals, ethics, needs, family, etc. Other times you just act – and if you’re grounded in what you feel is right or wrong then the other actors are largely nameless and faceless.

              Just my two cents.

              Thanks for taking the time to respond!

              • Common Man says:

                Ray;

                We can condition ourselves to react/respond to circumstances, but it takes practice. Circumstances like this are not things most of think about or plan for. This is when your moral fortitude and value structure determine the steps one takes.

                I think that I would react as I have stated earlier and not worry about personal ramifications, but then I hope I am never presented with a like circumstance.

                One thing about the area of PA was almost every diner I was in offered Scrapple for breakfast…not something I would ever go out of my way for.

                CM

    • CM … I don’t know what to say. You’re amazing (not in a good way).

  5. Canine Weapon says:

    I loved this picture.

  6. It’s easy to sit in judgement of people’s actions after the fact-but we need to look at the mentality and control that is causing these types of things to happen. We have been conditioned to turn over the responsibility for handling problems to some authority-and then feeling our responsibility is over. And we are almost forced by companies to follow a procedure or face the possibility of job loss. And oh goodness-the treat of you or someone else being torn apart by the media unfairly-if you go public-is scary.

    • Kind of like how you can be called a lying gold digger and torn apart in the press for accusing your former employer of sexually harassing you…?

      Just saying…

      • Yes, that too. But on the other side you can have men being accused falsely and they are hamstrung by the people they are working for to just settle instead of opening the company up to the scandal which can come back and bite them in the behind.

        So what’s the answer-how do you know who’s guilty of what-how do you stop injustices-when everything is being quietly Handled.

      • OOOOOO….torpedo amid ships…..you set the depth to low……went under the keel.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Wasn’t shooting at you, my salty friend. I was aiming at the Thor’s Hammer. Who ever heard of a submersible aircraft carrier?

      • ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) –

        Private investigator TJ Ward said presidential hopeful Herman Cain was not lying at a news conference on Tuesday in Phoenix.

        Cain denied making any sexual actions towards Sharon Bialek and vowed to take a polygraph test if necessary to prove his innocence.

        Cain has not taken a polygraph but Ward said he does have software that does something better.

        Ward said the $15,000 software can detect lies in people’s voices.

        CBS Atlanta’s Mike Paluska played Cain’s speech for Ward into the software and watched as it analyzed Cain’s every word.

        If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here,” said Ward. “He is being truthful, totally truthful. He is a man with integrity and he talked directly about not knowing any incident he is accused of.”

        The software analyzes the stress level and other factors in your voice. During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the lie detector read “low risk.” According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.

        During the section of Bialek’s news conference where she says, “He suddenly reached over put his hand on my leg under my skirt and reached for my genitals he also grabbed my head brought it towards his crotch.”

        During the analysis of that section the software said “high risk statement.” Ward said that means she is not telling the truth about what happened.

        “I don’t think she is fabricating her meetings,” said Ward. But, she is fabricating what transpired.”

        • Buck the Wala says:

          Right…analyzing stress levels…sounds real scientific. Because I can just imagine if I was to come forward and speak publicly in front of tv cameras, news reporters, etc., about an incident where I was sexually assaulted, well I would be the epitome of calm and low stress.

          • Mathius™ says:

            Right.. and someone whose career for years has involved extensive public speaking will not be able to control his voice when stressed.

          • Bill Clinton appeared on Tuesday morning on NBC and MSNBC to promote his latest book, and neither asked the man – who paid an $850,000 settlement to Paula Jones and surrendered his law license for false testimony – to comment. The same pattern happened on National Public Radio. Morning Edition anchor Steve Inskeep gave Clinton more than seven minutes of air time to his thoughts on Obama and the economy, but no harassment inquiries.

            This question was jaw-dropping in its ignorance. “Your administration was known politically for seeking to reposition the Democratic Party, not get stuck as being defined as tax-and-spend liberals,” Inskeep proclaimed. “President Obama also was seen as trying to take the party in a new [moderate] direction, but ended telling an interviewer last year that he had been tagged as another tax-and-spend liberal. How’d that happen to him?”

            Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tim-graham/2011/11/10/npr-asks-bill-clinton-obamas-seen-liberal-howd-happen#ixzz1dLAH1CuL

            • Mathius™ says:

              It’s not uncommon for celebrities (and former Presidents are certainly high caliber celebrities) to name terms before granting interviews. If I were Clinton, and especially with this Cain stuff going on, I would make damn sure no one was allowed to address this topic to me as a term of me going on their show. I (Bill Clinton) am there to promote a book and do not want to get dragged into a decade plus old controversy which has nothing to do with the topic at hand, not subject myself to a rehashing of that abomination of an impeachment hearing.

            • How did that happen to him? Really? OMG!!!!!!!

        • Mathius™ says:

          BS.

          VSA is notoriously unreliable.

          It may be true or it may not be. But the technology and science is simply not there for us to take this seriously.

          • Agree it does not “prove” Cain’s guilt or innocence, but it does support his claims. Also the paternity suit filed against accuser #4 by her own husband speaks as to her character. And you and Buck just “proved” your personal bias, automatically rejecting anything positive about any conservative. LOL

            I may have to get that program. Wouldn’t it be a blast to run every Obama statement thru it to see if he thinks he’s telling the truth?
            “These shovel ready jobs”. “We must pass this to put people back to work today”. “I will be a uniter, not a divider”.

            • Mathius™ says:

              No bias. .. ok, maybe slight bias ..

              But I just don’t think this should be taken into consideration one way or the other since there are so many complicating factors and the technology is so unreliable/unproven.

              That said, here you go: http://www.tuaw.com/2008/12/19/no-lie-voice-stress-analysis-on-iphone/

            • LOI,

              Agree it does not “prove” Cain’s guilt or innocence, but it does support his claims.

              This doesn’t support his claim. It’s worthless.

              Here’s the instructions for this machine:

              Step 1: Play the voice of someone you like. Machine gives you positive results.
              Step 2: Play the voice of someone you dis-like. Machine gives you negative results.

              Wow – like magic!! I imagine this would work great for you every time.

              Also the paternity suit filed against accuser #4 by her own husband speaks as to her character.

              So, she’s “easy” or “slutty”? And because you’ve determined that, it’s ok to treat her like dirt?

              And you and Buck just “proved” your personal bias, automatically rejecting anything positive about any conservative. LOL

              Sorry, you have that backwards. You posted something completely unreliable to try to support your point of view – that’s called bias.

              Buck and Mathius pointed out the absurdity of your claim. That not bias. That’s called thoughtful analysis. Give it a try some time!! 😉

              • Mathius™ says:

                Go Todd!

              • One point-this is a he said/she said equation-so UNfortunately, without proof-all of this will be based on the character of the people involved-so yea-her past is relevant. It doesn’t prove anything but then neither does her words. But the disgust being displayed, that one considers her past or his to make a decision on what to believe is a little silly-It’s all we have-is all we will probably ever have. Unfortunate and a nasty business-but that seems to be the way it is.

              • Todd,

                “That’s called thoughtful analysis. Give it a try some time!!” Ditto!!
                1. What Matt posted was not the same computer program being used by law enforcement, which might be a credible indicator
                2. I do not think this or even a lie detector “proves” anything, but can support other evidence.
                3. With a lack of any evidence except a persons character, what is his accusers history vs his?
                4. “So, she’s “easy” or “slutty”?” I never said that, you did. For that matter, I never thought it either, I think it shows people very close to her thought she lied to them.
                5. ” And because you’ve determined that, it’s ok to treat her like dirt?” How am I treating her like anything???? I’ve never met the “lady” and for sure, am not hanging out with her calling her slut or any names. I am pointing out on a blog, her truthfullness has been questioned in the past. Add to that, all the talk shows putting her in the spotlight don’t seem to ask her any questions about this. Aren’t they supposed to do some research before bringing people on to do character assassinations on prominent people?
                6. Character assassination, kinda like you accusing me of calling her slutty and saying I treat her like dirt. Without any facts, you attack my character. Not enough facts or logic to make a case, just call me a racist, standard name calling ploy. You tree hugger!

              • LOI,
                1. I wasn’t referring to Matt’s link. I was referring to yours. PS – I think Matt’s link was a JOKE!!

                2. This wasn’t a lie detector administered by a qualified person. It was software some guy developed. I could develop software that analyzes comments on SUFA and rates each one. Guess where you’d fall in the results???????? 😉

                And this does not offer any supporting evidence. It’s an opinion.

                And if this software actually worked, don’t you think there would be a lot of groups interested in using it?

                Oh, and the guy and TV station are from Atlanta. Maybe they want to help a hometown boy?

                3. With a lack of any evidence except a persons character, what is his accusers history vs his?

                This is my favorite. You want to compare their history? Ok.

                Cain
                1. Four women telling similar stories.
                2. Two of them receiving settlements because of Cain’s actions in the past.
                3. Cain’s story has been changing ever since this story first broke.
                4. Cain makes a joke about Anita Hill?

                Do you see a trend?
                Do you need some help evaluating the evidence?

                What is you have on these women?

                4. You didn’t say she’s “easy” or “slutty”, but your comment implied that since she’s had a paternity suit filed against accuser her, we shouldn’t believe her. And if something did happen she probably deserved it, right?

                5. I didn’t say you were treating her like dirt. But, because of her past, you feel it’s ok for Cain to treat her like dirt?

                6. Character assassination? So now, just like Cain, you’re a “victim” too? I wasn’t attacking your character, just your comments.

            • …speaks as to her character.

              Seriously? That’s like saying a woman can’t be raped because she’s a prostitute!

              • Objection!!!!
                …speaks as to her character. Her former spouse felt her word was questionable enough to file a legal challenge as to whose child she had.
                If you can show someone has a history of lying, you have cause to doubt their word. It doesn’t prove anything, but where it’s his word against hers, and she has been caught lying, what lies has Cain been accused of other than this?

                “That’s like saying a woman can’t be raped because she’s a prostitute!” Seriously? Where do you get a statement like that? Although, thinking about it, with a prostitute could you argue it was non-payment for services provided, not rape?LOL

              • LOI,
                Cain’s story has been changing ever since this story first broke. How much more evidence of lying do you need?

                How would you feel about this entire story if the only change was instead of Cain, it was Obama?

              • Welcome back, Todd! Thank God for some reinforcements.

                Cain’s story on these charges has changed as often as Romney’s on just about everything else. It’s a joke.

                And a conspiracy. The GOP knows nobody can do a better job for big business than Obama has … they want him to win … or they wouldn’t have this never ending clown act debate every week …

    • V.H.

      You have captured what I was going to say quite well.

      I will only add that Joe Paterno is of the generation that would be most affected by their belief in “the system”.

      I also suggest that folks do some reading on other past great tragedies where you will find discussions of the psychology that affects individual judgment. This is exacerbated when you add the cultural belief in the hierarchy of the system.

      Short story…………. faith in Govt is once again proven misplaced.

      • Don’t misunderstand me-I see the problem- but all these people, including JOE should have gotten the police involved-when they saw that they weren’t being called. I can have compassion-I can understand the human fear involved. I will not call them evil or horrible people because I understand their emotions-But in a case of child abuse like this-none of those reasons are good enough.

  7. Wow! Wow! Wow! Extremely disappointed in this article USW! Perhaps you need to get with Matt Millen, who gets it.

    As you well know, I am a huge sports fan, and I get the loyalty, admiration, desire for integrity and honesty within a program. I get it. I get that our appreciation for and connected-ness with the athletes and coaches that we follow so closely can also blind us to reality; I’ve been guilty and I believe reading this article, you are too.

    Let’s remember who the victims are here because that is really the issue. Kids, boys, perhaps many of them, who were raped by an assistant coach of Joe Paterno’s, with at least one act witnessed by a grad assistant. I can’t help but think that when that kid saw another adult witnessing the abuse he probably thought, finally, the nightmare would end. But did it? No, because all the people up the ranks who could have stopped it merely took the abusers keys away so it could no longer happen on university grounds. Are you fricken’ kidding me?

    You claim Paterno would rather lose with integrity than win with cheating? Let me help you here. Paterno would rather win with a child molester and a cover-up than expose (bad word under the circumstances, I know) his program for this major lapse.

    There is a “mythical” sense that Paterno was all powerful? Of course he was! Hello?!? It’s been suggested that several on the board of trustees were there because of Paterno’s direct placement. College athletics dictates a lot on campuses. They get their way and a pass on a lot of things. Barry Alvarez is “god” at Madison – JoePa no different at PennState. Paterno, to the end, was unwilling to do to the right thing by the university, by quitting immediately, and instead tried to protect himself (remember again, the boys he didn’t protect!).

    Look at part of his statement when he announced his retirement:

    “the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status….I want to make this as easy for them as possible.”

    Really? Really Joe? Think there was a message there to those trustees that “owed” him? Thank goodness the trustees did in fact choose to discuss Paterno’s ethical and moral failures to report child abuse!

    A word of advice: don’t get on the “kill the messenger” kick. Yes, there will be some that take glee in bringing Paterno down, however, most of the commentators I’ve listened to have been very fair. The facts are what they are. A huge judgement error was made by many.

    And this HR thing that if he followed up would only be told it was confidential??? What? Quit trying to find an angle to ok his (lack of) following up! If the assistant coach was not in jail within a reasonable amount of time following the report, it is safe to assume not enough was being done and you need to put the pressure on (UNLESS, you are ok with the cover up!!!). Remember, this was Paterno – if he wanted the guy locked up, it would have happened!!!!

    Now, perhaps I’ve been harsh, but I’m not close enough to give you a slap across the face to wake you up, so this short epic will have to suffice. As much as a competitor as I am, I am not revelling in this. I am sick about it. But as we discuss so often on the political side of things on SUFA, things aren’t always what they seem and it is more important to get to the heart of things and clean things up from the inside out. That is what PennState must do and Paterno’s firing was the first step.

    • Kathy,
      Well put. I’m having a hard time seeing Joe Paterno as the “victim” here…

      And from what I’ve read this morning, this scandal is going to get much worse…

      • Todd

        Where have you been lately?

        I cast some bait out there last night hoping to nudge you into a bite. But I caught Mathius instead.

      • It is of WATERGATE proportions … every day a little more of the onion will be peeled off … or they wouldn’t be running for cover (criminal defense counsel). This was a major coverup, start to finish. Joe is a victim of being a company boy and that’s it. He protected his and the university brand at the expense of kids. Tough shit he lost his job. Give me a break.

    • @Kathy

      Let’s remember who the victims are here because that is really the issue. Kids, boys, perhaps many of them, who were raped by an assistant coach of Joe Paterno’s, with at least one act witnessed by a grad assistant. I can’t help but think that when that kid saw another adult witnessing the abuse he probably thought, finally, the nightmare would end. But did it? No, because all the people up the ranks who could have stopped it merely took the abusers keys away so it could no longer happen on university grounds. Are you fricken’ kidding me?

      I don’t recall defending the university’s actions. I only defended Paterno.

      Paterno would rather win with a child molester and a cover-up than expose (bad word under the circumstances, I know) his program for this major lapse.

      Check your facts. Sandusky was not a coach at Penn State when this happened. He had retired 4 years prior. Paterno wasn’t trying to “win with a child molester.” This is just one example of an emotional statement that is made without knowing the facts. Unfortunately, the reality is that you and everyone else screaming for his head are making a lot of demands and assumptions with very little in the way of facts yet being presented.

      There is a “mythical” sense that Paterno was all powerful? Of course he was! Hello?!? It’s been suggested that several on the board of trustees were there because of Paterno’s direct placement. College athletics dictates a lot on campuses. They get their way and a pass on a lot of things. Barry Alvarez is “god” at Madison – JoePa no different at PennState. Paterno, to the end, was unwilling to do to the right thing by the university, by quitting immediately, and instead tried to protect himself (remember again, the boys he didn’t protect!).

      I appreciate your insight, but the reality is that you don’t at all know what Paterno was like at PSU. Was he viewed as a “god” by many? Sure. But that is far from the way that he handled himself on campus. HE didn’t see himself that way, and consequently HE didn’t act that way. As for doing the right thing for the university, I am glad that you have determined for us all what the right thing was. I disagree. The right thing for the kids that he recruited and the football program that was his life was for him to finish out the year. He made the decision to do what he thought was the right thing to do.

      Look at part of his statement when he announced his retirement:

      “the Board of Trustees should not spend a single minute discussing my status….I want to make this as easy for them as possible.”

      Really? Really Joe? Think there was a message there to those trustees that “owed” him? Thank goodness the trustees did in fact choose to discuss Paterno’s ethical and moral failures to report child abuse!

      Interesting that you and so many others claim to know exactly what Paterno “meant” by those words. It only proves what I have been saying all day: None of you know a thing about the man. He isn’t that kind of person. I respect your opinion, but you are simply wrong here. He went to the team and told them he was going to retire at the end of the year, and cried at the podium. It wasn’t what he wanted to do, it was what he felt was the right thing to do. You assume this was some act meant to circumvent the board, and patently reject the idea that he really may have felt that he was taking a pressing issue off their plate. He gave them the “out” on his retiring, making it his choice rather than forcing them to fire him which will cause them tremendous backlash over the next few months. Seems to me he was doing them a favor.

      A word of advice: don’t get on the “kill the messenger” kick. Yes, there will be some that take glee in bringing Paterno down, however, most of the commentators I’ve listened to have been very fair. The facts are what they are. A huge judgement error was made by many.

      That’s just it Kathy. I think you are missing this very important point. YOU AND I DON’T KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE. Nor does the media who are crucifying an honorable man. A fact they admit. The most common statement heard all day today: “We don’t have all the facts yet, but based on what we THINK the facts are, let’s ruin these people’s lives.” Don’t you find it at all interesting that the board acted the way they did and never once called Paterno before them to ask what HIS version of the story was? That sounds to me like they didn’t care what the facts are, they are only doing what they feel is the best public relations move at the moment.

      And this HR thing that if he followed up would only be told it was confidential??? What? Quit trying to find an angle to ok his (lack of) following up! If the assistant coach was not in jail within a reasonable amount of time following the report, it is safe to assume not enough was being done and you need to put the pressure on (UNLESS, you are ok with the cover up!!!). Remember, this was Paterno – if he wanted the guy locked up, it would have happened!!!!

      Again you know nothing of the type of person he is.

      Now, perhaps I’ve been harsh, but I’m not close enough to give you a slap across the face to wake you up, so this short epic will have to suffice. As much as a competitor as I am, I am not revelling in this. I am sick about it. But as we discuss so often on the political side of things on SUFA, things aren’t always what they seem and it is more important to get to the heart of things and clean things up from the inside out. That is what PennState must do and Paterno’s firing was the first step.

      Kathy, I get that you are passionate about this. I get that there are a lot of emotions involved because the victims were children and the crime was horrific. But you are falling into the very same pattern that I was discussing above. You are making a lot of accusations and assumptions when VERY LITTLE information has thus far been provided. This reminds me of the Duke Lacrosse case. Emotional and snap judgements drastically destroyed the lives and careers of the coaches and athletes because the media and folks like you scream for heads to roll. Yet in the end, it was a lie, and those lives were ruined for nothing.

      What will you say to me if Joe finally does talk about what happened and he shows that he did everything you expected. What if it comes out that he DID follow up on this regularly? What if it comes out that he was lied to as well? Perhaps the university officials that he trusted told him the police WERE contacted and that an investigation was ongoing. Pennsylvania police have been investigating this for several years. What if we find out that Joe was well aware of this and tracking the progress of the investigation as well as an outsider can? What if it comes out that Paterno went to the board of trustees and demanded more and they were the ones that didn’t act or they were the ones that lied to him? In short, what if everything in reality is not what it seems today?

      Will you even feel bad about ruining the legacy of a great man? Will you simply say “oops”, I guess Paterno wasn’t so bad after all? What will you do to make up for the fact that you were part of a movement that in 5 short days made up your mind about all the facts you didn’t have and cost a man everything that mattered to him?

      Like I said above. I cannot call him a friend, but I can say that I got to know him in some ways that others didn’t. There are a lot of things that don’t add up for me based on what I know about Joe Paterno. So I am willing to give a man that I know the integrity of the benefit of the doubt until all the facts are revealed. If it turns out he was wrong, I will be willing to say so. But I won’t have ruined a person’s life before I realized my mistake. You want my guess on what happens over the next year? Paterno finally speaks up and we find out that he did far more than you think he did.

