Joe Paterno

[Pepperkorn]

I'll tell you what always bugs me about situations like Joe Paterno's particularly .... They happen - it's inevitable. We all fvck up, go into denial - can't conceive of friends and trusted co-workers being something we cannot understand and for ourselves, to protect who we thought we were as character judges etc.. we deny

Completely wrong reaction by Paterno. He relinquished control and did what the University rulebook said he had to do - report it to his superiors - ignoring the law of the land and without accepting accountability to protect those boys. Why can no one ADMIT - his reaction is completely understandable? Sure we expect more - sure he has a greater responsibility but he's a human just like anyone else. He's fallible and he's looking pretty pathetic without anyone further assailing his character and calling him a criminal and going over the top with accusations. The way some of you are turning the tables and making this about how crooked Paterno has always been - do you not see how you're taking away Sandusky's accountability? You're opportunistically bashing a public figure you dont even know. WTF?

Yeah part of me says there is no over-the-top in situations like this. But the fact remains - the press has ruined the impact of any sort of repercussion by using the situation to sell. The press making it it's job to pass moral judgment not for any moral reason, no but to sell, cheapens morals. All the while saying they're just giving the people what they want when it's just too grotesque, but more often than not hiding behind some sort of "investigative reporting" nonsense that isn't to get the truth out at all as they claim. The true motive is "make money!" by marketing morality.

Morality is now cheap. It's reduced to water cooler tut tutting. I find that the most pathetic side-effect of this marketing stories of socio- and psychopaths and all who find themselves in the nightmare of their company.

There is something deeply wrong with Sandusky and it's nearly impossible to tell for even the people closest to him. Relegating this down to a spectator sport as the press so loves to do - inhibits learning how to avoid this kind of thing.

whatever... I guess because we do understand

SIDEBAR YOU CAN IGNORE

When I was in high school one of my favorite books was The Fall by Camus. Because I understood the choice to keep walking....and actually resented the fact that I am not that way. I do not know why but I am not that way. I'm the a$$hole who puts it all on the table expecting to be judged fairly - because I know it's the right thing to do. and countless times I'm fvcked over by my moral compass. and I will keep doing the same right thing over and over -- I will be the one killed by the bankrobber with a gun because I'm too damm stupid to let him just rob the place and leave. and I'm ashamed to say I'm not proud of it. It's a knee jerk compulsion or some massively deep seeded self-righteousness "you're not going to get away with that you fvck - even if I have to die to stop you!"

Or in the case of ratting out a friend - which I would do mostly because I have the monumental stupid blind faith that they are indeed innocent and an investigation is nothing to fear. I recall only one time -- a purse snatcher ran by me while an old lady screamed and I ducked into a door way and let the guy by. I can't tell you how grateful I was to have a normal survival instinct for once in my life. I've sadly flunked a few similar tests after. My husband isn't like me - he knows how to save his ass. He excuses me saying I'm a girl and don't expect anyone to actually kick my ass if I stand up to them. (the environment I was raised in men can't hit women - men just say how much of a beat down you deserve before they realize they will now be subjected to an hour long diatribe on misogyny) I hate being this lone righteous a$$hole. I think it's a mark of a most basic and profound stupidity. AND I dont think I'll be rewarded in any after life -- I'm goin' to hell for wishing I could make a "bad" choice.

Edited November 17, 2011 by Pepperkorn

[Quinn01]

Boy....now Joe Paterno has lung cancer....it just keeps getting better and better for that guy.

[Onddeck]

Boy....now Joe Paterno has lung cancer....it just keeps getting better and better for that guy.

my thoughts exactly.. what a two weeks this has been for the guy

[Devils Dose]

As if people weren't getting emotional enough in following this story. Making my head spin

[Devilsfan118]

Apparently completely treatable though, should make a full recovery

I mean, as much as an 82-year-old can be expected to recover, I guess?

Edited November 18, 2011 by Devilsfan118

[DaneykoIsGod]

I hate to un-bury such an ugly story, but something about this McQueary guy never sat right with me. Now inconsistencies in his story are turning up.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/12/another_version_of_mike_mcquea.html

Minutes after Mike McQueary says he stumbled upon something between Jerry Sandusky and a boy in a Penn State shower in 2002, he went to his father’s State College home seeking advice.

There, Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend and colleague of McQueary’s father, sat with the then 28-year-old graduate assistant and listened to his very first account of what he had seen, a source told The Patriot-News.

According to the source with knowledge of Dranov’s testimony before the grand jury, it went like this:

McQueary heard "sex sounds" and the shower running, and a young boy stuck his head around the corner of the shower stall, peering at McQueary as an adult arm reached around his waist and pulled him back out of view.

Seconds later, Sandusky left the shower in a towel.

That account is different from the hand-written statement obtained by The Patriot-News that McQueary provided for investigators when he was interviewed in 2010.

It’s also different than the summary of his grand jury testimony in the 23-page initial grand jury presentment.

In both of those accounts, McQueary says he witnessed Sandusky sodomizing a boy as he stood with his hands against a shower wall.

McQueary says the pair turned and looked at him before he left.

However, Dranov told grand jurors that he asked McQueary three times if he saw anything sexual, and three times McQueary said no, according to the source.

Because of that response, the source says, Dranov told McQueary that he should talk to his boss, head football coach Joe Paterno, rather than police.

The next day Paterno and McQueary talked, and Paterno’s response to the conversation was widely scrutinized when the grand jury presentment was made public in November.

Paterno said graphic detail, such as rape, was never mentioned to him. But public outcry led to his firing five days after Sandusky was charged.

There seems to be too much smoke right now to deny the fire that Jerry Sandusky is a despicable sack of pig sh!t. But as far as passing judgement on how everything was handled, the new McQueary news seems to cast a new light.

One of the big Paterno criticisms was that, after being told a child was raped, he didn't do enough. But now it's possible that he was never told as much. He may have only been told of the presence of a boy in the same shower as Sandusky and some noises. Everyone from Paterno on up to the top may have been telling the truth when they said they were never told of any sodomy/rape.

Still, they should have done more. When a child's well-being is in question, you need to make sure everything checks out.

But the most damning thing may be that McQueary's credibility could be deteriorating. If he's shown to be so inconsistent with his story, Sandusky's attorney could cast reasonable doubt all over everything he says.

[nyrsuck26]

Oh this is certainly a dream come true for Sandusky's attorney but this still only pertains to one of his victims. He will still get justice done upon him for the others even if McQueary's testimony is thrown out.

As far as all others involved, it "helps" them too, not that it matters. I don't see too many people changing their opinion over this however.

[devilsadvoc8]

Paterno was in charge of the program and had some hints about what was going on. He is responsible for his program. While that POS Sandusky will (assuming a conviction) will pay for his direct actions, Paterno and others should pay for their inaction. It is just the way things go. The heads of corporations get blamed for their lack of oversight of individual employees when they commit wrongdoing if there was lack of oversight or if signs were ignored and this is no different. Paterno must pay for his lack of conern for the victims. He valued the program over innocent victims and that speak volumes unfortunately on what his legacy will turn out to be.

On a side note: Where the F#%$ is the investigation into the catholic church? The church still witholds names and still just shuffles people around while trying to keep the perps anonymous while the victims suffer. Bullsh!t! Why does one guy's bad actions result in the hiring of the former head of the FBI to investigate while the Catholic Church stonewalls?

Bumper sticker I saw on line: ABSTINENCE: Makes the church grow fondlers