      But I guess the potential that you are wrong doesn’t really matter. You and the others who in five days made decisions without all the facts have gotten your way. You ruined a great man’s life. For your sake, I sure hope you aren’t making the Duke Lacrosse mistake….

      • There are actually a lot of facts available.

        If you haven’t already, read this. Really, you only need to read the first part, Victim 1. Note especially the timelines.

        http://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment.pdf

        In 2002 the now infamous shower incident occurred and the rank and file within PennState became aware of Sandusky’s behavior. And yet, he was still allowed on campus, visiting PennState practices with young boys several years later? Even if you look no further, what reasonable explanation can be acceptable for this? You know a man abuses kids and you look the other way when he shows up with them and let him hang around your program?

        I’ve just typed and erased about 10 paragraphs, so I think it best just to end this. I think your idolizing of JoePa to the extent that you won’t even consider that he should have done more is telling. I think you underestimate his power and his desire to keep that power. Ego and power are a part of those kinds of positions and Paterno is no different. A quote I read today on that: “All abuse is about power. Cover-ups are about loss of such.” He wasn’t part of the abuse directly, but he was certainly part of the cover-up.

        And one final thought, I haven’t ruined any great man’s life, however, this so-called great man, in all likelihood, has played a part in ruining several young men’s lives.

        • I have stayed away from this link til now..OMG! I wish I’d have never opened it. I only got to page 3 and had to quit. I can’t wait til this d**k gets to be someone’s bitch! 👿

      • Interesting (or suspicious) that Sandusky retired one year after winning “assistant coach of the year” at only age 55; then doesn’t get picked up by an NFL team (for coaching at Linebacker U) … come on, USW … this couldn’t be more obvious.

      • Like I said above. I cannot call him a friend, but I can say that I got to know him in some ways that others didn’t.

        This is starting to reek of “I was in the military, so I know better.” Excuse the French, USW, but bullshit. Apparently you didn’t know him well enough … or you don’t care that he upheld his university and program above the safety of kids. Or maybe you’re just too loyal. But knowing him (intimately even), doesn’t mean shit as regards this story. I’m sure there are people out there who really knew him (much better than your conversation(s)) and are in shock at his disregard for kids today.

        Sorry, I was a fan of his and Penn State too … this is nothing but a company man protecting his … and it came back to bite him on the ass. Big deal … a lot of kids suffered as a consequence of his being a #1 loyal company boy.

        • This is starting to reek of “I was in the military, so I know better.”

          You know Charlie, I had this thought too. It seems USWeapon knows just about every important person – personally and intimately no doubt – that gives him unique insight into every issue. That truly is amazing.

          But the most amazing part – someone with such depth and breadth of knowledge is willing to share it here with us for free.

          We are truly blessed to be among such greatness! 😉

          • And what exactly is your point? If you think I am full of shit, don’t read it.

            That I haven’t sat by in life and watched it pass seems to bother many, including you apparently. I don’t “know” lots of people at all. I went to Penn State. I was in the athletic dorm with the football players. Paterno came through every night at 10:00pm. Over a few years you a few conversations. You see how someone carries themselves and try to make a judgement of who they are. That I offer my thoughts on someone that I had interaction with is apparently something that you don’t like.

            But so we can be clear, who exactly are all these people that you claim I say I know personally and intimately? More importantly, since the tone of your comment obvious implies that you think I am full of shit, who exactly is it that I have mentioned knowing or meeting that you think is false? Be Specific. If you want to come on here and imply that I am lying you should be willing to state who. I have traveled, and I have taken whatever opportunities step in front of me. Sometimes that means I get to meet interesting people. Sometimes it means that I get to even know a few interesting people. But I don’t think there are very many who have made it into this blog. Obviously you feel otherwise. As you feel that I am bullshitting people into believing that I know someone involved in every issue, please share who I have claimed to know personally and intimately that you think I don’t….

            • I saw Charlie got his “dressing down.” I knew mine was coming!! 😉

              More importantly, since the tone of your comment obvious implies that you think I am full of shit

              Wow, I thought the tone of my comments was pretty light-hearted and that the obvious exaggerations would be – well – obvious. Where’s that sarcasm font when you need it?

              who exactly is it that I have mentioned knowing or meeting that you think is false?

              I don’t necessarily think you’ve lied about the people you’ve met, but I think you exaggerate how well you know them and your ability to judge them. You have a strong personality and philosophy, and you judge those that disagree with you harsher than those that agree with you.

              Specifically you’re mentioned Dick Cheney (great person) and Nancy Pelosi (not so great). I don’t remember the others, but there have been more. You’ve also stated many times that your knowledge (that you can’t divulge for certain reasons) proves “this” is wrong and “that” is right, and “don’t even question it because you don’t know what I know.” And of course there’s the “I’m a pretty smart guy” postulations in the past that put us all in our place.

              You’ve gotten pretty defensive (and offensive) on this topic USWeapon. I understand it’s a situation that’s near and dear to your heart. And it truly is a terrible situation. But maybe your emotional connection to it has caused you lash out at a lot of people.

              • I apologize as it came across as you saying that I was lying. I try not to exaggerate how well I know anyone. Most of the people I know are mere acquaintances and I try to simply state what I do know instead of what I don’t. As with Paterno, I said I can’t say we are friends, only that I have met him, talked with him little, and this situation appears to be totally out of what I know of him.

                Pelosi was a witch with a capital B when I saw her on the Hill. Cheney was nice to the people I saw him interact with. Don’t take that as I think Cheney is a great person. Quite the opposite is true. He is a tried and true DC politician, and by definition not a great person. Very few great people make it in DC. But I think you may have it confused. The only person I would claim to feel like I really know the character of in DC is John McCain. He struck me as someone with a lot of integrity.

                There is actually very little that “I can’t divulge”. I feel like I understand the inner working of the federal government in DC because I worked there. So I do believe that I can offer some unique insight in those areas, as could anyone else who has worked within that circle. My military career is obviously a different matter. There are simply things I cannot discuss, as there are for D13.

                I wil freely admit that I have this issue close to my heart. If Paterno had me fooled, that will hurt. If he is as guilty as so many here seem to believe he is, I will be stunned that I had such an incorrect judge of character lapse. But until that point, I have to trust what I feel I know about him. And at this point, the rush to judgement has ruined a man’s career and legacy, and that cannot be restored. And what if the facts after only 6 days of public knowledge are not what people think they are. That is my point.

                At any rate, I apologize for lashing out. I mistakenly felt you were calling me a liar, which is a charge I take fairly seriously.

              • I don’t necessarily think you’ve lied about the people you’ve met, but I think you exaggerate how well you know them and your ability to judge them. You have a strong personality and philosophy, and you judge those that disagree with you harsher than those that agree with you.

                Todd nails it.

                Can I quote him in the future the way USW quotes Webster’s dictionary and Franco Harris?

              • As to my dressing down, Todd … I went to Penn State. I was in the athletic dorm with the football players. Paterno came through every night at 10:00pm. Over a few years you a few conversations. You see how someone carries themselves and try to make a judgement of who they are. That I offer my thoughts on someone that I had interaction with is apparently something that you don’t like.

                Something tells me that at the end of a very long day of football coaching and recruiting, Joe Pa leaving his office at 10:00 p.m. having conversations with anyone (Outside of saying “Hey, how are you? We are Penn State.”) is tough to believe, but I could be wrong (even a SAGE is wrong once in a while).

                Being in the athletic dorm with the football players is also kind of “so?” I GUARANTEE YOU no one was more shocked than his football players at these revelations. NOBODY. Whether they defend him or not, they are probably the MOST SHOCKED. Football players place a ton of faith in their coaches. I was a football player at a small college, USW (and almost a founding father) so I know this. I was also a football coach at a small college (and was a founding father–but they ignored me because I was also a criminal–the bastards).

                Look, this was a guy who tried to protect the program/university and its brand and probably didn’t think for a second about those kids (not from malice-but just because that’s the way too many things are handled in such situations). Football is HUGE BUSINESS and HUGE BUSINESS will always come first (in a capitalist society–that was for you BF/USW–even though I know somehow this is the government’s fault … oy vey). Joe Paterno made a horrendous mistake in judgment when he was first alerted to this (probably well before 2002, but let’s assume it was 2002). He proteced the brand and ignored the kids. There’s just no excuse for it. He should have been fired. In the end, the damage this will do to Penn State is enormous. Recruiting, etc. Like you crazies on the right like to say about Obama-Care, kids just won’t know what they’re getting into when they sign of letter of intent to Penn State this year. Will the program survive, etc. No Joe Paterno certainly doesn’t help their prospects (because he was a great coach). The scandal itself will probably be secondary to their decision. It’s all about THE BUSINESS.

              • USWeapon,
                From what I’ve read, legally, Paterno did what was required. But I believe morally, more was required of him, especially with his long, long history of being the “moral compass” of college sports. I don’t think he fooled you – or anyone. You don’t “fake” integrity and compassion for 40+ years.

                I think this incident just overwhelmed him. He couldn’t phantom that someone would actually do these types of things to a child, and didn’t know how to deal with it. He reported it as required and I’m sure hoped it would be properly dealt with.

                But as the leader of a program that shapes young men, a program with a well earned reputation, more was required.

        • You know what Chaz… sometimes you just talk out of your ass and nothing but shit comes out. I don’t claim to know the truth about what happened. But I will stand on the moral ground and not do as you and so many others have done, which is jump to conclusions and determine a man’s fate before you know all the facts. I didn’t claim that what I know of him makes me know he didn’t do something wrong. What I do claim is that what I know of the man tells me what he is being accused of doesn’t fit with the character of the man that I think I know. As for your irrelevant “I was in the military” line… whatever dude. What a jerk thing to say. I simply shared my experience. I will remember your assessment the next time you go on a “I used to be a criminal and that means I know “X” better than you” rants.

          And as for how I feel about Paterno. I am not alone. Franco Harris today: “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.”

          Not to mention the board of trustees came right out and admitted that they didn’t fire Paterno because they felt he did something wrong. They fired him because of media pressure and public relations. Yet I am crazy for suggesting that the reason Paterno was fired was exactly what the board now says is the reason he was fired.

          • Let’s take these gems of wisdom one at a time, shall we?

            I will remember your assessment the next time you go on a “I used to be a criminal and that means I know “X” better than you” rants.

            I believe those “rants” always (or most often) had to do with being honest about it, genius; not knowing better than you (or anyone else). Duh.

            And as for how I feel about Paterno. I am not alone. Franco Harris today: “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.”

            Quoting Franco Harris somehow legitimizes your argument? Was he one of the founding fathers?

            Not to mention the board of trustees came right out and admitted that they didn’t fire Paterno because they felt he did something wrong. They fired him because of media pressure and public relations. Yet I am crazy for suggesting that the reason Paterno was fired was exactly what the board now says is the reason he was fired.

            I don’t think I called you crazy, but your statement borders on it … the public pressure, Mr. Webster vs. Chomsky FTW, is DUE TO THE INACTION PATERNO TOOK. Now, have a cup of coffee and think about it.

  8. Such a rush to judgement …….

    A promiscuous mother killed her daughter and deserved to be hung, drawn and quartered…oopps, she didn’t do it.

    A football (it was Duke Lacrosse not football, USW) team hired, then raped and abused the hooker ….they were kicked out, charged and jailed… ooops, they didn’t do it.

    This is the era of trial by newspaper – a very dangerous era indeed.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Tell me, Mr. Flag,

      When was it otherwise? Where was it otherwise?

      Perhaps it was modern times in Iran where suspicion of being gay means execution for a made-up crime?

      Or was it in the days of McCarthy, where knowing the wrong people meant that you could be jailed by HUAC?

      Or in WWI, where having slanty eyes meant you were a Japanese spy (even if your eyes were slanty because you were Chinese), and people could loot your belongings with impunity? And if you were actually Japanese, the suspicion that you might be a spy meant they would round you up and ship you to the middle of the desert for years?

      Or perhaps it was in the days of the Revolution, where anyone accused of being a rebel (aka American) was arrested and frequently summarily executed? Where many “trials” consisted of “let God sort them out”?

      Or perhaps it was in the days of the Salem witch trials, where being too smart or independent or pretty or ugly or upsetting the wrong person could get a woman burned alive at the stake? (as a child, living on the west coast, I used to think this was Salem, Oregon)

      Or perhaps it was in the days of ancient Rome, were the merest accusation of a crime against a Roman citizen resulted in the total destruction of your land and death to your whole family?

      It was always thus.

      It is only the trigger that changes.

      • A Puritan Descendant says:

        “Or perhaps it was in the days of the Salem witch trials, where being too smart or independent or pretty or ugly or upsetting the wrong person could get a woman burned alive at the stake? (as a child, living on the west coast, I used to think this was Salem, Oregon)”

        One cause of upset was ‘envy’ of an individuals prosperity. Such was the suspected reason for the hanging of my ancestors Rebecca (Towne) Nourse and sister Mary (Towne) Estey. Mary’s husband received restitution after proving her innocence, but all to late for Mary.

        • Mathius™ says:

          So your ancestors were inbreeding singers AND witches?

          Wow..

          I think, maybe, you should stop spending so much time on ancestry.com.

          • A Puritan Descendant says:

            Don’t exagerate. they were just inbreeding witches 🙂

            ancestry.com is becoming obsolete. They used to be great for census records but that can be found for free on other sites.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Adding, I wonder what damage was done to the local gene pools where success in half of the population was rewarded with execution..

      • Mathius,

        Errors of the past are repeated in the present – this is true.

        Does not mean we should accept it.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Not at all, my good sir, not at all.

          But your implication that it’s the fault of the times is something I take exception to. It has always been this way, sometimes better, sometimes worse.

          Just trying to keep some perspective.. that’s all.

      • Now wait a minute…. I was at the Salem Witch Trials and I did not burn ONE single innocent witch. They were all guilty. So..there.!!!!

    • Some it is a rush to judgment … and sometimes the guy is just plain guilty.

      Where’d that phrase come from again?

      Right, OJ … another model citizen.

      • Some it is a rush to judgment … and sometimes the guy is just plain guilty.

        Just like the Duke Lacrosse scandal. Rush to judgement. As I said to Kathy, For your own piece of mind, I sure hope you are right after you already called for the ruin of a man’s career based on very little information.

        • The information we do have (FROM PATERNO’S MOUTH–not from those who “knew him” or “talked to the man”, etc.) is that “he wished he had done more” … that’s him being somewhat honest. What he did know and chose not to act on is so morally wrong it has turned most people (without a dog in the fight) on edge (i.e., those who didn’t know who Joe Paterno was find his inaction dispicable). Look, I’m sure Paterno is a decent guy, but this inaction was to protect the brand and you’re just kidding yourself to think otherwise.

          I was a football coach (and a founding father). I know …!!!!!

  9. DA Who Never Charged Sandusky Has Been Missing Since 2005
    Why didn’t Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar prosecute Jerry Sandusky the first time he was accused in 1998? We may never know, as Gricar disappeared in 2005.
    By Teresa Masterson AP

    Centre County, Pa., prosecutor Ray Gricar, missing since April 2005, is shown March 31, 2005.

    It is strange that Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar never prosecuted Jerry Sandusky on child-rape charges 13 years ago, some speculate, because Gricar was known for being fiercely independent and hard on crime.

    But it is even stranger that we cannot ask Gricar why Sandusky was not put behind bars because the tough-as-nails district attorney disappeared in 2005. And though he was declared dead July of this year, his body has never been found.

    “People ask why Ray did not prosecute, and I have no problem saying, because he clearly felt he didn’t have a case for a ‘successful’ prosecution,” Tony Gricar, Ray Gricar’s nephew , told The Patriot-News.

    “… One thing I can say is that Ray was beholden to no one, was not a politician.”

    This district attorney who had “a bitter taste in his mouth for the [Penn State] program, and its coach,” according to his nephew, and yet never prosecuted Sandusky, disappeared on April 15, 2005 after telling his girlfriend that he was going on a drive.

    Ray Gricar’s car was found the next day in a Lewisburg parking lot and his laptop, sans hard drive, was found in the Susquehanna River, according to the Patriot-News.

    Ray Gricar’s friend, Montour County District Attorney Robert Buehner Jr., told the New York Times that if the ardent district attorney had committed suicide, he would have wanted his body found. But in the case of possible foul play, no suspects have emerged from investigations.

  10. don’t have much time but good article USW. I spent 7 years at PSU, met my wife there. Joe is a class act. The trustees are classless. I agree, they all should go as well. The media frenzy has contributed much to this debacle. Sandusky should be at the center of this storm not the back story. Is this the price we pay for the 24 hr news cycle that needs constant controversy to keep itself employed?

    On a similar note, did anyone see Liz Chaney’s attack Sunday on Bob Scheffer on Face the Nation? I think she said it clearly. The news media only cares about controversy not the real issues.

  11. 😐

  12. This Administration is Sooooooooooo Good at governance.

    Christmas tree tax “delayed”…….. LMAO. from M Malkin

    Update: Implementation of the 15 cent per tree fee is reported to be delayed. Does this mean a couple months of President Obama going around the country saying “pass this Christmas tree jobs fee”?

    • On FOX this AM, the Judge said it was about power. Having a agency pass a “tax”, a power the constitution grants solely to congress. If congress did not stop it within 30 days, it became law and set a precedent.

    • They probably realized that if you called it a “holiday tree” the tax didn’t apply

  13. OK, since nobody else wants to mention it, I will.

    While I don’t know all the details about this whole Penn State thing, and thus am not willing to condemn Joe Paterno the way others are, I must ask this.

    Don’t you think the student’s reaction was just a little “strange”. Maybe just a little???

    Frankly I don’t understand all this “I love my alma mater” stuff, that seems to run so deep and profound among many.

  14. Sorta like an OWS protest huh? I heard some were po’ed at Paterno being fired and others about the abuse. I guess they couldn’t make up their minds.

    I don’t know who may be guilty of what at the school – beyond Sandusky – until I see some evidence at what the reporting requirements to police are under PA law (though it should have been reported to law enforcement regardless) and whether Paterno and others did, or didn’t, fulfill these requirements.

    I will say that I would want to ask Paterno how he could continue to have Sandusky work for him knowing that whatever occurred wasn’t reported to the cops?

    Was there a coverup by school officials above Paterno? Sure seems that there was and it is unfortunate that I don’t find that surprising at all.

    I’m sure the coming days/weeks will bring out more information that will be hotly debated.

    • Timeline:

      http://themorningspew.com/2011/11/09/penn-state-serial-child-sexual-abuse-case-is-worse-than-we-thought/

      (I did not cross reference this with the court documents)

      If only, on March 2, 2002, Paterno, would have picked up the phone and called 911.

      What is that quote? Something about the only way for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing?

      • What is that quote? Something about the only way for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing?

        Yup, that would be the one.

        I don’t believe Paterno was powerless – under any circumstances – from being privy to the conclusions of any “investigation” by the school of Sandusky’s actions. It just doesn’t wash with me simply because he was the Head Coach and therefore the supervisor of Sandusky, giving him lawful place to be appraised of the outcome. I’ve been down this road in my professional career and when one of the people I had direct responsibility for was investigated I was appraised of the outcome and any requirements placed upon the employee’s future actions as I would be responsible for monitoring compliance by the employee. So Joe being kept in the dark – I just find it difficult to believe.

        I don’t know Paterno either, and I am not a great college sports fan at all, so I will accept USW’s statements on the integrity of Joe Paterno and then I would want to ask Paterno why that integrity didn’t compel him to report such suspected activity directly to law enforcement? I don’t want to hear that he fulfilled his responsibility and reported up the chain of authority within the school, that doesn’t wash with me I am afraid. Maybe he has a good answer and it would be that answer that would speak to whether or not his integrity is still intact.

        There will be many questions that Paterno and others will need to answer as this unfolds farther.

        • Sandusky retired in ’98 or ’99. He did not work for Joe in ’02.

          • Which removes any problems with supposed employee privacy rights preventing Paterno from being advised of the outcome of any investigation.

            • Joe just can’t win with you can he? If he was Sandusky’s boss when it happened he is a piece of crap who kept him on staff, and as his boss, Joe was entitled to know the details of the investigation

              If he wasn’t Sandusky’s boss, then employee privacy rights are removed and Joe was entitled to know the details of the investigation.

              • @USW,

                Can’t win with me? How’s that? You might carefully reread what I said – if Sandusky was no longer an employee then there was no employee privacy right preventing Paterno from being advised of the outcome of any investigation. I made that statement based upon one of the articles I read where Penn States HR representative claimed Paterno, nor others, could be told of the proceedings due to employee privacy rights. Since Sandusky was no longer an employee he had no employee privacy rights.

                I, personally, have not said Paterno is guilty or at fault for anything. I said I find it hard to believe that he would be powerless from being privy to the outcome – I never said he did or didn’t know. Maybe he chose not to know. But it does bring forth some reasonable questions one would fairly ask him as the man of integrity you say he is – and I accept that statement since I don’t know him personally or professionally. His responses would allow one to judge his integrity for themselves and he should only be held accountable if evidence shows misconduct on his part.

                You have decided in your own mind to place him on a pedestal of honor and hold him above the level of the bad smell coming out of the issue. You can no more clear his name than anyone else can condemn him until all the evidence is out. Right now the only one I can believe is contemptible is Sandusky himself since we have in evidence the statements made against him a witness to his behavior.

                You might not swing your mighty sword so indiscriminately, you could end up poking your own eye out – those things are dangerous.

              • PS,

                I read what you said, and I didn’t mean to sound as though I was swinging a sword at you. You said as his supervisor he should be appraised of the situation. When it was pointed out that he wasn’t his supervisor, you said he should have been appraised of the situation because he was no longer an employee. I just pointed out that no matter the situation, your response didn’t change as to what Joe should have been appraised of.

                I agree, I cannot clear him and I don’t intend to do so. But I also do not want to see the man’s life ruined before the facts are known. Yes I do hold him above the smell, but I also realize my judgement could be wrong. But innocent until proven guilty should be the standard, right? Shouldn’t we wait to punish the man until we find out if he guilty of what everyone assumes?

                And just to be clear, Sandusky was still protected by employee privacy laws. He no longer worked for the PSU football program or Paterno, but he did still work for the university.

              • USW,

                Yep, as I said – we wait for all the evidence to come out before we can say there was, or wasn’t, misconduct on the part of Paterno.

                Yes it did. If Sandusky was still under employment and Paterno was his boss then Paterno should have been appraised of the results. If Sandusky wasn’t employed then no privacy right existed and Paterno could be advised – could be, not should be. Meaning that privilege would be no reason for not advising him, not that there was any requirement to be appraised of the results. If Sandusky was an employee and NOT under Paterno’s supervision then the privacy right exists and Paterno could (and should) be excluded from being advised of the results.

                I too would not want his reputation besmirched unfairly. But, if I may, how many people get their reputations besmirched (even their existing bad reputations in the case of politicians) before all the facts are known? It happens and we all – all – do it or have done it.

                My position in most incidents comes from my prior law enforcement/corrections background, everyone is under suspicion until the evidence clears them. Basic investigative rule #1.

              • USW,

                A curiosity question you might be able to clear up – everything I have read calls Sandusky a retired or former employee of PSU. Are you basing his employment on his emeritus status with PSU?

                If you are then could you direct me to some PSU link that verifies a retired or former employee granted emeritus status is still an employee? I wandered at length through the online PSU HR policies and such and could find nothing definitive either way.

              • Joe was told Sandusky was RAPING a kid who looked to be about 10 years old in a shower. He waited a day and told the AD. I hope when he went to Church that Sunday he stopped in the confessional. You have to be kidding begging to official protocol. Mistake #1: he didn’t call the cops. Mistake #2: He didn’t go with McQreary to the A.D.’s office and DEMAND the university prosecute. Mistake #3: He didn’t get his act together (with a lawyer) and have a press conference denouncing what happened (that would have saved his brand a lot more than what he did do–which was nothing).

                This became a public pressure on the board issue (which should also be fired, make no mistake, but not because of their firing Paterno, because they obviously were looking to coverup as well or it wouldn’t have taken them so long to act).

            • Actually, no it doesn’t. It doesn’t matter if Paterno was his supervisor or not. That issue would have been handled between Sandusky and the HR Dept of Penn State, period. I have worked in HR and that is how it works. The only thing that Paterno would have been advised of would have been the termination of Sandusky and even then he wouldn’t have been given a reason, just that Sandusky had been terminated. That is how HR works. Everything is kept private.

    • Joe did not have Sandusky continue to work for him. Sandusky retired 4 years prior to this happening.

      • So I understand – I was mistaken on part of it until I saw the timeline Kathy posted. However, see my answer above.

      • Yes, Sandusky conveniently “retired” the year after he won “Assistant Coach of the Year” and could have gone on to head coach pretty much any school in Division 1 or otherwise, or step up to the pros, but he chose to “retire” (as you put it) the year after the first incident is reported.

        And if you think Paterno didn’t know about that incident, you’re a fool.

  15. I have a question……what about the kid that was victimized…..where was the father and why did he not get people thrown in jail?

    • Fair questions and I’d be interested in the answers.

      But, I will say that I can foresee several potential reasons that I would find acceptable for the parents not acting if that turns out to be the case.

    • It appears that most, if not all, of the victims were kids from Second Mile Foundation, an organization set up by Sandusky for at risk kids. (I won’t even go into what a farce that statement is.)

      If you look at the timeline in the article above, it appears it was the mothers who questioned behavior and made noise, so perhaps these boys had no involved fathers.

    • Why didn’t the fathers of so many Catholic boys not get people thrown in jail?

  16. Ray Hawkins says:

    Sorry to say – but I find this article completely reprehensible….a disgusting defense of indefensible actions. That you would liken it to an “HR action” is even more troubling.

    Let’s remember that Paterno, Sandusky, McQueary (and others) were the ones chiefly responsible for a program (football) that places them in a power position over kids/young adults/men – irrespective of what the law says – and mindful of a continual theme on this blog of personal responsibility – those same individuals have a moral and ethical obligation to place the safety of those kids above all else.

    So we know that allegedly – McQueary observed Sandusky sodomizing a boy of about 10 years old. McQueary, coward that he is – did nothing. He ran like a little bitch and called his Dad. His Dad, piece of shit that he is, advised his coward of a son to tell JoePa – McQueary did so the next day. JoePa takes the coward way out – and reports this to the AD. Now – we don’t know what details McQueary gave to JoePa. It was supposedly not the details of the sodomizing of the boy. We can at least assume that it was enough details that JoePa felt obligated to report it upwards – rather than deal with Sandusky himself. But herein is why JoePa is coward and deserved to be fired immediately – if he cared so goddamn much about the kids and the school and blah blah blah – he should have stopped at nothing to ensure this was reported to those who were best equipped to investigate and either file charges or clear the appropriate persons involved. HE DID NOT DO THIS. He should have made two calls – one to his boss and one to law enforcement.

    McQueary should be fired immediately. He should live the remainder of his life in shame.

    Paterno should have been fired immediately. He should apologize for being such a colossal asshole for not doing more sooner – he was the one person uniquely positioned to ensure nothing would/could tarnish this program. He failed in the worst way. It does NOT matter as to the legal outcome of Sandusky – everyone keeps carping that no guilt has been established. I am stating that it DOES NOT MATTER – that is irrelevant to what Paterno should have done. The seriousness of the allegation and their power position as I first described should have made it a no brainer. Let’s have Paterno look in the eyes of the kid who was ass raped by his good friend Jerry in the showers and tell him “sorry kid, I’ll pray for ya and all – but this was like an HR thing and I reported it to who I was required to report it to”. DISGUSTING and INDEFENSIBLE.

    Every piece of garbage that can be identified as having closed ranks on this one should be fired.

    Every person involved in the riot should be slapped and thrown out of school – I also partially blame JoePa for this – he egged these asshole punks on with this bullshit “We are Penn State” chant right in the middle of this colossal controversy spinning up.

    “At this point, leave Joe Paterno alone. He is a great man, with a great heart, and more integrity than almost anyone that I know. He has done great things, and he deserves to finish out the season and then retire. If he isn’t allowed to do that, I will be extremely disappointed.”

    All I can say in closing that I am profoundly disappointed in statements like this. JoePa doesn’t deserve shit. His lack of judgement prior necessitates that something severe be done – and it was. That is what he deserved.

    • Every piece of garbage that can be identified as having closed ranks on this one should be fired.

      Bada-boom, bada-bing. Exactly.

      Actually, you’re entire comment is spot on.

  17. Ray Hawkins says:
  18. Ray Hawkins says:

    With respect to the incident reported by McQueary – Sandusky was retired at this point (anyone consider it odd that he retired when he did AND that he was not hired by any other program? If he was such a football genius and architect of great defenses then why weren’t people beating doors to get him? Maybe because there was some hush hush happening already at State College? Maybe Sandusky was enjoying his emeritus status where he could freely roam the campus and have a steady supply of children he could rape? Just speculating….) – but you must acknowledge that he held emeritus status at this point – from all indications of his access to players, facilities and inclusion in team activities (e.g. bowl games, etc) this status carried a lot of privileges. Important is this – he was a “coach emeritus” we’ll call him……in Joe Paterno’s program. Joe could have just as easily said – “um – I don’t want this Jerry guy hanging around here” – he did not – and it is INCONCEIVABLE that JoePa knew nothing of the 1998 incident (victim 6) when Sandusky worked directly for him and there was significant formal police activity involving Sandusky.

    • Sandusky was retired at this point (anyone consider it odd that he retired when he did AND that he was not hired by any other program?

      See my comments above. Thank you for nailing it. It is obvious that this was a deal made between the university and Sandusky; that he not coach anymore. The fact the NFL didn’t come knocking (or that he had to turn them down) is pretty obvious as well. They were counting on the kids never speaking. They gambled and lost and now USW wants to bail out Joe Pa.

      Please.

      Being generous: Joe Pa screwed up big time in this one.

      Being realistic: Joe Pa was protecting his brand and was involved in probably the majority of the various deals made throughout this fiasco. He’s brand is tarnished forever fore being a typical company boy. Fuck him.

      • Well you comments here seem to indicate that this is a national scandal, not a Penn State scandal. That no other colleges or pro teams came after him to coach would mean that the entire NFL and all of College football knew about this scandal as well.

        That’s it. Shut down college football and the NFL.

        • Actually, my comments suggest Penn State made a deal with Sandusky to stay out of coaching FOREVER (what makes sense in case he went to the pros and was caught raping kids while in the NFL–then the scandal would have come back to PS anyway.

          Look, USW, I understand your loyalty to the guy. Believe me (or try to anyway), I was a HUGE Paterno fan. I’m sure his intentions (in his mind) were for the greater good of the university (the program, etc.), but his inaction was at best a huge miscalculation and screw up. I think it was worse. I don’t think he maliciously tried to outfox the world, but I do think he protected the program/school and sacrificed the kids to do so. It was well within his personal power to hold a press conference and blow this thing up as soon as he was alerted (if the University chose not to do so). Act like the Colonel here, for instance, and damn the politics and do the right thing. He didn’t. There’s no excuse for it. His sudden concern “say a prayer for the victims” is way too shallow for me to swallow. This was a corporate coverup, nothing less.

          • And where is any shred of evidence to back up your belief that PSU told him to stay out of coaching forever? The guy was a great coach, and according to you, no college or pro team approached him about coaching. Why would that be? I simply think you are operating under far too many assumptions about what happened. I will choose to wait for the facts before I ruin people’s lives. If in the end, after all the facts come out, it ends up that Joe protected the university over the kids, that he completely washed his hands of it after reporting it to the head of campus police and then actively covered things up, I will admit I was wrong and misjudged the character of the man I thought I knew a little bit about.

            But I have a feeling that if things go the other way, you will simply rationalize away ruining people’s lives without all the facts.

            And you keep bringing up his statement that he wished he would have done more. In hindsight, we all make that statement. As I said in previous discussion, the people around Amy Winehouse “wish they had done more”. It doesn’t equal an admission of doing “nothing.”

            And you can keep making fun of the fact that I had a few conversations with the man, continuing to insinuate that it either didn’t happen because he wouldn’t stop to actually talk to anyone or whatever else you are implying. It doesn’t change what I feel I know about him. I offered what little insight I have on him. You being an ass about it only shows a flaw in your character, not mine.

            • And now let’s rip this gem apart …

              And where is any shred of evidence to back up your belief that PSU told him to stay out of coaching forever? The guy was a great coach, and according to you, no college or pro team approached him about coaching. Why would that be? I simply think you are operating under far too many assumptions about what happened.

              It’s an implied assumption, USW. An intelligent one at that … and I’m not the only one who thinks it stinks to high heaven. Then again, I didn’t pass the “great coach” on campus …

              I will choose to wait for the facts before I ruin people’s lives. If in the end, after all the facts come out, it ends up that Joe protected the university over the kids, that he completely washed his hands of it after reporting it to the head of campus police and then actively covered things up, I will admit I was wrong and misjudged the character of the man I thought I knew a little bit about.

              I submit you’re a lot more honorable than any of the garbage that allowed Sandusky to rape kids for years on end.

              That was a compliment, USW.

              But I have a feeling that if things go the other way, you will simply rationalize away ruining people’s lives without all the facts.

              You’re getting confused AGAIN. I’m the “irrational one”, remember? There’s nothing that can come out regarding Joe Paterno unless Sandusky did something like hire a hitman to sit with Paterno’s family to keep Joe from exposing him for however long this went on. Get it through your head, Joe Pa fucked up (like Jon Stewart said). He doesn’t get a pass on this. He was wrong.

              And you keep bringing up his statement that he wished he would have done more. In hindsight, we all make that statement. As I said in previous discussion, the people around Amy Winehouse “wish they had done more”. It doesn’t equal an admission of doing “nothing.”

              Once again, apples and oranges … Amy, an adult, whacked herself with self-destruction. I collected from adults … Sandusky was a pedophile and your former start QB claims he witnessed a rape and ran home to daddy (a QB, it figures) and the head coach followed legal protocol and proceeded to bury his head while rapes continued. Brother, you couldn’t be more wrong about this one.

              And you can keep making fun of the fact that I had a few conversations with the man, continuing to insinuate that it either didn’t happen because he wouldn’t stop to actually talk to anyone or whatever else you are implying. It doesn’t change what I feel I know about him. I offered what little insight I have on him. You being an ass about it only shows a flaw in your character, not mine.

              Would it make you feel better if I told you I believed you had these conversations with Joe Pa? You refuse to see the problem sometimes with what you put down (write). You expose yourself to scrutiny, like it or not. So do I at my blog and I often get called on it. Sometimes I have to eat my words. I’m not making fun of the conversation, brother. I’m making fun at how you seem to think it means something other than you had a conversation. I wish you could see that (you’d be a much better writer for it).

            • Ray Hawkins says:

              @USW – I’m beginning to edge more and more to thinking that your alumni status and JoePa_love are hurting your credibility and objectivity here.

              To clarify one thing first – the Penn State University police department has been over-characterized as being a 300-person strong force. It is not. According to their own website they employ: 46 full-time armed officers, Six traffic and parking officers, Five police, dispatcher/recorders and approximately 200 students as auxiliary officers and escorts. It would be in error to count the 200 students as full time trained and certified police officers. Also according to their own website (organization chart) they employ at least three full time detectives.

              But not much of that matters…..

              There is much noise made of Paterno having already done the “right thing”

              He most certainly erred on the most minimal side of action.

              (1) Whatever McQueary told him it was severe enough that Paterno felt compelled to escalate it.

              (2) Paterno was already in a position as head football coach where he had a responsibility for the safety and security of kids that were enrolled in Penn State as students and participating in football. The nuances of “what specific HR status did Sandusky have since he “technically” had retired” – thereby somehow impacting who Paterno should have reported it to and any follow-up Paterno should have done – this is complete and utter nonsense. Sure – he followed the letter-of-the-law. But dammit – that is his football team, his facilities and his rogue former coach/player/friend he was allowing to saunter around – knowing full well that he had done something bad enough to merit escalation – yet also knowing that there was no firm disposition of the matter. Hell – let’s say McQueary was full of shit – let’s say the crack campus police force did investigate and found no wrongdoing – then why the hell would Paterno keep McQueary on his staff after then making false and heinous accusations against a legendary coach/former player/close friend in Sandusky AND with Sandusky still roaming the halls? This makes no sense!

              (3) The simple facts are already out there USW! Until there was a disposition of the charge – Paterno and Penn State officials should have revoked Sandusky’s access to the campus. PERIOD. I know folks are wrongly accused all the time – especially already troubled youth who know to play the abuse card to get their way. Its a shitty conundrum. But that is also why when a severe enough allegation (“Joe – I saw Sandusky sodomizing this kid in the shower”) is made – you must act and you must act in the most complete way possible and remove the potential offender from any access. Shit – I’ll go one step further – Joe had to know Sandusky had Second Mile going – while it seems Joe had no immediate ties to the charity – don’t you press harder on the issue if one of your own coaches says he witnessed Sandusky raping a kid? Whether Sandusky is found guilty or not DOES NOT MATTER. You act more deliberately than Paterno did until the issue is resolved.

  19. Fun Fact for the day: The Date: 11/11/11

    • Mathius™ says:

      Can’t wait for 11:11 AM.

      And if you were born on 10/1/1971, you are 11*11*11*11 days old today.

      • Touchee! Shout out to the veterans today also..Thanks for your sacrifices guys and girls!

      • I was right…..you have waaaaay to much time on your hands.

      • Murphy's Law says:

        How do you figure this? Someone born on Oct 1, 1971 would be 40 years old…..14,651 days as of today…..351,624 hours….21,097,440 minutes….that’s already more than the 11,111,111 number you quoted…..

        A child born at 12 am the morning of Oct 31 this year will be 11 days, 11 hours, and 11 seconds at 11:11:11 today.

        Someone born at 12 am the morning of Oct 31, 2000 would be 11 years, 11 days, 11 hours and 11 seconds at 11:11:11 today.

        Won’t go further…you get my drift.

        At any rate- a huge THANK YOU to all veterans of our armed forces. God bless you and your families for the sacrifices you made on our behalf.

        Murf

        • Canine Weapon says:

          I didn’t quote 11,111,111. I quoted 11 x 11 x 11 x 11 = 14641 days (not 14,651 which you listed).

          • Murphy's Law says:

            I thought I was answering Mathius…..

            at any rate, sorry…..I didn’t realize the asterisks were multiplication signs.

            I came up with 14,651 by adding in the leap year days, of which there would have been 10 in the span of 40 years.

            🙂

            Murf

  20. Canine Weapon says:

    I like how hard he is trying to look like he’s not looking. Meanwhile, the Canadians just go right ahead.

  21. Ray Hawkins says:

    Happy Veteran’s Day today to all who have served. I thank you for your service to our Country and your fellow soldiers. May our troops in the field be returned home safely and with honor and respect.

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Hear Hear!!

    • Thank you for remembering, Ray, and all the others here……..(picture D13….using Mathius’ nitfy Jack Sparrow Hat) bowing with sweeping gesture.

    • The more we cheer and applaud those that kill and die for the State, the more the State will send such men to kill and die.

      • It is possible to “cheer and applaud” the men and women who risk their lives in order to protect their families and the families of those they do not even know, without applauding the way in which these men are used by a state whose goals are not necessarily pure “defense.”

        • Mathius,

          It is possible to “cheer and applaud” the men and women who risk their lives in order to protect their families and the families of those they do not even know, without applauding the way in which these men are used by a state whose goals are not necessarily pure “defense.”

          No, it is not, because you make an artificial and flawed judgement of these men.

          They did not do what they did by their own will.

          They followed the Chain of Obedience, not of free will.

          They denied their own judgement, morality, common sense, and abdicated all of that to others they called “Master” in the belief any evil they did in obedience to their Masters protected themselves and their souls from judgement.

          But God is not fooled.

          But many, many people are.

          Thus, war goes on.

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Do we have to go there every single veteran’s day, memorial day, etc.??

        I understand your point, I really do, but surely even you can separate these men and women, risking their lives, from your views of the US gov’t and foreign policy. These men and women deserve our respect for the sacrifices they have made, and continue to make. You can criticize our presence in Iraq and elsewhere all you want – I agree! – but certainly we can offer our respect to the individuals by continuing our criticism of policy and working towards bringing them home.

        • Go Buck! Adding..BF, had you not seen what you saw in your time in the service you may not have come to the see the world as you do today. So you ,too, should be thankful for your own service!

          • Buck: interesting that the two liberals are the first to jump on BF for his statement

            Mathius: we’re just overcompensating because we secretly hate soldiers

            • Have a seat on the SUFA sonny..I was on it before you! 🙂

            • Mathius,

              As Goring claimed, it is easy to entice people to war – one merely condemns the peacemakers and peace advocates of being traitors and a danger to the country.

              It is no surprise that war unifies politics – whether Dem or Rep, closet socialists or closet fascists – they are all Statists – and war is the health of the State.

        • BF’s scorn aside…..

          I wish to thank all our military personnel, present and past, for their service to the nation. I pray those serving in foreign conflicts return home, safe and sound, soonest to their loved ones.

          • Plainly,

            I do not congratulate those that “serve” mindlessly obeying their masters.

            I do pray they come home -sooner and closer to immediately. It is true that their families need them at home.

            • BF, good sir….a thought has popped into my thinking and I would be interested in your view on it.

              Do we not all “serve” our government masters, either voluntarily or out of concern/fear of retribution if we do not? Even you, in the choices you make to keep government off your back by complying, serves the goals of government doesn’t it? I mean, we know the government cares less how you comply, as long as you do, right?

              • Do we not all “serve” our government masters, either voluntarily or out of concern/fear of retribution if we do not?

                Many do, this is true.

                It takes great courage to stand up to the coercion of the greatest source of human violence and say “No, thanks”.

                Even you, in the choices you make to keep government off your back by complying, serves the goals of government doesn’t it?

                It does.

                However
                your pointless death serves no one either.

                Being a free man means you are constantly subjected to trade offs – no one is going to give you a free ride, so you have many more choices of action then do slaves.

                Some of those tradeoffs help you avoid being clawed to death by a grizzly bear.

                You are still alive, and you are still free – but, yes, you chose to avoid that particular walking path where the grizzly bear was sitting, and instead cut through thick bush and trees filled with biting insects instead.

                Other times, you let the grizzly bear tear apart your tent and eat all your food, but you are still alive, and are still free watching this…knowing that you probably will not have lunch today.

                But one day there may come a time where you will need to stand between the grizzly bear and your family and/or your freedom – and I do not think you will move.

              • Being a free man means you are constantly subjected to trade offs – no one is going to give you a free ride, so you have many more choices of action then do slaves.

                I submit that we have an all volunteer military today and those who join do so as a choice they made – for whatever reason. In making that choice they also voluntarily – for the most part – chose to “mindlessly” (your word) serve their masters, the government. Each who serves either agrees with the master’s choices or does so out of fear of retribution, but they voluntarily placed themselves into the dilemma.

                While their death may serve no one other than the government and may be pointless in many people’s opinions, they can decide to stand between that grizzly and their family/freedom if they are prepared (as a few have been over years) to tell the master’s “no thanks” and live with the consequences of revoking their agreement to serve.

                BTW – in my personal opinion their deaths are pointless.

        • Buck,

          Yes, we do have to go through this every time people glorify war.

          By honoring death you get more death.

          I will stop when that stops.

          • Buck the Wala says:

            Once again, there is a difference between offering respect to a soldier and recognizing the sacrifice they make, and ‘glorify[ing] war’

            • Buck,

              No, there isn’t.

              It is a great illusion over your eyes.

              The scene is purposeful – for it shows the living their death is rewarded.
              Thus, when death is offered, these men believe their death will have meaning to others, at least once a year.

              But their deaths are meaningless, served no one but evil.

              All the ceremony and pageantry, the solemn voices and proclamations of pride – are surrounded by the symbols of the State.These men killed and died FOR THE STATE; not their families or for “freedom” or for anything else.

              It is the State the magnifies honor of its dead – but not for YOUR honor, but for honor of the STATE.

              It says “These men gave their lives for something more than themselves, THEIR COUNTRY” – this is true, right??
              This is what is said, right??

              It is right in front of you – these men were slaves prepared to be slaughter for the folly of the State.

              There is nothing to here to cheer about.

  22. NEW YORK (AP) — When Joe Paterno, the ousted Penn State football coach, was confronted with a possible case of child rape, he notified his bosses rather than call the police or the child-abuse hotline. That was all Pennsylvania law required him to do, yet in most other states the failure to call could be a crime.

    In more than 40 states, the prevailing policy is that such reports must be made to police or child-protection authorities swiftly and directly, with no option for delegating the task to others and then not following through.

    Already, the Penn State scandal has sparked calls for Pennsylvania to toughen its law. State Rep. Kevin Boyle says he will introduce a bill that would require mandated reporters — including school and hospital employees — to notify police themselves rather than pass their information on to superiors at work.

    “It is clear that a loophole exists in our law,” Boyle said. “My legislation would close that loophole by requiring those who are aware of the abuse to report it to law enforcement authorities, rather than simply following an in-house chain of command.”

    A review by The Associated Press of the abuse-reporting laws of all 50 states showed that Pennsylvania is one of only about a half-dozen states where the protocol for staff members of schools, hospitals and other institutions is to notify the person in charge in the event of suspected child abuse. That superior is then legally obliged to report to the authorities.

    In the Penn State case, the superiors notified in 2002 by Paterno — the athletic director, Tim Curley, and a vice president, Gary Schultz — have been charged with failing to report the suspected abuse. They deny wrongdoing. State authorities say that failure enabled former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky to perpetrate additional sexual assaults on boys.

    According to a 2010 database compiled by the National District Attorney’s Association, other states with provisions resembling Pennsylvania’s — giving institutional staff the option of reporting suspected abuse to their superiors — include Virginia, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri and South Dakota.

    Far more prevalent across the country are laws that mandate informing law enforcement authorities. In some states, such as Michigan, New York and Hawaii, the employees must also notify the person in charge at their institution. But many of the laws explicitly warn that informing one’s superior does not relieve the employee of the obligation to personally report the suspected abuse to outside authorities.

    For example, the Texas statute stipulates that teachers, nurses, doctors, day-care workers and various other mandated reporters “may not delegate to or rely on another person to make the report.”

    Sociology professor David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, said several studies have shown that many professionals who are required to report suspected abuse — including doctors and psychologists — often decide not to report. Reasons vary, he said, including a fear that authorities would mishandle the case or a sense that the problem could be better addressed privately.

    “Prosecutions under the statutes for not reporting are unbelievably few and far between,” Finkelhor said. “Maybe it’s better that people use discretion … If everybody obeyed the letter of the law and reported a suspicion of abuse, the agencies would be completely overwhelmed with reports.”

    Frank Cervone of the Support Center for Child Advocates, which handles many child-welfare cases in Philadelphia, said the Pennsylvania reporting law should be changed to impose tougher penalties for failure to report.

    Under the current law, that offense is a third-degree misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in prison. At the time Curley and Schultz are accused of failing to report, it was summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in prison and a $200 fine.

    D13 Surmises: It seems to boil down to three areas (1) Legally, (2) Morally, (3) Ethically.

    (1) It appears, thus far, that Paterno followed the letter of the law. He reported it through the chain of command and, in Penn., there is no further requirement by Paterno and that includes follow up. It is up to and required by his bosses to report it to law enforcement.

    (2) Now, is there a moral issue? Of course. As stated, if I had seen it, there would be no problem today. The perpetrator would be in little pieces stuffed in a shower head, then flushed down the toilet where shit like that goes.

    (3) Now, is there an ethical issue? Of course. The ethics of the University were placed on the back burner, if not covered up. That is a responsibility of the President and Board of Regents.

    So it appears that Paterno, did all that is required legally and according to Pennsylvania Law. It appears that there are a variety of State Laws and most are different. Pennsylvania Laws concerning child sexual abuse are pretty lax. This above article goes on to say that even in states where the laws are rigid, it seems that it goes under reported for a variety of reasons. So personal attacks are not the issue. Paterno did what was required under law. However, his moral and ethical decisions, in my opinion, were severely lacking. But morals and ethics are not violations of the law. Paterno got what he deserved….he got fired. There it ends. His bosses, who were required by law to report it, and the Board of Regents (or whatever they are called) are the ones that should be jailed. Paterno, loses his legacy, his job, and his self respect and he has to live with his bad decisions the rest of his life. That is not a cop out…it is fact. Should he have done more…..I say yes. But I
    really wonder how many in SUFA would have done anything else when their livelihood and their reputation were on the line, other than what the law required.

    Child abuse is an emotional hot button for many, including myself. But it appears to be pretty low on the totem when you look at the statistics and the fact that things do not go routinely reported country wide. THIS is the travesty. Paterno is high profile but the neighbor down the street that has done this is no less guilty. I know what my ethics would do…..but what about yours? Reality is a fact check…..especially when it comes to your income and future. It clouds judgements and, I venture to say, most people would pass it on if they could. I, on the other hand, would have beat the dog shit out of the perpetrator and called the police…..others may say it is not their affair……others may not stop it but call police…..etc etc. I would have taken my chances of being charged with assault (this would not happen in Texas as we have a right to stop a crime against persons up to and including deadly force). Texas has a very strict law on child abuse and REQUIRES it to be reported. I do not agree with it entirely as childhood bruises sustained on a school yard or a broken arm on a back yard gym set are investigated and the parent or guardian are guilty until proven innocent. I have had personal experience with this as my daughter fell off a swing set at age 6 and broke her arm. The hospital emergency room reported it to the police and I was questioned within 24 hours. But Texas, through referendum, voted this into law and it remains today. Pennsylvania is less strict. So be it.

    Joe Paterno was morally and ethically deficient, in my opinion. That is a personal issue he will live with…..his punishment is just……again, in my opinion.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      Good write-up and analysis D13.

      In my not so humble opinion – anyone who looks at the scenario and offers that “you just don’t know what you’d do in that situation” – is a spineless coward. My only indecision in the matter would be what part of Sandusky would I have punched/kicked first.

      The last time I was confronted with a “what is right” versus the risk of losing job/income – I ended up leaving my job and work where I am now. It certainly did not involve rape of a child – but I felt I was being asked to perpetuate a potential violation of Federal law with respect to certain notification requirements establish for customer privacy/security. The very second I realized this my only priority became exiting the company.

      • Good morning, Ray, my friend. I hope today finds you well.

      • Ray

        “In my not so humble opinion – anyone who looks at the scenario and offers that “you just don’t know what you’d do in that situation” – is a spineless coward. ”

        How absolutely self righteous of you. Your starting to sound like you accuse me of being at times. The fact of the matter Ray is that nobody knows exactly WHAT they will do until they are tested. They can make claims all they want. They DO NOT KNOW.

        So the reality is that the one who admits this, is not a coward but the only one recognizing the truth about human behavior and themselves.

        I saw an interview with two psychologists yesterday who specialize in child abuse. Of all the people involved in this, they said the actions of McQuery were the easiest to explain and that not unusual at all. They explained how the vast majority of people will not be able to act properly when faced with situations that are unexpected and completely violate our perceptions of reality. They will either ignore it or go to someone else for guidance. And thus it goes up the chain until it is buried or someone finally acts.

        To some extent this is why the “reporting” laws were put in place.

        I’ll put all the psycho stuff aside and share their summary which I found to be very true. WE ARE NOT TRAINED TO ACT IN THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS.

        And therein lies the problem and our challenge. Punishing people for not acting according to our individual moral standards won’t solve the problem. We must start teaching people to act.

        Now this goes to USW, D13, yourself and others who say they would have attacked Sandusky in the shower. That is easy to say TODAY. Especially for men trained to ACT under such situations. But what would each have done before such training occurred? Neither I nor they can say with absolute certainty. Because our assumptions are based on who we have become, not who we were in the past.

        Before you get all technical on me, I know that the event in question was less than 20 years ago and many of us may have acted then as we would now. But the point is we really don’t know with certainty that we all claim.

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          @JAC – thanks for the reply. My reaction is that I’ve had years of martial arts and combatives training which has taught me to look at some things very differently than most. But I can state that my “training to react” I can source to vivid memories of my Father and Grandfather teaching me at a young age of what to do when I see a wrong – you right it / make an effort to make it right. See the weak kid getting his ass kicked on the playground – you defend him. Earned me a black eye and busted lip once. I’m not proclaiming I am some higher moral creature – I just remember what I was taught.

          As shocking as it may seem – it isn’t as if we’ve never heard of this type of behavior (adult rapes child). And most of us have at least played out a scenario in our minds (even more so if you have kids I think) – of “what would I do”. Its my belief that the cowardice I refer to is that too often people are unwilling to own the outcomes of their actions (or inactions). Going and telling someone else merely places the burden elsewhere. I am not okay with that.

          • Ray

            And my main point is that it is wrong to condemn others as “cowards” for not acting in a way that we might act. Telling someone else may be considered as just passing the buck to you, but to them it may seem the only appropriate action.

            Remember my comment yesterday about putting faith in Govt systems. We are all conditioned to believe this is what you are supposed to do. Some of us act outside this conditioning and we take our chances. Depending on the results we are called heroes or villains.

            Cowardice in my view is the result of fear. If a person acts or does not act out of fear then we might call it cowardice. Or we might call it “common sense” depending on the situation. But the presence of some fear of risk to us is the key component. We may be saying the same thing here but using different words.

            So action or inaction due to “confusion” or “uncertainty”, that can be caused by institutional or psychological factors, would not qualify as cowardice in my view. It does tell me we need to work harder to teach each generation how to overcome these things so that they will take action when necessary. Obviously, not everyone has parents and grandparent like you did to teach them.

    • The colonel is spot on with this. Even on Pluto, inaction in such situations is morally reprehensible. McQreary is even more at fault and the fact this “board of hypocrites” hasn’t fired his cowardly-lion ass suggests the cover-up continues.

      Should Joe Pa be tarred and feathered? No, but he shouldn’t get to wear that lable of “honorable” anymore … at least not between the years he first knew about Sandusy (which is probably 1998, but the SAGE will accept 2002 until he’s further exposed) and 2011 (the day he was fired and didn’t voluntarily walk away).

      I understand USW’s passion about protecting Joe Pa. I was a fan of his as well, but hauling out official protocol as a defense in a situation like this is a bit too much to swallow. He did what he was legall required to do? Not on Pluto, brother. Maybe on Mars … or that town in the mountains where Ayn Rand lived in her head …

  23. Ray Hawkins says:

    “Emeritus” status is not usually a well-defined status – especially with regards to collegiate athletics. It typically means an old coach who just hangs around the team and facilities and periodically “advises” – mostly a ceremonial role.

    I train with a former Penn State DT who played under Sandusky in the early/mid 90s – and then was briefly a grad assistant. He lived in the area and maintained close ties to the program until he moved to the Philadelphia area about 7 years ago. He describes Sandusky as being very much present and as active as one could be around the team without having any official coaching responsibilities. Many companies – my own included – will allow “retirees” to stay “in the system” especially if they were long time employees or seen as valued contributors during and after formal employment. This usually means they maintain some form of approved physical plant/property access, maybe still have email/phone privileges but little else since their benefits status has changed – some get around this in private sector not by “emeritus status” but by merely classing them as consultants – I have one such person (former CFO) in my building two floors down.

  24. To all Veterans……..D13….the most humble of all colonels…..(heh heh)……Salutes all Veterans and says….thank you.

  25. I am reading all of this and I think there are some misunderstandings about exactly what Paterno would have been privy to once he reported the crime to the AD. He would have been completely out of the loop from that point forward, period. As I said above, the issue would have been handled by HR. They don’t tell anyone anything because they can’t. I don’t care what kind of power you all think Paterno has or had, he would have been told had he asked that it was being handled. That is the way HR is done because of privacy laws. The HR department is not allowed to talk to anyone outside of that department or the employee being investigated regarding the matter under investigation. They CANNOT let the employee’s supervisor know because it would violate the employee’s right to privacy and hamper him/her from doing their job without the inevitable gossip that goes on in the workplace. The person who reported the incident would have been instructed to say nothing to anyone until the HR investigation was completed. He would not have been given status updates. You’re giving power to the man that he just didn’t have.

    • Agree, The AD was head of the campus police, hence the legal authorities. Paterno met all legal requirements. It was apparently reported to the prosecuting attorney. To me, that’s where we should be looking. It may be that the University has no fault in this, but a failure of our legal system.

      • Even if it was reported to the prosecuting attorney, which I haven’t heard for sure yet, the University is still subject to a fair amount of blame. But I will wait until all the details come out before I start calling to burn people at the stake.

        • They’re hiring criminal defense attorneys doesn’t suggest anything to you?

          • It suggests to me that they have been told that there is a high likelihood that there will be civil suits filed against them. Hiring a lawyer doesn’t make you guilty. If it did, we could dispense with the court systems. Every person who hires a lawyer is guilty. Otherwise they would not bother.

            • Civil suits = a prominent criminal defense attorney. Maybe … or maybe he’s looking beyond the money end of this (which the university will be liable for, not Paterno personaly). And he’s already admitted guilt over not doing enough. “I wish I would’ve done more.” I don’t know how you walk that back, brother.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Kristian – I’m not so certain I follow you here.

      Let’s assume first that even with “emeritus status” Sandusky still effectively reported to Paterno – this affirms a need-to-know for Paterno.

      McQueary, who reported the original incident did not have a right/need-to-know of how the ongoing investigation was going (even though we can probably assume now that any investigation likely involved investigating how quickly they could cover this up).

      I have a running queue of 5-6 cases I am constantly working that involve employee HR issues – this runs the gamut from from inappropriate Internet access/use, security policy violations, alleged theft of patient property, and so on. In EVERY case both the manager of the employee AND HR are intimately involved. The only exception would be is if the manager is also a suspect in the case I am working. I am not aware of how that violates any privacy laws.

      The reason in the Paterno case that he should have been involved and privy to disposition is that Sandusky still had access to the kids in the program he ran AND he had access to the kids otherwise-known-as the Penn State football players.

      Think of a cop involved in a shooting – they are routinely put on “desk duty” pending the outcome of an investigation so no one is putting is a potentially dangerous individual on the streets who has a badge and access to a gun. If you have a bank teller who is alleged to have stolen money – you must empower the manager to have knowledge of disposition of the case so they aren’t endangering the assets of other customers and the bank as a whole. To not do so would be completely irresponsible of HR.

      • I understand what you are saying, but if Sandusky was an “emeritus” employee, Paterno would not have been his supervisor. He would not have really had a supervisor. I would question that he was granted that status after something like that had been reported, wouldn’t you?

        • Ray Hawkins says:

          I would question it as well – while I am harsh on Paterno I really do think there were many others involved.

          For practical purposes (me thinking like an IT guy) – someone would have to be identified as Sandusky’s “reports to” – I can’t think of who else that would be except Paterno.

          • Not necessarily. We are thinking about this from a business place point of view, this is a school setting we are talking about here. I used to volunteer at my daughter’s school, I wasn’t an employee and I didn’t have a supervisor. There was no one person that I reported to, I worked where they needed me, be it in the classroom or the cafeteria or the library. I signed in at the front desk so the school knew that I was there and then I went to the teacher’s room that I volunteered in but she was in no way considered a supervisor.

            • So are you arguing that your volunteering made you some kind of “employee” garnering you some privacy rights should the school officials have investigated any complaint(s) against you that may have been brought forth?

              I have directly supervised personnel investigated by HR for complaints against them and I have been appraised of the outcome as a part of my need to supervise the individual. In a couple of cases the HR results were the basis for a disciplinary investigation I initiated (under agency policies).

              Further, anyone given access to facilities that was not in active employment for the agency was not an employee and had no privacy rights covering any actions on their part investigated by the agency.

              Maybe it is different where you do/have worked.

              • Still, if Paterno wasn’t his supervisor, why would HR have involved him in their investigation?

                I understand the outrage, I really do. As a victim myself and having nothing done about it, I know how frustrated everyone is with what they deem his lack of action on behalf of the child. But the simple fact of the matter is, you weren’t there, none of you. You have no idea what he did or didn’t do, how he did or didn’t feel about it. You know nothing except what the media has fed you. If there is one thing that I have learned, and all of you here at SUFA should know, is that you don’t jump to conclusions till you have all the facts. Half of you here want the man strung up without having all of the facts and you’re spouting off about what you would have done. You have no idea what you would do until you’re faced with the same situation, and you know it.

                The one that should be strung up is Sandusky, but I keep hearing about Paterno. WTF? Truth be told, I’m really kinda surprised by the direction that these conversations have taken. Where is the outrage over what was done to those children? Where are all of the people crying for Sandusky”s head on a platter? Why are we debating what role Paterno may or may not have played in this? He did what he was supposed to do, he reported it.

              • Kristian,

                ,blockquote.Still, if Paterno wasn’t his supervisor, why would HR have involved him in their investigation?

                First, I will say yet again, that my point is if Sandusky was not an employee then he had no privacy rights and HR could have – COULD HAVE – provided the results to Paterno had they chosen to or had Paterno chosen to know the outcome. I don’t say they were required to do so.

                Second, one reason why Paterno whould have – on his part – wanted answers about the outcome was because the incident occurred in facilities ultimately under his supervision as head coach. I know I’d damn sure want to know under those circumstances. It doesn’t mean he had to know, I’m just showing a potential reason why he would want to know.

                I do want to see Sandusky strung up. I also want to know who else – after a complete investigation – may be guilty of any misconduct in the handling of what appears to be more than one incident that occurred on campus facilities.

                You keep hearing about Paterno here because the central focus of the article USW wrote was about Paterno.

                You are right, and I do agree, that saying what any of would or would not have done in the circumstances is moot because we weren’t there. I have seen veteran cops freeze and be unable to act, it happens. If I was asked all I could tell you is what I hope and believe I would have done.

  26. All;

    Make sure everyone out there takes the time to say “Thank You” to any and all Veterans today and through the weekend. They deserve the show or appreciation.

    I want to express my heartfelt appreciation to all those out there that had the internal fortitude and courage to serve. It is a rare being that is willing to risk their own lives to ensure the safety of their fellow citizens. Our world and our lives are better as a result of our Veterans sacrifice and dedication.

    God Bless all of them and may He reach out and comfort those who are in need….

    HAPPY VETERANS DAY EVERYONE!!!!!!

    CM

  27. I read an article today-I’m not gonna post it because it just has too much in it that I disagree with-but I’m gonna steal a point which was made that I think is accurate and stated in a pretty good way. Not an exact quote.

    “There is the way humans actually act-then there is the way humans should act-that is why we recognize hero’s when we see them.”

  28. Here’s how I hope I would have handled this – at a minimum – if I were Paterno.

    McQueary tells me about Sandusky – but gives very few details.
    I tell the AD.
    Ok, we’ve both fulfilled our legal responsibility.

    If after a few days/weeks, I’ve seen no indication of action by the AD, I’d ask him about it.
    If the response is “I can’t discuss it”, I’d go back to McQueary and get more details.

    When I hear the whole story, I go back to the AD and demand to know what actions are being taken. If the answer is unsatisfactory, I call the police.

    I would also think, since Paterno was involved in the reporting of this incident, he has some legal standing to ask about the investigation. Not “give me all the details”, but an explanation of steps being taken, progress being made, etc. I could be wrong…

    This is just too serious to “let someone else handle it”. Paterno had to know this will tarnish/end his career. And it flies in the face of his legacy of integrity and compassion.

    The “reporting chain of command” also troubles me. We all know how details get lost (or exaggerated) as a story gets told from one person to the next. And the first step in this story – McQueary tells Paterno but gives very few details – is a perfect example and sets this whole situation up for disaster. And the indictment is full of “I didn’t know the details of the 1998/2002 incident” testimony.

    Paterno should have gotten the details from McQueary during their first meeting, so he knew what he was dealing with. Was it Sandusky and another coach’s wife? Or a 20 year old student? Those are inappropriate, but not necessarily illegal. But a young boy? That requires more “due diligence”. And Paterno should have taken McQueary with him to the AD so the incident gets reported properly, and then demanded that the police be called (not Campus Police).

    This isn’t “Sandusky is stealing office supplies.” It involves young children. And the fact that the incident occurred in a locker room shower where someone could walk in on them, and the type of incident that occurred, tells me it’s not the first time. You have to “work up to that”.

  29. Everyone has been clear that he legally did the right thing. Further, the grand jury noted that Paterno was especially forthright, honest, and as helpful as possible with the investigation. In short, when it comes to him doing the right thing, there is little question that he did so.

    This is WATERGATE II, except a lot worse … and as a fan of Penn State and Joe Paterno (becuase he was a) eye-talian and b) a Brooklyn boy, I am sad about what appears to be nothing more than a Gigantic cover-up, within which he is no doubt part and parcel. He should’ve been fired day 1 this grand jury report was made public and the fact McCReary hasn’t been makes it stink all the more.

    This was a major cover-up … and I was glad this morning to hear some Colorado offensive tackle rescinded his letter of intent to play for Penn State.

  30. SEIU Now Collecting Dues from Medicaid Payments Meant for Disabled Kids
    10:09 AM, Nov 11, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY
    Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts

    There are a number of bizarre schemes unions have used to coerce dues out of public funds. For a long time, I thought the most appalling example was a Michigan scheme where the United Auto Workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees held a sham vote-by-mail organizing election that “unionized” Michigan’s home daycare providers largely against their will. This allowed them to collect union dues from state chid care subsidies.

    However, it turns out there are even worse union scams happening in Michigan right now. Joel Gehrke at the Washington Examiner reports:

    If you’re a parent who accepts Medicaid payments from the State of Michigan to help support your mentally-disabled adult children, you qualify as a state employee for the purposes of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). They can now claim and receive a portion of your Medicaid in the form of union dues.

    Robert and Patricia Haynes live in Michigan with their two adult children, who have cerebral palsy. The state government provides the family with insurance through Medicaid, but also treats them as caregivers. For the SEIU, this makes them public employees and thus members of the union, which receives $30 out of the family’s monthly Medicaid subsidy. The Michigan Quality Community Care Council (MQC3) deducts union dues on behalf of SEIU.

    The SEIU takes $6 million a year that would otherwise go to helping disabled children. Unions seem to wonder why they are under attack these days, but you read reports like this and it’s not exactly a mystery why more and more Americans are fed up.

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/seiu-now-collecting-dues-medicaid-payments-meant-disabled-kids_607981.html

    • V.H.

      I am a man who does not get truly angry easily. I have found it very costly and thus work hard to control it.

      You have managed to stir the emotions beyond the boiling point.

      Excuse me for a while. I must now go out and find an SEIU leader to beat the crap out of.

      Ray Hawkins and Todd ………..care to join me??

      • Buck the Wala says:

        Sorry JAC, though my initial reaction to the article is the same as yours, I would need much more information on this before I join you.

      • Sorry JAC, I agree with Buck. I’d need a little more information – more than a story in the Weekly Standard that quotes a story in the Washington Examiner (aren’t they related??) – before I allowed my emotions to get the best of me and went off on some “crusade” against unions with you….

        Especially since your expressed intentions would be assault & battery – if not worse.

        But you go have fun!!

      • I’ll go with you JAC. Here’s why. I happen to be a caregiver for an elderly former employee of mine. She and I are co- whatever you want to call it- for a state check. I just let her have all the money. But after I read your post I called her to get the details on the deductions and sure enough it’s labeled right on the stub…the only deductions are for FICA and UNION! Besides that I continually (like every other day) get SEIU propaganda in my mailbox, email and by phone. Ridiculous!

    • Clearly it shows the dishonesty and unfairness that occurs. I’m joining JAC, if he’ll have me, on his outing.

  31. “We are the dead; short days ago….

    We lived in rat infested trenches;
    surrounded by the stench of death,
    and the thousands of rotting corpses before us,
    all under the glow of artillery shells and screams of the dying.

    We were killed by men
    who did not hate us,
    because they would have been killed by us
    who did not hate them.

    And now, together, we and our enemies
    now we lie together forever in the dirt soaked by our own blood
    because our Masters lied and lied again….

    ….in Flanders fields.”

  32. Over 21 million people died because a Great State, run by lifetime politicians, wished to use political violence on a few other men seeking political office by using political violence to create another State out of the Greater State.

    It the end, neither the politicians of the Great State or the politicians wanting the new State got what they wanted.

    Then 35-45 million more people died because other new States that no one wanted or needed wanted to pretend they were a Great State, and killed other people who wanted a different form of a Great State.

    Then 45-55 million more people died because another politician wanted his Great State to reclaim pieces of its old State from other politicians who created new States that no one wanted, that, in the end, resulted in different States no one wanted, expansion of other States no one wanted, another 40-50 million more dead by those needing to reorganize their new States in a vision of their own insanity – all of which, no one wanted.

    Can you possibly think of a dumber, insane, irrational reason for 300 million people die?

    And you honor this?

  33. I need to say something here, and I really don’t care what anyone else thinks about my opinion!

    Joe Paterno being fired over this is absolutely absurd. He did exactly what the state law required him to do – once the incident was reported to him he took it to his bosses. They are the ones who tried to sweep it under the rug and lied to the grand jury, and they have been charged with that crime as they should be.

    The board members should be severely reprimanded for firing Joe, if not removed from the board, because their knee jerk reaction has added insult to injury to the school.

    Alumni who have a say about who serves on the board need to make themselves heard loud and long and get Joe reinstated. That, in my not-so-humble opinion, is the only way that school can start the healing process (which will most likely take a very long time) and save valuable face.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @PapaDawg – “save valuable face”……..its perhaps of no consequence to you that at least one additional victim was raped by Sandusky AFTER Paterno did what was minimally legally required for him to do? Let Paterno explain to that victim that he was simply doing what the law required him to do. No more and no less. Sad.

  34. November 11, 2011 5:15 P.M.
    Occupy Wall Street Starts to Crumble
    Inevitable divisions arise in Zuccotti Park.

    Whether or not the Occupy Wall Street movement has a legitimate or coherent purpose and to what extent its ongoing “occupation” of lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park represents a violation of the law have been discussed and debated since the first tent was pitched on September 17. But we might put these questions aside for a moment and hope to agree on one thing: that, regardless of one’s views about its message, the camp itself has become a disgrace. If this is utopia, then deliver us from it, for imperfection has a fresh and heady appeal.

    For an organization whose rhetoric casually claims “unity,” and which absurdly considers itself to be a mouthpiece for 99 percent of America, it is devastating that division and infighting increasingly mar OWS’s New York City franchise. The kibbutz has fractured. Walking around the site yesterday, it was clear that “one world” has become many. There are now palpable borders within the commune, and battle lines have been drawn.

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

    ADVERTISEMENT

    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    The “original” protesters resent the “hangers-on” and the latecomers, as early fans of a rock band might hate those who discover their heroes only after they have become popular. As always, the hard-liners despise the reformers and those who would “compromise with capitalism,” and the anarchists predictably reject all such labels entirely. Meanwhile, an unfathomably asinine dispute rages over whether the movement should seek to represent the “100 percent” or the “99 percent,” with few taking the time to consider whether it actually does either. The homeless, much praised on placards and flyers, have clearly proven themselves useful only in the abstract, and have become a rather less attractive proposition now that they have joined the fray, bringing with them something of a crime wave.

    Where unity does still exist, it is in the universal hatred felt toward the belt of “crazies” that surrounds the camp, even if the definition of “crazy” remains elusive to the vexed, and is largely reserved for anyone who “makes us look bad.” Fans of British comedy Yes, Minister will remember that “crazy” is an irregular verb: “I have an independent mind; you are an eccentric; he is round the twist.” Thus, in hushed tones, each faction complained to me about the others.

    Moreover, OWS is discovering that it is by no means inured against the sort of political and economic problems that face all polities, utopian or not. A fistfight broke out yesterday on the testy northeastern side of the camp, when one protester fashioned and displayed a cardboard sign that read, “Food is for OWS only!” This, said some of those camped nearby, was “fascism.” “No, no,” came the rejoinder, “it’s only fair! We paid for it; it’s for us! You can’t just walk in and take our stuff!” And thus, in microcosm, the debate over welfare raised its head — as it always will.

    Likewise, there is growing consternation over the group’s finances. The more than $500,000 that OWS has raised from supporters is in the hands of a shady eight-person finance committee, which is made up of “non-occupiers” who have a right of veto on proposals before they get to the General Assembly and are, thus, “becoming like the banks we are protesting.” Most of the money, the gripe goes, is “just sitting there doing nothing,” and “our ideas are not being listened to.” Worse still, some of this outrageous fortune has found its way into Amalgamated Bank, which has the temerity to deal with billionaires. To spend or not to spend, that is the question! It seems clear now that, however noble the protesters might consider themselves, and however unorthodox the community they have established, there will always be slings and arrows to suffer.

    Then there is crime. Even as Zuccotti Park has become a sea of troubles, it has been regarded as unsporting to bring up its obnoxious elements, as if to report on the dark side is to tar all associates unfairly with the same brush. But the unpleasant are demonstrably in attendance, and are no longer necessarily in the minority. I asked a “press representative,” named Justin, how many of those in the park he considered to be genuinely part of his movement, and was surprised to hear him say “less than 50 percent.” Such a confession makes the “we are the 99 percent” chant seem somewhat comical. But then, it always has been. The idea that the camp represented something new by bringing a diverse group of people together was always solipsistic. Surely, I would ask, that is what America does? What is this country if not a grouping of different people who disagree, and who work out their differences through common institutions?

    Every citizen has at least one gripe. There is something that abrades each and every one of us. But most of us do not join communes that earnestly and loudly pretend to be above the noisy and boisterous process we call democracy, even as our replacement society crumbles ignominiously around us.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283013/occupy-wall-street-starts-crumble-charles-c-w-cooke

  35. They’re protesting your idea of Utopia, VH … the idea of the many working for the extravagance of the few. Make no mistake, this is the start of a revolution that may take a while yet to come to pass, but it is the start of something genuine. Whether they realize it or not, what they’re protesting is the inherent inequalities of capitalism.

    First they ignore us (what you’re all trying to do now) … then they laugh at us (some of you have already done that) … then they fight us (some have started that as well) … then we win. (Gandhi) …

    And something tells me he was an even more powerful SAGE than me!

    • The only thing they are celebrating is their IGNORANCE.

      At least they were good enough to put it on full display so we would know who they really are.

      • Like i said, first you ignore us …

        • Charlie

          Make no mistake. I DO NOT ignore those who are ignorant and stupid.

          They are the most dangerous humans on the planet. They will kill millions at the drop of a hat, all in the name of “greater good”.

          That is why I keep a keen eye on your beloved tribe.

          • JAC. It does my heart good to see the name calling is back. I love kicking SOME of your asses here (verbally, of course).

            If my guys are ignorant and stupid. What do you call your guys (Perry/Cain)? Geniuses, no doubt. Two of the englightened, for sure.

            And it’s good to know you discount all those killed in the name of capitalism.

            JAC, you’re why we’ll win.

            • Charlie

              I call Perry and Cain YOUR guys, not mine.

              I don’t “discount” the deaths of anyone Charlie. But the difference between us is that I understand why they died and how that all fits within the context of human history. You either don’t, or you choose to ignore it.

              Your political philosophy demands the death of innocent people. Mine does not. Yours leads to barbarism, mine to civilization.

      • The knowledge that Charlie, identifies with this group and recognizes that their views align with his-“whether they realize it or not”-should open the eyes of some on this blog of what they are supporting when they stand with the “Occupy Wall Street” crowd.

    • I find I can agree with two of your statements-there are indeed many people who have no idea what they are actually supporting-and “you” may “win”-but in this case winning means we all Lose

      • You only lose if you’re on your side.

        🙂

        • Open your eyes Charlie-stop talking solely from your heart and your anger-you look at the consequences of human nature and blame them on capitalism, you might as well say Freedom is bad-but we’re at a time in our history where the government controls almost everything, doesn’t exactly fit the definition of capitalism does it- yet your answer is less freedom instead of more. Socialism/Communism doesn’t make the world “fair” -it just takes away the freedom to fight the unfairness. Hell, give us a fighting change to survive and advance economically- something we can only do through individual ownership and freedom. Not some pipe dream utopia that has already been proven a failure, not to mention deadly.

  36. Big night for the OWS crowd coming up.

    Portland has “evicted” the rats. They must be gone by midnight tonight. The Union and Church leaders have pledged to lock arms with the rats to show solidarity. Wonder if I can find an SEIU leader there???? The one I found yesterday ran like a lizard looking for shade on a summer day.

    They thought they would get reinforcements from Oakland, but alas, they to have been evicted. Thanks to them interfering with EMS response to a shooting/murder in broad daylight yesterday.

  37. @ Todd: I don’t think he fooled you – or anyone. You don’t “fake” integrity and compassion for 40+ years.

    See the following about Cardinal Bernard Law (and others) … men who sure and shit “FAKED” intergrity and compassion and for more than 40 years … do I think Joe Paterno belongs with these pieces of shit? Absolutely not. Do I think Joe Paterno opted for his program and institution over the welfare of kids? Absolutely … and there’s nothing honorable about it.

    http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news/2004_09_12_Dunklin_InThe.htm

  38. Oh boy, I can’t wait for the flit to hit the shan.

    http://espn.go.com/

    In case this changes, it was a picture of the Nebraska and Penn St. players joining in a pre-game PRAYER.

  39. Yes, a Kodak moment, no doubt. I’m sure the parents of the kids abused by Sandusky were teary eyed at the sight (not to mention the kids who were raped). I’m sure all of those players did that on their own too. No prompting from their coaches or school officials.

    Yeah, right.

    New high school football stars will now flock to Penn State for the prayer sideshow.

  40. Todd

    Re: your comment of yesterday “before I allowed my emotions to get the best of me and went off on some “crusade” against unions with you…. ”

    Just wanted to clear up any possible confusion. I am not on a crusade against unions.

    I am on a crusade against PUBLIC EMPLOYEE Unions. There is absolutely no need for them and they are immoral.

    I also happen to think the leadership of SEIU is repugnant and died in the mold of the Union Thugs of the 60’s and 70’s, that being Hoffa.

    To use their political clout to get the State to help them tap into Medicaid funds targeted for handicapped children is beyond repugnant. It is obscene.

    I think people have a right to associate with whom they wish. If they wish to form a union to negotiate with their employer then I have no problem with that. I have no problem with the employer saying no thank you.

    They can strike if they want. The employer can replace them if they want. The Govt should stay OUT of their business. Remember, it was the employer’s use of Govt force to enforce their views that originally created the supposed “labor violence” in this country. The pendulum has now swung the other way. Each side tries to use Govt force to enforce their side. It needs to stop for BOTH sides.

  41. http://www.fairtax.org/PDF/GradingtheTaxReformPlans_10.16.2011.pdf

    The above is a comparison of the Fair vs Flat tax proposals. It is biased but instructive.

  42. I’ll admit…I shed a tear for JAY Paterno during his post game interview with ESPN. But it was a class act for both teams to take a knee in solidarity for the kids before and after the game.

  43. I have been doing a lot of reading and contemplation on the whole Penn State scandal and I wish to say a couple of things.

    I have made my decision on my judgment of McQueary. I will say I have come to my own conclusion that he is – as others have pointed out – a coward. Here is a fairly large guy (from the photos I’ve now seen) who observed Sandusky anally raping a boy of about 10 years of age (by his determination) and did nothing reasonable to bring it to a stop. I know I have sated none of us can say for absolute certainty what we would do in the same situation, but I believe there were options available to McQueary at that time.

    He was aware of who Sandusky was, and likely “knew” Sandusky to some degree. McQueary could have yelled out and demanded to know what Sandusky was doing. This, in my belief, would have at least immediately ended the ongoing rape of the child. I don’t see where McQueary could have had any fear for his own safety as he observed the two naked in the shower and the only “weapon” available to Sandusky was being used to rape the child. Seeing the size of McQueary from the photos I seriously doubt he couldn’t have handled a physical confrontation with Sandusky.

    At the least there was the option that McQueary could have grabbed a phone and called, at the minimum, University Police and reported the rape in progress and awaited in safety till the campus police arrived and taken them into where Sandusky was with the child. Instead McQueary tells his father (why didn’t Dad call the cops?) and waits until the next morning to arrange to meet Paterno and tell him of what he saw.

    Paterno makes his report up the authority chain. Then the coverup begins to protect the schools reputation. I can’t believe anything less than that of school officials. There is enough information to lead to the reasonable belief that a coverup occurred. That child’s welfare and safety were ignored and the school “solved” their problem by telling the charity and taking away Sandusky’s keys. Reprehensible. For those who say that the AD was also in charge of the campus cops means nothing more than the AD can control what the campus police will or won’t do or say.

    Paterno is – in my opinion now – guilty of ignoring his own moral compass by either knowingly or purposely maintaining “ignorance” over the issue. Sorry USW, but IMO he tarnished his reputation and deserves whatever scorn people lay at his door, as do McQueary and the other school officials.

    Now, in all fairness I will disclose my potential bias/prejudice.

    Two weeks ago tomorrow my 12 1/2 year old stepdaughter came to me and in a painful conversation for her told me of the sexual molestation and abuse she suffered for between six months and a year when she was 7 from my wife’s then live-in boyfriend. She has buried this for over 4 1/2 years now and came to me because the nightmares she has had since had become unbearable. She is devastated, she is ashamed, she felt like it was her fault and my wife is as well. My wife is feeling extreme guilt and shame that she didn’t protect her daughter, even though she knew nothing of what was happening. We have much to do now to insure our daughter has all the professional help she needs to deal with all that happened to her. We have notified law enforcement – we had no choice in that anyway as my wife is an RN and has a legal duty to report the abuse. We as individuals and as a family have a lot of work ahead of us to deal with this.

    I want justice for my child and I admit to wanting to handle getting her justice on my own, but I won’t abandon my family by doing something that would gain me nothing more than the rest of my life in prison.

    So, if this makes me prejudiced, so be it. McQueary abandoned that child and there is no excuse for it. Cowardliness on his part and on all involved in the coverup to protect the schools reputation. They ALL abandoned that child. There is no excuse or explanation that can justify that.

    I’m done now with this issue. May God have mercy on their souls, for I can not.

    • You and yours have the Stella family’s best wishes, sir.

    • ugh…I cannot imagine…stand tall littleSpoken…and good luck to the bigSpokens.

    • Thank you Charlie and Anita. Your thoughts and best wishes are much appreciated. littleSpoken has shown a depth of strength her Mom and I are amazed at.

      • Just make sure that she knows that you love her and that it isn’t her fault in any way, shape or form. The biggest question she is going to have is, why me? What did I do wrong? Help her to understand that there is no real answer to that question and that she didn’t do anything wrong. I wish that someone had done that for me, things may have turned out a little differently for me if someone had. Also, make sure she knows that she isn’t alone, that this happens to others and she has nothing to be ashamed of. Her attacker is the one that should feel the shame, not her.

        I wish that I could tell you that she will eventually get over this, but the sad fact is she will carry it all her life. But if you can show her how to carry it so that it doesn’t control her life, you will have done a her a great service. I wish you luck and God’s speed.

        • Thank you Kristian for your thoughts and best wishes, we appreciate them.

          All the aspects you mentioned were the messages we were, and are, keeping in her thinking.

    • Plainlyspoken,
      Wow, I can’t imagine what your family is going thru. You’re all in our prayers.

      A couple thoughts that came to mind as I read (over & over) your comments:

      Kudos to you. Why? Let’s look at this thru your stepdaughter’s eyes. When you entered her life, I’ll bet her first thought was “here’s my next abuser”. What else would she think? I’m sure you treated her very nice – and I’ll bet the previous boyfriend did too. And yet in just a few years you made her comfortable enough to tell you her deepest and darkest secret. That speaks to a level of integrity and compassion that would be almost immeasurable…

      Now, in all fairness I will disclose my potential bias/prejudice.

      So, if this makes me prejudiced, so be it.

      Bias or prejudice? Nope. I’d call it perspective. I think it gives you insight into the impact that sexual molestation has on children, and why it’s something that cannot simply be handled “thru official channels”.

      • I agree and good post, Todd (put that down in the record books!)

        Plainly, you and your family are in my thoughts and prayers.

      • You’re all in our prayers.

        Thank you Todd, this is much appreciated.

        Kudos to you

        I don’t see it that way, but thanks. I am just a Dad. I have three grown children from previous marriage and I did only what all that experience has taught me.

        The real kudos belongs to her, as she had the strength to hold on to her fears and pain alone while adjusting to the only Dad she has ever known (her biological father managed to put himself in a grave while she was still an infant – which made things safer for her and my wife). The fact that she could still find the ability to trust is a credit to her as well.

        I’d call it perspective.

        I will agree that I have a whole new perspective. I know you’ll understand when I say I wish I didn’t though.

    • I will be praying for you and yours.

    • Plainly,

      I echo Todd, you must be providing a home environment where she now feels safe, secure and loved. You have given her a chance to heal.
      I have a close friend that went thru a similar situation, the children’s father is in prison for 40 years. I hope prison justice makes those years short and miserable.

      • Thank you LOI, I appreciate your thoughts.

        littleSpoken (thank you Anita for providing the tag name for her) has said that she is finding it easier to sleep at night and while she is still having nightmares she finds it less difficult to get past them when they wake her.

        It’s a good start IMHO.

    • Ray Hawkins says:

      @Plainlyspoken – your observations are much appreciated and I agree with you spot on. I hope you and your family can find peace and put this heinous event behind you that you shared. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your stepdaughter. I certainly hope justice finds this animal that hurt her.

  44. Aghhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

    Bamadad, I am feeling your pain at this moment. Damn horny toads!!! Damn NOT field goal kickers. Spousal Unit Leader said even she could have done that good.

    • All I have to say is go all the way LSU win the SEC Championship and come on Oklahoma beat Oak State, then LSU and Alabama in the title game.

  45. Boise, Boise, Boise….VH, please pass the bourbon to JAC 🙂

  46. Okay-before you read this-I admit it is totally one sided. No tit for tat in evidence anywhere. 🙂 But I also see a lot of truth in it, when applied to the media,the talking heads, and the extreme.

    Conservative Judo: How to Fight the Smears and Take the Offensive
    by Kurt Schlichter

    To quote someone we all know and love, let me be perfectly clear: The mainstream media is the bought and paid for lapdog of the liberal Democrat elite. It will not only never give conservatives a fair hearing but will actively distort, lie and slander in an effort to destroy any conservative it sees as a threat to its masters. So why the hell do conservatives treat its members with anything other than contempt and allow it to set the agenda and exploit fault lines in the movement?

    Easy – conservatives tend to be polite, reasonable people with a genuine interest in honest debate and a quaint belief in the efficacy of things like “facts” and “evidence” as a way to demonstrate the truth. No wonder they get rolled. The other side believes in none of those things – its only belief is that leftism must prevail and any other value is disposable if it turns into a liability. The answer is conservative judo – understanding how the Left works and using its own weight and momentum against it. We need to start being less like butt-kissing conservanerd David Brooks and more like butt-kicking conservastud Chuck Norris.

    Conservative judo means going on the offense and keeping on the offense. It’s not about reasoning with unreasonable people; it’s about using their own strengths against them to defeat them. It has application to the GOP candidates for sure, but it also applies to those of us in the real world facing liberals every day.

    The bizarre Rick Perry rock pseudo-scandal is a wonderful teachable moment for conservatives, mostly because the GOP candidates’ reactions allowed this contemptible lie to gain steam. The Washington Post ran a story that some idiot wrote a racial slur on a rock at some ranch where Rick Perry hunted. Now, one might observe that the facts and evidence show that about 30 years ago the Perry family got a hunting lease and promptly painted over the word. One might also note that Perry was a Democrat at the time. Moreover, the sources who disagree can’t agree on a different timeline and won’t give their names – inconsistent, anonymous hearsay is apparently acceptable when it comes to conservatives.

    But none of this matters. It’s not about “facts” or “evidence” or even “truth.” It’s a calculated smear designed by a liberal rag to slander a leading GOP candidate. Moreover, it is another example of a partisan political publication hiding behind the lie that it is an objective news source. It is not. The Washington Post, like the New York Times and the vast majority of mainstream media outlets, is an active collaborator with the liberal elite. If it weren’t, Andrew Breitbart would not be the one breaking the story of Barak Obama’s game of patty cake with the expressly black supremacist New Black Panthers.

    The question is, then, why the other GOP candidates tolerated this attack instead of coming to his defense – after all, this was an attack not just on Rick Perry but upon every conservative. This was pure innuendo designed not just to trash one candidate but to feed a narrative that all conservatives are just one sheet away from an old fashioned cross burning of the kind dead Democratic icon Robert Byrd would have enjoyed in his pre-Senate capacity as a KKK Kleagle.

    Herman Cain fell right into the trap. A good man, it seems he did so here not in a short-sighted attempt to capitalize on the blow to Rick Perry but because he was genuinely disgusted with the idea that some nitwit would paint that sort of thing on a rock. When asked about it (at the 3:42 mark) by Chris Wallace of Fox News, he responded that it was “insensitive.” Well, “insensitive” is one word for it – Cain was being kind. My saltier characterization would have included an adjective beginning with an “F.” Cain later clarified that he was referring to the person who wrote it, and that he did not believe the Rock of Outrages represented Perry’s belief. Too late. The damage was done.

    He had reinforced the meme by not aggressively attacking it with conservative judo. He should have said to Wallace, who himself was forced into raising the issue on his show by the fact that the Post ran a huge front page story, something like:

    Chris, I read the Post’s story and it was a transparent slander of a good man. I’m not going to play that game and comment on the lies of people without the fortitude to make their accusations in public. It was journalistic malpractice to run that story and I’m disappointed that you were forced to ask me something based on such shoddy reporting. My question is where was the Post when Barack Obama was spending 20 years listening to Reverend Wright’s sick racist rants? Where was the Post when he marched with the New Black Panthers? Where was the Post when his Department of Justice started basing its prosecution choices on the races of the criminals? Is the Post and it’s liberal comrades covering for him on purpose?

    You don’t acknowledge the lie. You turn it around and attack the premise – and the bogus journalistic integrity these hacks pretend to possess in order to enhance the credibility of their smears. It’s conservative judo – you go on the offensive and make the liberal water-carries like the Post defend their failure to adhere to their supposed standards (For those Alinsky mavens out there, that’s Rule No. 4).

    The liberal mainstream media’s power is such that they can ignite a fire storm that even fair and balanced media like Fox News must cover; conservative judo turns that into an opportunity for a counterattack.

    Cain screwed up twice this weekend. He also allowed the Obama “defense of gay soldiers” meme to take root when he said that he regretted not reacting to the booing after the gay soldier asked a question at the last debate. Again, the facts don’t matter. That the booing was by perhaps two people out of thousands (See for yourself, which is more than the MSM will let you do) and that the booing was for the question as opposed to “the soldier” do not matter. Not at all.

    The purpose of this meme is to allow liberals, whose record of contempt for the military speaks for itself, to attempt to take the moral high ground of supporting our troops in order to divert attention from their utter failure of governance. And Cain, by responding without challenging the premise, fell into the trap. He’s a decent guy. Booing is not nice. It’s easy to see how he walked into the ambush his MSM interviewer, Christiane Amanpour set for him.

    The proper response was:

    I know what you are doing and I’m not here to allow you to divert people’s attention from President Obama’s track record of total failure with what you know is a bogus charge promoted by the Democrat party and its leftwing associates. Do you really think a couple people’s opinion about a debate question is more important than the pay-for-play capitalism of Solyndra? If the Democrats really cared about the people who protect us, why are they obstructing the Fast and Furious investigation of how guns Eric Holder allowed to be sent to Mexico ended up killing to US federal officers?

    Never – ever – fight on your opponents’ terms. If you do, you accept their premises, and if you accept the premises of the Democrat media complex you are already on the way to losing.

    Cain is a great American but an inexperienced candidate who has not learned that he has no obligation at all to assist the press in their schemes. The press is not some collection of neutral factfinders on a mission to provide objective truth to the American people. It’s a player, and it’s on the other team.

    No conservative has any moral or other obligation to answer any question from the MSM. None. Rejecting them drives the MSM tools nuts too, which is a fringe benefit – their egos are totally bound up in the pose they assume as Guardians of the Truth. It crushes them to be treated like the partisan hacks they are – partisan hacks, mind you, that become less powerful each day as the circulation of their primitive newspapers shrinks down to nothing. Employ the conservative judo, and don’t let them tap out.

    Cain can easily come back from this misstep; this is a learning point for a new candidate, and he remains an awesome potential nominee. Nor is he alone. Rick Perry made a similar mistake with his “heartless” comment. It’s pretty lame to see a dedicated conservative labeling other conservatives “heartless” because they disagree with his position – especially when that feeds the Left’s larger meme of conservative cruelty. Nor is Romney innocent with his Social Security pandering. Both have more experience in the arena than Cain and both ought to know better.

    Yeah, in the short term buying into these premises might have hurt their opponents, but in the long term it trashes the movement. And candidates, your personal career goals are absolutely irrelevant to the movement – if you choose to harm the movement to further your own campaign you demonstrate that you are unworthy of our support.

    There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, but the lazy and shortsighted tactic of jumping aboard a liberal media meme to try for a tiny bounce in the polls helps the real opposition more than the short-sighted candidate. And it alienates conservatives who hate seeing potential candidates line up with the Left.

    In everyday life, conservative judo is important too. As a conservative, you’ll be faced with all manner of liberal memes designed to shake your faith in constitutional conservatism and to reinforce the faith of liberals who look around and can’t help but see their damage their idiotic policies are causing the country. That’s why liberalism’s main effort today is distraction – they want to draw peoples’ attention away from the wreckage of the economy and the Administration’s utter failure at all costs. “Rick Perry saw a racist rock!” is the equivalent of yelling to a Labrador retriever puppy, “Look, a squirrel!”

    Don’t let them get away with it.

    Step One: Recognize the tactic. Any time a liberal mentions an issue, a controversy or some other ginned-up kerfuffle, you can be sure that the purpose is to paint conservatives as racists, sexists, homophobes, imperialists or some other “ist” that they consider bad this week. Take up your conservative judo fighting stance!

    Step Two: Redirect the blow. Point out exactly what is happening:

    I see you are trying to imply Rick Perry is a racist because someone else did something a long time ago, but it’s pretty clear what you really want to do is not talk about 9% plus unemployment under Obama. I don’t blame you for trying – with a record of failure like Obama has, I can see why you want to try and divert attention by making up stories.

    Step Three: Strike the Gut. The staggering hypocrisy of the Left, which is more racist, more sexist, and more bigoted in general than the Right could ever be, provides a delightful smorgasbord of hypocrisy to choose from. Find it, and slam it home:

    What I want to see is the President explain why he would appear on the same stage as the New Black Panthers. I mean, first he sits in Reverend Wright’s pews for a couple decades, then he eulogizes Democrat icon and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd, and now he’s marching with his pals in the Black Panthers. If Perry did any of those things, I couldn’t support him. How can you still support Obama?

    Just let them savor that for a while. And remember, you can never reference Democrat icon and KKK kleagle Robert Byrd often enough.

    Conservative judo is the synthesis of the recognition of the nature of our opponents and their favorite strategies with a fierce delight in counterattacking in order to retake the offensive and defeat their schemes. Our candidates need to understand who they are dealing with and they need to understand that any backpedaling that accepts liberal premises simply makes the real opposition stronger. And we need to do the same in our own lives.

    Now get out there and make Chuck Norris proud!

    http://biggovernment.com/kschlichter/2011/10/04/conservative-judo-how-to-fight-the-smears-and-take-the-offensive/

  47. Here you go everyone. The NEW PROGRESSIVE movement.

    By yet another hard thinker from Columbia University.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-new-progressive-movement.html?_r=1

    The fallacies and errors are so numerous I couldn’t respond without choking.

  48. I know the Occupy people have been arguing about what to do with their $500,000 -I think I’ve found the perfect way for them to spend it.

    Occupy Wall Street costs local businesses $479,400!

    By CANDICE M. GIOVE

    Last Updated: 1:26 PM, November 13, 2011

    Posted: 12:52 AM, November 13, 2011

    I

    The Occupy Wall Street movement has cost surrounding businesses $479,400 so far, store owners said.

    A Post survey of a dozen restaurants, jewelry shops, beauty salons, a chain store and mom-and-pop establishments tallied almost a half-million dollars lost in the 53 days since the Zuccotti Park siege began on Sept. 17.

    “We’re done with them!” barked one Broadway business owner. The restaurateur — who requested anonymity for fear of reprisals — said his profits drained as soon as campers moved in.

    “My customers used to take food to eat in the park, but now they can’t,” he lamented.
    TRASH TALK: Occupy Wall Street protesters have cost local businessmen like Mike Rauach, of VIP Men’s Suits, dearly. Customers “run away,” he says.
    Helayne Seidman
    TRASH TALK: Occupy Wall Street protesters have cost local businessmen like Mike Rauach, of VIP Men’s Suits, dearly. Customers “run away,” he says.

    With clogged streets, aggressive signs and stories of predators and criminals lurking among the knot of protesters, business owners and managers say shoppers are not taking the risk of coming to the area.

    “They think the protesters are violent,” said Jewelry 21 manager Danny Nia.

    It’s worst on Saturdays, when protesters parade up and down Broadway all day long, the businesses said.

    “When they march on the sidewalk, everyone runs away,” said Mike Rauach, owner of VIP Men’s Suits on Broadway. “They kill business.”

    Some businesses have suffered higher staffing costs. Stubborn occupiers, for example, often hold impromptu meetings inside coffee shop Pret a Manger, forcing workers to stay hours past closing time.

    “They’d keep asking for 20 minutes, 20 minutes,” one worker complained.

    And the coffee shop has lost loyal customers who now can’t find a place to sit.

    “But we can’t tell [OWS protesters] to leave,” the worker added.

    The movement costs the dozen businesses just over $9,000 a day.

    That figure doesn’t include money spent on toilet paper, cleaning supplies and repairs, businesses said, as the tent dwellers turn bathrooms into personal washrooms.

    On two separate occasions the owner of the Essex World Cafe has rolled up his gate to find someone had defecated on it overnight.

    “It must be a good place for them to hide,” the owner cringed.

    Next door at Ho Yip, a Chinese restaurant, filthy clothes and underwear carpet the bathroom floor, the manager said.

    “I have to pick it up,” the manager groused.

    At Cafe Health World on Maiden Lane, delivery calls have slowed down from Goldman Sachs, where mid-level analysts burning the midnight oil would often order takeout. Now, manager Alex Furkov said, no one wants to stay in the Financial District.

    “They’re making it look like everyone’s Warren Buffett over there,” he said. “They’re our livelihood. That’s what keeps the lights on in this place.”

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/item_Wq8d8Q0M0W98jwaQAVPvYL#ixzz1dcFtuJwD

  49. The Free market (free men) doing what free men do (when it’s in their own interest).

    1) Take the safe and legal way out (do what is “legally” required)

    2) Protect the institution they are dependent on (where they get their checks from)

    3) Turn the other way when it’s dollars ($50+ million a year Penn State’s football program is worth to the University) vs. the safety of innocent kids.

    That’s your free market … or would you like to find some way to blame the government for this?

    • Good morning, Charlie…..had to catch up on everything since I have been gone since Thursday…..Yes…..I can point to three areas where government is totally responsible for this. Want to know?

  50. The most compassionate piece I’ve seen about Joe Pa. Good article by Russ Douthat.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/douthat-the-devil-and-joe-paterno.html?_r=1

    • Terry Evans says:

      Where are your Bills this morning? 44-7…wow!

      • If you followed my blog (and you should) … you’d know that I said our 23-0 shutout over the WAshingtonians was probably our last win of the season … we aren’t very good. But hope springs eternal! Wait until we play the Broncos!

        I think …

  51. November 14, 2011
    The Implications of Proliferating Regional Government
    By John Griffing

    All over the world, regions stand where nations once stood. The world is on the cusp of a revolution in political arrangements, as the citizens of the world are losing control with hardly a word spoken.

    After the successful Aunschluss of the Lisbon Treaty took place, historic European nations fell one by one to the power of the European Union. Recent reports indicate that a small elite now governs Europe, through a highly removed and secretive process. Examples of this newfound European collectivism were observed recently in Greece, when EU officials threatened to place the nation of Greece in suzerainty, due to unsustainable debt obligations. A nation reduced to province?

    But this trend is not limited to Europe. In Asia, APEC now straddles the region, drawing on pledges from individual member nations to surrender economic sovereignty to APEC institutions. In South East Asia, ASEAN gains increasing leverage over previously sacred national spheres. In Africa, the budding OAU exercises military and economic authority. In the Caribbean, CARICOM has taken over money, government, and education. What is left of any significance?

    In the Pacific, PACICOM unites the island nations, previously colonized by European powers that no longer exist. In the former Soviet Union, the CIS, once sidelined by westerners as a futile attempt to cling to past Soviet grandeur, has regained control over key policy areas, due to recent demonstrations of Russian might in surrounding Slavic countries. Poland, the Ukraine, and Georgia are all under official threat from Moscow.

    The Arabic-speaking nations long ago homogenized decision-making processes within an arrangement known as the Arab League. The unique oil-based interests of the Middle-East make supranational interaction a necessity.

    And Latin America has for many years systematically pooled its sovereignty within min-regional unions like MERCOSUR, progressing to an EU-prototype called the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR). UNASUR even has its own regional parliament. There are currently ten such regional governments in place. America has been guided to its super-region relatively quietly, owing in large part to American sensitivity to loss of freedom and political independence to foreign powers. East-West claims to ideological difference have faded into the pages of history, as all nations bow to centralized, regional governance.

    Debates over regionalism, or the absorption of the nation-state into wider regional structures, have been at the forefront of the modern body politic. Everything from the European Union, to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America — already acknowledged as a North American Union prototype by the intellectual elite — have been designed to replace the aging concept of nationhood. But what is still less known is that regionalism is by no means the ultimate end. As the word region implies, these entities are intended to be merely stepping stones on the way to complete global governance.

    It was Joseph Stalin who first observed that people will more readily surrender sovereignty to vague regional entities with which they have more in common, than to an abrasive world authority. In his 1912 essay “Marxism and the National Question,” Joseph Stalin maintained that “regional autonomy is an essential element in the solution of the national problem.” American leaders are intentionally or unwittingly following the communist blueprint.

    Regionalism is the “bite by bite” process elitists have chosen to bring about their desired goal of world government. By carving up the world into vast regional blocs, the upward consolidation required for world government can proceed undetected. As former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski informed his co-conspirators at the Gorbachev State of the World Forum:

    We cannot leap into world government in one quick step…The precondition for eventual globalization-genuine globalization-is progressive regionalization, because thereby we can move toward larger, more stable, more cooperative units.

    At the outset of America’s Bicentennial, Brzezenski would remark:

    Either 1976 or 1989-the two-hundredth anniversary of the Constitution-could serve as a suitable target date for culminating national dialogue on the relevance…of the representative process, and the desirability of imitating the various European regionalization reforms…More important still, either date would provide a suitable occasion for redefining the meaning of modern democracy….

    What could possibly be improved upon in the American system, a system designed to secure liberty, by “imitating” the centralized and undemocratic European model? Unless the aim is to consolidate power, shouldn’t the structure of American government be left alone? To translate, what Brzezinski and his cabal advocate is nothing short of unbridled, unchecked power. This is further substantiated by the 1928 Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) report, Survey of American Relations, which suggests this key reform:

    Substitution of a majority of both houses for two-thirds of the Senate in treaty ratification would accord with the practice of most continental European governments…This would seem reasonable, in view of the constitutional provision that treaties are the supreme law of the land….

    This means simply, that if the proviso requiring the less attainable two-thirds majority of the Senate for the passage of treaties can be eliminated, treaties can be used more effectively to combat America’s “passion for independence,” a derogatory label the report assigns to American patriotism. The “dialogue” to which Brzezinski refers seems to be an extension of the dialogue of 1776. Will we be ruled by foreigners, unelected and unaccountable? Will we craft government to so look like every other despotic autocracy the world over? Or will America remain a beacon of freedom, mankind’s last best hope? This question has not yet been answered, but at present, the Brzezinskis are winning.

    Borrowing proposals from the prominent Council on Foreign Relations in the 2005 report, Building a North American Community, President Bush advanced a trilateral pact called the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), entangling America within a trilateral regulatory “harmonization” process, by which all federal and state law could be amalgamated with the laws and traditions of Mexico (and Canada). Bush then rammed S. 1348 through Congress under the guise of immigration reform, containing alarming surrenders of national sovereignty to North American partners Canada and Mexico, including: a common security perimeter, visa waivers for all Mexican and Canadian nationals, tri-national law enforcement cooperation, the relocation of border enforcement resources to Mexico’s southern border, and full mobility of labor.

    Current refusal on the part of the Obama Administration to enforce the border, including legal challenges to states exercising this authority, should be seen as a desperate attempt to hasten regionalization of the North American continent, displacing citizens and increasing foreign loyalties amongst residents. And yet, Obama’s premeditated attack on US sovereignty is not found only in his benign neglect of immigration laws. President Obama decided to implement the Bush-era call for a “continental perimeter” without the constitutionally required vote from Congress in February and just last week President Obama bypassed Congress and allowed unscreened Mexican trucks to cross US borders in violation of current statute and in a brazen assault on the American trucking industry. But then, what industry hasn’t Obama assaulted? More importantly, permitting an invasion of Mexican trucks weakens the sovereignty of the United States and creates an artificial need for “North American” standards.

    And “North America” is not the only region with which the United States is engaged. The US has concluded multiple unofficial agreements with the EU and APEC that pledge America to steadily transfer remaining American sovereignty into foreign hands over the next few years. And now, President Obama is poised to lay the final brick, retooling and renaming the American project to avoid any further public scrutiny.

    That the American intellectual and political elite are striving for world government is incontrovertible. But what do they actually gain if they succeed? Whatever power or wealth they have been promised surely could not be as great as what they already have with a strong America. But what’s to say the promisors won’t renege on their pledges once America has lost the privilege of the last word? Right now, America is the guarantor of international justice, but if America is destroyed, so ultimately is this accountability. Besides, assuming our leaders obtain their coveted positions in the new order, they will still have to share power with numerous bureaucrats from hundreds of other states. Why not just stay America?

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/11/the_implications_of_proliferating_regional_government.html#ixzz1dgTeqNhi

  52. Okay, what’s up with this resident legal minds-he gets bail!!!!!! -that he doesn’t have to pay-so he’s walking the streets-plus the judge is involved personally in his “charity” On what legal basis can the judge do this?

    Judge Who Set Unsecured Bail For Jerry Sandusky Is a Second Mile Volunteer

    Judge Who Set Unsecured Bail For Jerry Sandusky Is a Second Mile Volunteer When Jerry Sandusky was initially arraigned, as previously reported by Sara Ganim, prosecutors requested $500,000.00 bail and that Sandusky be required to wear a leg monitor. District Judge Leslie Dutchcot, however, ordered that Sandusky be freed on $100,000.00 unsecured bail. She ordered that Sandusky be freed and pay nothing unless he failed to show up for a court hearing.

    Judge Dutchcot has quite the professional resume. In addition to her duties as District Judge, she is of counsel to the firm Goodall & Yurchak. It speaks to the small town nature of the county, I suppose, that the firm’s URL is “centrelaw.com.” According to her profile, Judge Dutchcot has been named the State College Lawyer of the Year, completed a “Leadership” program and has served as a counselor at Centre County Law Enforcement Camp Cadet, Inc.

    Of course, also according to her profile, Judge Dutchcot is a volunteer for Sandusky’s group, The Second Mile. Sandusky turned himself in the morning of November 5, a Saturday, at Judge Dutchot’s Centre County office. He was released, under the aforementioned terms, shortly thereafter.

    Attorneys often serve charitable foundations in their pro bono capacities, or just volunteer in their spare time, so there is nothing weird about that. It just seems that, given the nature of the charges, the small town atmosphere and her relationship to Second Mile, Judge Dutchcot should have recused herself from being involved with this process. Or, that could be precisely why she did not.

    http://deadspin.com/5859075/judge-who-set-unsecured-bail-for-jerry-sandusky-is-a-second-mile-volunteer

  53. Those watching Saturday’s Republican presidential debate in South Carolina might have noticed that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) didn’t get a lot of questions.

    According to a CBS News email message sent to the Congresswoman’s communications director, this was intentional (photo courtesy AP, vulgarity warning):

    For those not familiar with the players, John Dickerson is a CBS News political analyst. Caroline Horn is senior producer for politics at CBS News. Alice Stewart is Bachmann’s communications director.

    Bachmann had the following to say about this as reported by CNN.com late Saturday evening:

    “I think it’s only respectful to allow the candidates to be able to speak and not intentionally ahead of time make a decision to limit candidates’ opportunity to speak to the American people,” the Minnesota congresswoman said after the debate, which was held in South Carolina. “Clearly this was an example of media bias.”

    Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2011/11/13/cbs-email-shows-michele-bachmann-was-intentionally-asked-few-question#ixzz1dgrOEjaU

  54. Ron Paul Gets 89 Seconds To Speak In CBS Debate

    Leaked email to Bachmann campaign indicates decision to limit air time for certain candidates was deliberate CBS News policy

    Paul Joseph Watson
    Infowars. com
    November 13, 2011

    Congressman Ron Paul was a victim of what later transpired to be a deliberate policy on behalf of CBS News to restrict the air time of certain candidates during last night’s Republican debate, after he was afforded just 90 seconds of speaking time during the course of the event in South Carolina last night.

    Paul’s campaign reacted furiously to the Texan being limited to 90 seconds in what was a 90 minute-long debate, with Campaign Manager John Tate blasting out an email entitled “What a Joke,” in which he stated, “It literally made me sick watching the mainstream media once again silence the one sane voice in this election. The one dissenter to a decade of unchecked war. The one candidate who stands for true defense and actual constitutional government. Ron Paul was silenced, in perhaps the most important debate of the cycle.”

    A scientific study undertaken by the University of Minnesota last month confirmed that Ron Paul had been given the least speaking time out of all the Republican candidates during the debates, even less than the likes of John Huntsman and Rick Santorum, who have routinely been beaten by Paul in national polls.

    As Marc Fortier points out, an email inadvertently sent to Michelle Bachmann’s campaign clearly indicates that certain candidates were given less air time as a result of a deliberate CBS policy.

    When a CBS staffer referenced how Bachmann’s campaign had made representatives available for an after-debate webshow, CBS News political analyst John Dickerson responded by saying, “Okay let’s keep it loose though since she’s not going to get many questions and she’s nearly off the charts in the hopes that we can get someone else.”

    Dickerson’s admission that CBS had deliberately ensured Bachmann was “not going to get many questions” during the debate indicated “a planned effort to limit questions to Michele Bachmann at tonight’s CBS/National Journal Debate,” the Bachmann campaign said in a statement.

    Obviously, that policy of limiting air time to certain candidates was also applied to Congressman Ron Paul, despite the fact that he has consistently won straw polls and proven himself as a top tier candidate in national polls.

    As we have documented, despite his popularity the establishment media has deliberately downplayed and sidelined Paul’s campaign.

    After Ron Paul finished a close second to Bachmann in the highly regarded Ames straw poll, and was subsequently blacklisted by the corporate press, Politico’s Roger Simon said the reason for him being ignored was that “the media doesn’t believe he has a hoot in hells chance of winning the Iowa caucuses, the Republican nomination or winning the presidency, so we’re gonna ignore him.”

    “We are in the business of kicking candidates out of the race,” CNN host Howard Kurtz responded.

  55. You can tell it is election time. President Obama appealing to the hawks……..telling Iran that military options are on the table. He does not have the support of the military at all, on this one. Even the generals are beginning to balk on his intervention in Africa. Syria is next.

    • I saw that this am, lib talking heads all putting out there Obama did the Bush strategy better than Bush, but they won’t answer him campaigning against the exact things he has continued to do…. Any thoughts on this?

      http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/did_the_mossad_target_irans_military_in_blast_last_weekend.html

    • Colonel,

      telling Iran that military options are on the table.

      Has any President ever said anything different? They always say “all options – including military options – are on the table.”

      If Obama said “military options are off the table,” everyone would have a fit.

      He does not have the support of the military at all

      So the military would prefer he said “military options are off the table”?
      Does the military support the Republican candidates who think we should attack Iran?

      Oh, and let’s not forget – the military reports to him…he does not report to the military…

      Even the generals are beginning to balk on his intervention in Africa.

      Do you mean success in Libya or the advisers/trainers in central Africa?

      I think Herman Cain summed up the Republican position when asked about Obama’s actions in Libya: He couldn’t even put together a coherent sentence…

  56. Oh boy.

    • Another definition of capitalism-“Capitalist -makes their money off of what they own -not what they do” So I guess- Small business’s aren’t representative of capitalism unless or until they actually create jobs. Good Grief-these people are nuts.

    • Whatsamatter chic in white? Why be afraid what your boss thinks? He may fire you for trying to bring him down? Then what are you going to do? Go to the next capitalist for employment? (don’t forget to put OWS protester on the resume) And speak against them? How about…you open up Chic in White Store and only pay yourself exactly what your bills are then give the rest to your masters? You know..spread the wealth! Oh, you’re not the 1%? It’s the same thing.

      The one guy doesn’t even know if he owns his own body.

  57. I just want to scream!!!! At what point is the government going to openly nationalize the banks-because it is coming.

    Big banks binge on Bush-Obama ‘venture socialism’
    byTimothy P. Carney Senior Political Columnist

    Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner arrives to address the Export-Import Bank of the United States during their annual conference in Washington, Friday, March 12, 2010. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) The Obama administration “has created a new Ex-Im subsidy for banks. The name is a mouthful: ‘The Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program,'” writes Examiner columnist Timothy P. Carney. ”

    Largely out of the media spotlight, the federal government operates a network of financial subsidy programs that benefit big banks by putting taxpayer money at risk. And President Obama, that self-styled populist scourge of Wall Street, is increasing this racket of private profit and public risk that Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) aptly dubbed “venture socialism.”

    In its latest act of venture socialism, the Obama administration has offered a novel taxpayer backstop to General Electric, the multinational industrial conglomerate that is famously close to this administration, and that spends more on federal lobbying than any other company. The government accessory in this instance is the Export-Import Bank of the United States, a federal agency that finances U.S. exports at taxpayer risk.

    Ex-Im exists to subsidize U.S. businesses, with most of the subsidy dollars facilitating Boeing sales. Other industrial titans like GE, Bechtel, and General Dynamics devour most of the rest of the Ex-Im subsidy pie. But manufacturers aren’t the only beneficiaries of this little-known federal agency — banks profit from it, too. For instance, when Ex-Im recently approved $1 billion in financing to subsidize Pemex, Mexico’s government-owned oil company, 3M and other U.S. exporters of oil-field equipment benefited, but so did some big banks. Bank of America and JP Morgan financed these sales, and so if Pemex defaults, it’s these megabanks the U.S. taxpayer will be bailing out.

    Now Obama has created a new Ex-Im subsidy for banks. The name is a mouthful: “The Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program.”

    Here’s how to understand what’s going on: Imagine I’m a shoe exporter. I ship shoes to stores in Europe, and then I wait a few weeks to get paid by the stores. But what if more orders come in, and I need to restock the shoes right away, before I get paid for my last shipment? I could just borrow from a bank. But another option is that I can just sell my invoices, in effect, to the bank. If the shoe stores owe me $1,000, I might sell Citibank, for $950, the right to be paid by those shoe stores. That’s called supply-chain finance, and it’s a quintessential capitalist arrangement.

    But in the midst of this commerce among banks, exporters, and importers, Barack Obama has inserted the unwitting U.S. taxpayer. As part of his Export Initiative aimed at doubling U.S. exports in five years, Obama created the Supply-Chain Finance Guarantee Program to guarantees 90 percent of the banks’ exposure. In our hypothetical example, if the European shoe stores welched, the U.S. taxpayers would cover 90 percent of Citibank’s loss.

    Citi and JP Morgan were the first two banks admitted to this new subsidy program, and earlier this month, Ex-Im welcomed GE Finance. So GE, which already rakes in tens of billions of Ex-Im subsidies as an exporter (in September, for instance, Ex-Im approved a $425 million subsidy to help GE sell locomotive equipment to Kazakhstan), will now also pocket Ex-Im subsidies as a financier, too.

    Many aspects of the Obama-Bush industrial policy works this way. The green-energy loan guarantee programs that benefitted Solyndra are also bank subsidies. For instance, the Energy Department this fall guaranteed $1.4 billion loan for solar companies NRG Energy and Prologis to install solar panels. But it wasn’t the solar companies applying for the subsidy — it was Bank of America, through the Financial Institutions Partnership Program created by the stimulus bill, which asked — and received — this taxpayer-funded gift from the Obama administration. Taxpayers will repay B of A if this $1.4 billion solar investment doesn’t pan out. But what are the odds of a stimulus-subsidized solar venture flopping, right?

    Failed and bailed-out housing finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have a similar arrangement. Like Obama’s Export Initiative, and the green-energy subsidies, politicians always have some grand justification. It saves the environment! It helps small business! It creates jobs! It makes the American Dream come true!

    But whenever politicians are moving around large chunks of money, you can bet the whole thing is being subtly guided by the businesses with the best lobbyists and the most access to power. Foremost among those businesses are the banks, and GE is always a guest at the proverbial table.

    If you ask the Wall Street Occupiers, it’s capitalism and the free markets that drive banks’ booming profits. If you look more closely, it’s venture socialism.

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/big-banks-binge-bush-obama-venture-socialism

  58. So a mother in Massachusetts makes her 10 year old strip naked in front of a web cam and this is her complaint when arrested:

    “There are sickos out there, and they let them go. But I get locked up. I’m a victim,” Lussier told the local newspaper.

    http://www.aol.com/2011/11/14/ann-lussier-forces-daughter-strip-skype_n_1092565.html?test=latestnews

    I am particularly stunned at how this 41 year old woman whines that she is a victim!

    Tell me again why people are trying to “save” our society?

    • Mathius™ says:

      You shouldn’t be stunned, Plainly.

      Most people think of themselves as victims. You can blame a nanny-state if you want, but this is really just an extension of something I spoke about the other day – the “special exemptions” phenomenon. To (briefly) rehash this, this is the phenomenon where you write-off negative things about yourself while refusing to do so for others. So when someone cuts you off in traffic, you think they’re a jerk, but when you cut someone off in traffic, you don’t think you’re a jerk – you think you’re just a normal guy who made a simple mistake.

      I’ve asked this before, but can you point to me a single person who does bad things, and acknowledges that they are a “bad person”? Have you ever met someone who thinks they are “evil”? Of course not. But they know that the things they are doing are wrong. So how do they square the circle? If they are doing something wrong, but they are not bad, then it must be because someone or something else MADE THEM DO IT. “They put me in this situation, so it’s ok for me to do X.”

      This woman is a prime example. She recognizes that there are “sickos” out there. In other words, she sees people doing sick things and (correctly) holds it against them as a indicative of their character (“when they do it, it’s because they’re bad people”). But when she does sick things, she (incorrectly) writes it off as non-indicative of her character (“when I do it, it’s because I was tricked”). In other words, they do it, they’re sick or don’t care about their children etc, I do it, it’s because I made an honest mistake – they’re evil, I’m a victim.

      Human nature.

      ::sigh::

      • I need to think about this a bit before I can comment on your thoughts.

        I will say though that I have met at least one person who said quite firmly that he was a bad person and that it would be best for society to keep him locked up in prison. He was doing 25 years for aggravated robbery and said if released you could count on him re-offending. He liked the power trip it gave him.

        • Mathius™ says:

          You were a cop (right?). For how many years. And, if I recall correctly, a prison guard too. For how many years?

          You were neck-deep in the dregs of humanity for most of your adult life and you can think of one person who was honest enough with himself to admit that he is a genuinely “bad” person. One. Let’s be generous and assume there were more who you just never discussed it with. How many? Two? Five?

          I think that illustrates my point pretty well, actually. Never underestimate humanity’s power to self-delude. (by the way, as a corollary)

          ——–

          I told this story once before here, but I think it fits in nicely. There was a young man, perhaps 17, who carjacked a young lady. He grabbed her, threw her to the ground (breaking her arm in the process), then drove off in her car. Following a police chase, he crashed and totaled the car. He was arrested and served a year or so in jail.

          The woman sued him for her medical bills for her arm and for the deductible for the car insurance. The young man’s take on it was illuminating.

          Re: the car jacking. It was January, he didn’t have a jacket and he was cold. Process that for a moment. He was cold and the car was warm. He wanted to be warm, therefore he wanted to be in the car, therefore it was acceptable to throw the woman to the ground and take her car. He didn’t think he did anything wrong. The judge asked him again and again why he thought it was ok to steal her car and he just kept responding “I was cold.” Not, “I knew it was wrong, but I was cold and had to get in the car or die.” Just, “I was cold.” And, by the way, whose fault was it that he was out in January without proper clothing? Well, never mind that. He was just the victim of the weather. He was in a bad situation, so he took her car and – literally – did not see a thing wrong with his actions.

          Re: the crash. Perhaps even more to the point, he blamed the crash on – wait for it.. wait for it.. – the police for chasing him. Let that nugget sink in. Quoting as best I can “I wouldn’ta crash if they hadn’t been chasin’ me so it’s their fault. If they’da left me alone, I woudn’ta crashed.” Perhaps this is a true statement that he wouldn’t have crashed, but the mindset is staggering. He was, again, the victim of the fact that the mean old police tried to catch him after he assaulted an innocent woman and stole her car. And what, exactly, was his plan for the car? “I’d-a left it somewhere after I got where I was goin’.” So, the police were wrong for chasing him because he would have abandoned the car eventually. The victim again! What awful luck.

          The judge pressed him and pressed him, trying to get him to see that he was wrong in all this. He just couldn’t see it – he was the victim of being cold and he was the victim of the mean police chasing him. He would never have said that he was a “bad person.”

          ———-

          So how do they square the circle? If they are doing something wrong, but they are not bad, then it must be because someone or something else MADE THEM DO IT. “They put me in this situation, so it’s ok for me to do X.”

          Why did the maid steal my mother’s wedding ring? (Actual quote) “She had so much, and I had so little, she could just buy another one.” Did she think she was a bad person? Did she think she deserved to be arrested? No. She felt like a victim of a cruel and corrupt and biased system.

          People blame the economy, they blame their education, they blame chance, they blame their race, they blame their culture, they blame random other races/classes/chance/cultures. But what very few people are able to do is to honestly look themselves in the mirror and evaluate whether they are actually victims or if they are scapegoating the exterior world for their own choices and actions.

          • Mathius,

            I will tell you he was the only one to ever say he was a bad person. There may be a handful that admitted to being guilty and doing wrong, but they wouldn’t say they were a bad person – just that they were guilty of the crime(s) they committed. The vast, vast majority denied guilt or had someone/something to blame (and that includes my ex-con of a brother).

            I wonder though if society holds some of the blame for the attitudes of people today, the relaxed “standards” people are taught to live up to? Has the decades of trying to explain away criminal or unacceptable behavior made it acceptable not to be responsible for ones own behavior? Has society’s morals so loosened that society no longer demands we teach each generation to be responsible for their choices?

            If so, how do we correct this? If not, how do we explain the “it ain’t my fault, I’m a victim” mentality beyond the basics of human nature? If we can’t change this has our society failed?

            • Of course you both realize I’m out here snickering because my simple life does not include the victim attitude of today. Plainly, you’re closer than Matt to my age. We did not see this attitude in the days of yore ( I think that’s what he called it). But I believe this is the only attitude that Matt has seen.

              • Anita,

                Yup. I am 51 years old and I have the experience of watching attitudes change since the late 60’s. There have been good (and proper) changes that needed to be accomplished to bring society closer to the “all men are created equal” standard, but there has been a lot that has – in my thinking – weakened us as individuals and as a society.

                I am curious as to how you would answer the questions I put to Mathius?

              • Mathius™ says:

                I’ll bet you do it anyway.

                When you cut someone off in traffic, do you write it off as “oops, well I was just late.. no biggie.”

                If you forget something important to someone else, do you think to yourself “oops, well I had a lot going on.” Even if you apologize to the other person and genuinely feel badly, do you – to yourself – excuse your behavior?

                If I make you angry and you say something you regret, do you think you were wrong to say it, or you think (again, to yourself) that it’s not your fault – that Mathius is just so out-there?

                And do you judge others more harshly than you tend to judge yourself? Do you take into consideration the complications and mitigating factors for yourself but not for others?

              • It starts at the dinner table. Our generation dropped the ball on that. We didn’t have so we wanted our kids to have.We run them to every game and practice and grab a burger on the way in, who needs a dinner table. Cable TV..deadly! Family shows/values..gone! Gangsta rap..deadly, literally! COL skyrockets meaning both parents working. Tired parents, tired kids, unsupervised kids…a witches brew for disaster. Don’t ask me how to turn back..I just still try to keep it simple at my house. Let the gang hang out here then I know what they’re all into. Try to eat at the dinner table as much as possible. Keep it light so the kids feel like they can talk about stuff to me. We just need to keep pushing family ,values and all the happy stuff to the kids..that’s about all we can do.

            • Mathius™ says:

              I didn’t realize your questions weren’t rhetorical.. ok, here goes…

              I wonder though if society holds some of the blame for the attitudes of people today, the relaxed “standards” people are taught to live up to? Perhaps. Certainly we are molded by our society. I would say more of the blame comes from the fact that nobody is upfront and direct with anyone else. Everything is PC, and no one is allowed to hurt anyone else’s feelings. If you are told your whole life that you are a special butterfly, it is easy to see how you would develop a worldview and coping mechanism which supports this belief.

              I can’t speak to “relaxed standards,” but I can say that many refuse to take ownership of their actions. Whether this is a standards issue or one of accepting responsibility, it is too easy to say “yea, but.” There is one person who I know who does things wrong occasionally. When she apologizes, it’s ALWAYS “I’m sorry, but…” And I refuse to accept that. She always tries to redirect responsibility elsewhere, and that is unacceptable. Is it a symptom of the times? I can’t say.

              Has the decades of trying to explain away criminal or unacceptable behavior made it acceptable not to be responsible for ones own behavior? Criminal behavior is frequently an externally imposed thing. That is, people are poor, uneducated, blah blah blah blah blah. And this leads to a mindset where criminal behavior is an “acceptable” option to them. Though, of course, some people are just criminal, I would suggest that most criminals are victims (yes, I said that) of some variant of mental illness. Most criminals should be TREATED, not jailed. If you could only name a few people who blamed themselves for their actions, this is illness – how is locking them away fixing the underlying cause?

              Has society’s morals so loosened that society no longer demands we teach each generation to be responsible for their choices? I don’t know. But for damn sure, I’ll be teaching my kids one day to own the consequences of their actions.

              If so, how do we correct this? If not, how do we explain the “it ain’t my fault, I’m a victim” mentality beyond the basics of human nature? If we can’t change this has our society failed? I’ll get to this, but now I have to go to class (if I fail because I don’t go, can I say I’m a victim of SUFA-addiction?)

              • Good luck in class. If you fail you can blame a SUFA-addiction if you choose, but we don’t have to accept that excuse. 😉

                Everything is PC, and no one is allowed to hurt anyone else’s feelings. If you are told your whole life that you are a special butterfly, it is easy to see how you would develop a worldview and coping mechanism which supports this belief.

                I agree with this. The whole PC endeavor was misguided. Instead what people needed to learn was how to be honest and direct in a polite way. My daughter is learning that we may tell her politely something that hurts her feelings, but she must remember we do love her and want the best for her. She just must learn to do what many people can’t do – accept criticism and learn from it.

                “I’m sorry, but…”

                Three words my daughter may not use when discussing behavior issues and accepting responsibility for her actions.

                Most criminals should be TREATED, not jailed. If you could only name a few people who blamed themselves for their actions, this is illness – how is locking them away fixing the underlying cause?

                We could have a long discussion of the errors I see in the criminal justice system, especially in the correctional aspects. We do lock up too many offenders that serves no purpose beyond a public feeling of justice being served. I would encourage people (including all those school trained PhD’s) to work as a line officer in confinement settings for one year, you’ll get an education on people, criminals, crime, and confinement that will rival any degree program!

                I look forward to your further thinking. BTW – I don’t accept GPA’s less than 3.0, work hard. 🙂

          • Mathius,

            I have to agree with everything that you said. Amazing!!

  59. The other head shaker I had this morning was reading about Michelle Bachmann saying that water boarding isn’t torture and if it saves American lives then we shouldn’t be concerned about the terrorists we use it on.

    http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/11/14/bachmann-president-clearly-wrong-waterboarding

    So, extending that thinking then whenever the police are trying to find a kidnap victim we should let them use this form of torture to save the kidnap victim?

    What I find interesting is how she can be a hypocrite and not even realize it. Later in the article she makes a comment on Sandusky and talks about what she would have done if she had walked in on him and the child. Okay, fine….but she says in part, “I’m a Christian.” Maybe she should check with Jesus on his potential thinking about water boarding……………….

    • Mathius™ says:

      “The ‘Great Society’ has not worked and it’s put us into the modern welfare state. If you look at China, they don’t have food stamps. If you look at China, they’re in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security…They don’t have the modern welfare state and China’s growing.”
      -Michelle “Crazy Eyes” Bachmann

      Yes, ladies and gentlemen, America is too socialist! We should model ourselves after China instead!

      • Michelle, my belle …

        • Mathius™ says:

          Great song, but the lady is crazier than a shit-house rat.

          In fact, she is crazier than I could ever hope to convey.

          http://www.goodwords.com/amerispeak/crazy.html

          • But she does have nice eyes …

            I did find it interesting/scary how except for Huntsman and Paul (the only two on the clown act presidential tour) were the only ones who didn’t want to go to war with the rest of the world.

            Are we (the country) that oblivious to war now that we’ve lived with it for 10+ years (and Obama has attacked how many countries is it now?) that these idiots think they’re scoring points by showing how tough they’d be?

            It was good to finally see the flavor of the month lose his appeal, but you’re all gonna owe me some gelt when Obama wins re-election … not that that is a good thing. These two parties are an absolute joke; both of them.

            Waiting on the Costas-Sandusky interview … apparently he’s innocent of everything but showering and horsing around in the shower with 10 year olds. I’m staying out on that limb and calling him a friggin’ pedophile. I just can’t seem to find the entire world (at least those living in Happy Valley) made up all this stuff to “get Jerry.”

            There are 4 investigations; at least 2 are a joke (internal investigations). The other two will hopefully fall under broad media scrutiny.

            And the 6’5″ former QB star now claims “he did stop it.”

            This thing snowballs just a little bit more each and every day …

      • LOL….my dog has a better standard of living that the average Chinese.

        • Canine Weapon says:

          So do I!

        • To be fair, colonel,

          My dog has a better standard of living than I do. She sleeps when she wants to, plays when she wants to, doesn’t work, gets two free meals a day, plenty of treats, free medical care, and no responsibilities.

          Just saying…

        • D13
          Good Morning Colonel

          But your dog is a slave, don’t ya know.

          • Shit…..he didn’t get the memo.

          • If my dog was a slave, she would stay off the couch.

            • Mathius

              Sorry, but according to the economic theory of Charlie Stella, your dog can not leave your home on its own because you gave it a place to sleep, medical care and food. It has become a slave to the wages you have provided.

              I know you didn’t think of yourself as a slave owner, but that apparently is just the way it is.

              Just because your slave dog is obnoxious and self centered doesn’t mean she is not a slave.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Actually, she can’t leave on her own because she can’t figure out how to get out of the fence..

  60. Some things just never change.

    I think this will be a good place to start discussion in the morning.

    http://electriccityweblog.com/?p=13686

    Tyranny by any other name is still tyranny.

    • Pamphlets by the rich, for the rich … and property to include human beings.

      You can keep your constitution.

      • Sorry Charlie but someone has to do this.. I’ll take one for the team

        • A little more subtly slap. Heh, heh, heh.

          http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=113&load=6256

          • Mathius™ says:

            If I were paying 50k+ / yr for my kid to go to Harvard and they did this, I’d abort them.

            70th-something term abortion.

            Then I would have cut my balls of so there’s no risk of further polluting the gene pool with my obviously defective progeny.

            • Mathius

              You could just come over to the “light”, er I mean “right”, side and avoid all that pain and discomfort.

              Apparently who ever has been filling these kids with Kool Aid forgot to tell them that Smith is the foundation on which Keynes tried to develop a “new way” to deal with the pain of “recessions”.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Come to the Adam Smith side.
                Keynes hurts us. Keynes trisked us.
                Of course he did. I told you he was tricky. I told you he was false.
                No! Keynes is our friend.. our friend. He wants to help us.
                Keynes betrayed us
                No, leave us alone!
                Filthy little Keynesians. They stole from us.
                No.. no…
                Myyyy PRECIOUSSS freeeee market….

          • What is so hard to understand about the effects of government intrusion into the free market?

            • Kathy,

              Dear Kathy,

              What is so hard to understand about the effects of government intrusion into the free market?

              It is not difficult.

              However, the implications of stopping such intrusions confound people.

              They know it is terrible.

              The short term – their little pet is reward by such intrusion.

              They say to themselves “Oh, this “little thing’ ain’t much worry – …ok, we agree, kill or injure thousand to do this “little thing”….”

              The conflict of man:

              The balance between short term success vs. long term success.

              The former, you can …JUST…touch.

              The latter, you need to trust it will …eventually… appear.

              So we humans have an act … how much short term gain can we get from brutalizing a little long term success we might afford?

              Sometimes we guess right … but often we guess wrong.

              But the wrong is delivered to us in the future, and many of us hope we will be dead by then.

              Thus, the human conditions of self-imposed suffering.

      • Ok….I will keep my constitution. You go to Venezuela…..wait….you won’t be able to do that in another three months……ummmmm……..maybe you should stay on Pluto? Can’t go to China,….their new immigration law disallows that…and no dual citizenship allowed anymore….can’t go to Cuba…you are not welcome there as of July last year…….Belize is nice….Costa Rica…..nice…..but cannot hold title to lands there. You can lease the land but not own it…..but you do not believe in ownership anyway……..nah…..just stay on Pluto……..you will need a new currency though because the Euro is going to tank…..the EU will die and you don’t want USD…..Pluto still looks better.

        • Actually Colonel,
          Us “Socialists” are Ok with the Constitution. It got us to where the USA is today!

          So I would invite all you “free-market no-government-regulation capitalists” to find a country that suits you better than the USA…don’t let the door hit in you in the ass on your way out…

          • Todd

            “Us “Socialists” are Ok with the Constitution. It got us to where the USA is today!”

            TRUTH can be a bitter pill.

            • JAC,
              Maybe bitter for you…

              • Todd

                Not for me. I have said since my first visit to SUFA that the existing document had holes that allowed the current situation to occur. Contrary to the “progressive” or “socialist” or whomever’s viewpoint, these holes were not deliberate as often portrayed in the modern “living document theory”.

                That was one issue I had with the “Libertarian” Party. Worship of the existing document without recognizing its flaws and weaknesses.

                Now the reality of the current situation is a bitter pill for me. But I do not live in denial of that reality. Perhaps a little naive in thinking we can actually regain our freedom and liberty, but we should all have some large dreams.

        • D13,

          Ya know – you’d be me… except you were unlucky not to have the alien heart that beats in my chest and not yours.

          I really connect with the likes of you, because I would be you – minus one medical test that changed my world.

          When we meet, one day, I will give you an honest salute.

          Not because of a rank.
          Not because “I have to…”

          …but just because….

          • BF…I know…..I think you and I are closer that most think. Thank you sir, and I will return the honor….not because of rank…nor will I have to nor will it be to just return one…..it will be…just because as well.

    • JAC,
      I asked you this before and all I got was an angry rant…

      Why should I care what someone thought about how our government/society should be organized 225 years ago?
      Things have changed since then…

      Some interesting parts:

      All men have a “right to life, liberty, property.”

      They must have had a different definition of “All men”.

      In “Case of intollerable [sic] Oppression” people have the right to “leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.”

      Like I told the Colonel – feel free to leave anytime!!

      “Every natural Right, not expressly given up, or from the Nature of the social Compact necessarily ceded, remains.”

      WTF??? “from the Nature of the social Compact necessarily ceded”? That sounds like CRAZY Charlie talking. Is that some kind of “Greater Good” or “Social Contract” crap?

      Regretfully, for reasons too complicated to discuss here, the Boston Pamphlet excluded Catholics from protection; however, the First Amendment did not.

      Ah yes, true visionaries – freedom for me, but none for you!

      • Todd

        freedom for me, but none for you!

        That is my trademark quote! Do not steal!

      • Todd

        The reason you should care what they thought is because if you ignore history, you condemn yourself to absolute ignorance. What they thought, along with thousands of others throughout time, form the basis of human knowledge and understanding. I know that sounds sarcastic, but your question simply reeked of a “rationalization” for ignorance of history. Assuming that was not your true meaning, I will try to address the issue.

        More specifically, it was the concepts and ideas of their time that was the basis for our form of Govt and Nation proper. They also lived at the end of the Enlightenment and had a more intimate knowledge and understanding of what that period as well as the Dark Ages meant to mankind. Their incites are important to our understanding of WHY they did what they did. That includes the righteous and the evil. It is the starting point for exploring the validity of the concepts as well as the means for living our lives accordingly.

        Yes, things have changed but that does not mean that fundamental principles should simply be ignored for “convenience” or simply because time has passed. The concept of a Constitution expressing limited power of Govt was a tremendous achievement. It remains so to this day. It is the combination of its existence and our heritage surrounding it that stands between us and total tyranny. Although its effectiveness has been virtually destroyed. Leaving only our collective “memory” of what it was to guard against excess.

        It is the “concept” of that document, and the reasons for it, that is of particular importance. Not necessarily the particulars within it. But to ridicule the concept itself destroys the only control you could possibly have over the power of govt. A power recognized by men long before and after our founders.

        I do find it humorous how so many wish to minimize the ideas of our “founders” because things have changed, when the debates we have today regarding the role of Govt are virtually identical to the debates of the 1600’s and 1700’s. So if the debates are similar, wouldn’t it seem reasonable to study and consider the ideas of those who came before us? After all, it is their ideas that form the basis of our modern views on these matters. Whether it is Smith or Marx, Locke or Plato, Jefferson or Hamilton, they all contribute to the current debate.

        Some thoughts on your specifics:

        1. “They must have had a different definition of “All men”.” Some did and some did not. They were not all the same. But again, it is the concept that was “revolutionary”. At least in the context of making a “Declaration” about government and its relationship to the nature of man. It was not that long before then that Kings were considered “divine” with full power over their fellow man. Are we to ignore the concept because some men lived in contradiction to this statement? Also note that some did not vary in their meaning of “all men” but could not resolve the contradiction of “slaves as property”, which had existed for centuries.

        2. ” I told the Colonel – feel free to leave anytime!! ” As are you. But alas, it was this country that was founded on these principles of freedom and liberty. So why is it that we who continue to support these concepts and values should leave? Of course the notion of “states rights” was the very solution created by the “founders” to resolve this type of “dispute” between people of different values and beliefs, in a peaceful manner that would maintain our strength in union when needed. Perhaps another reason to care about what these old rich white men had to say and why.

        3. “WTF??? “from the Nature of the social Compact necessarily ceded”? That sounds like CRAZY Charlie talking. Is that some kind of “Greater Good” or “Social Contract” crap?” NO!! The idea of a “social Compact” had different meanings depending on context. The Constitution itself was called a “Compact” or “Social Compact” by some. In other cases they are referring to the social nature of communities and people living together. Similar to the idea of “social contract” but different in that it did not require subordination of the free man to the “greater good”. Again, this is why we should try to understand them. But to the point of the verse. In this context I think it is referring to the “compact” as a “document” that gives certain powers to govt, and thus necessarily cedes certain “rights”. Think of it as a “necessary and proper” statement.

        4. “Ah yes, true visionaries – freedom for me, but none for you!” Yes, they were visionaries. And like so many in history, and today, many of them held contradictory views and values, depending on their background. Now as to the “Catholic” issue, I think you probably understand why that exception was made to protection at that time. Kind of like dealing with the issue of protecting a religion that is designed to undermine the concept of freedom and liberty. Not justifying or rationalizing here, just explaining. But again, does that negate the value of the concept.

        The bottom line is that if we do not like the constraints placed in the Constitution, or our form of Govt, then we are free to change it. But the critical point is that WE should be the ones to change it and for specific purposes. It should simply not evolve according to the values of a select appointed group who declare themselves the keepers of society’s moral compass. The “reasons” this is important are the same today as they were when these rich white men wrote down their ideas and created these historical documents.

        If we do not learn from history, we are condemned to relive the same mistakes of our ancestors.

      • Well, excuse me .. it is not CRAZY charlie anymore … I am the SAGE!

  61. Wait……Argentina looks good but you will have to ignore the capitalism that is creating a middle class there…..Chili is way too cold…..wait……the Antarctic…….Penguin colonies are a great collective but you must like fish.

  62. Conspiracy Alert

    Interesting how the Mayors of so many major cities decided to clean out the Rat’s nests on the same day. OK, Doomberg was a day late. Email must work slower in NY. Or maybe it is just that New Yorkers are slower thinkers.

  63. Was at Lambeau last night to watch the 9-0 Packers!

    Son plays in championship game this Friday afternoon for chance at 3-peat title!

    Badgers are working their way back in to meet Sparty in Indy for the first Big Ten Championship game. (Got any plans for 12/3 Anita?)

  64. Interesting thing I saw in OWS Fort Worth……very expensive Mountaineer tents….extension cords run from light pole outlets….computers in every tent….ice chests filled with beer and food…..very expensive pick up trucks parked close by…..everyone had a cell phone…..a generator and electric fans…..and space heaters. And this being the poor and down trodden.

%d bloggers like this: