wonder if he will wear his Michigan shirt?

So apparently that hypocrite also represents convicted child pornographers, and makes statements like:

"Defense attorney Andrew Shubin asked the judge not to send his client to jail but to place him on electronic monitoring. He cited potential problems Elder might encounter in prison."

I wonder how the victims feel? The next time some media automaton includes one of his quotes/soundbites, point them toward this article.

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/crime/article102851327.html

Got a letter today from the Development Office looking for a check. I'm astonished by the timing.

I didn't go to the Temple game, but are there people here who may have cut back or stopped donations who are going to start up again now that there was a highlight film shown in the stadium that had Paterno in it? I am curious as to whether this swayed anyone.

Posted on January 19th, 2013 in Keisling on Pennsylvania Politics, News and Commentary

#5 in a Series from the Jerry Sandusky Trial transcripts

By Bill Keisling

In 1998, young victims surrounded Jerry Sandusky.

Why didn’t DA Ray Gricar make a serious attempt to find and interview them?

The roles of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and Centre County Children and Youth Services also remain troubling and require an extensive public inquiry.

At the time of his strange disappearance in 2005, Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar enjoyed a reputation as an honest, competent and no-nonsense law enforcement officer.

“Ray would prosecute his own mother,” or so goes the myth.

The record in Jerry Sandusky’s case forces a reexamination of Gricar’s career and reputation.

In the Sandusky case, Ray Gricar badly fell down on the job, and put an unknown number of young boys at risk.

On the evening of May 3, 1998, Jerry Sandusky drove 11-year-old Zach home after showering with the boy on the Penn State campus.

Zach’s mother, Deb McCord, that night attended an award banquet for a local volunteer group. She returned home shortly after Zach.

Zach told his mother he’d had a good time with Sandusky. Almost as an afterthought, on his way out of the room, the boy chattily told his mother, “We took a shower, just in case you’re wondering why my hair’s wet.”

His mother would say it was an odd habit of her son’s to “add topics he finds upsetting at the end of talk.”

She went to her son’s room a few minutes later to tuck him in to bed. She asked what happened.

“I knew you’d make a big deal out of it,” Zach told her. He didn’t want to get Sandusky in trouble. He wanted to go to the football games and sit on the bench. He wanted to look at the Internet on Jerry’s computer. As for taking a shower, he said Coach Sandusky told him, “All the guys do!”

None of this sat right with Deb McCord.

She began a flurry of activity that would put Sandusky in a lot of hot water outside the shower room. Only the odd intervention of the local district attorney, Ray Gricar, would save Jerry Sandusky.

Zach was already seeing a psychologist in town for some behavioral issues. The first thing the next morning McCord called the psychologist’s emergency voicemail line, and asked her to return her call quickly, before her kids awoke.

The psychologist, Alycia Chambers, recalled that McCord told her, “‘I need you to tell me I’m crazy,‘ because she did not want to believe that her suspicions were true.”

Chambers told Zach’s mother that she “was not overreacting and that she should proceed with reporting” her concerns about Sandusky showering with the boy.

It’s important to note that McCord and Chambers were independent of Second Mile, the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, Penn State University, and the knot of conflicted interests and players that Sandusky had brought together in State College.

McCord knew a policeman’s wife, who shared with her some contact numbers for the police.

At 11 am that morning, McCord phoned Detective Ron Schreffler of the Penn State University police department. She complained that a member of the university staff had been showering with her son.

Schreffler worked for the university police department since 1972. One former officer with the department tells me that Schreffler was often given the department’s most important and “sensitive” cases, including those involving bomb scares and sports gambling.

Both Schreffler and psychologist Chambers would, in the days following, write reports about all this, providing us with some of the few contemporaneous records, and fresh memories, of these events.

Officer Schreffler asked McCord to bring her son down to the police department. The boy and his mother arrived within the half hour, Schreffler writes in his report.

From the start, Schreffler noticed several interesting things about young Zach.

Zach, Schreffler noted, was very cool, and didn’t seem to hold a grudge against Sandusky. Zach seemed to like Sandusky, and repeatedly said he didn’t to want to get the coach in any trouble. For the most part, the boy had a good memory (other than a blackout following the shower). And he was very talkative.

In other words, Zach was a policeman’s dream.

“He was very laid back,” Schreffler recalled years later of Zach. It was Zach’s mother who appeared to be the most agitated and upset.

Schreffler immediately set about to tape-record an interview with Zach. Zach repeated his account of what had happened the night before with Sandusky.

Toward the end of the interview, Zach said something that would be of interest to any good cop.

Zach told Detective Schreffler that he had a friend named Brandon, who also was in the Second Mile. Zach said he’d asked Brandon if he’d ever gone into the shower with Sandusky.

Brandon, Zach told the cops, said that Sandusky had wrestled with him, and had squeezed him in the shower.

It’s worth stepping back for a moment to consider what Zach had just told the cops.

For years Sandusky had been molesting kids with impunity. Matt, Dustin and Brett, and no doubt other kids close to Sandusky, at the time were being sexually molested.

The police now had one victim who was talking, and they knew the identity of a second victim.

Years later, in 2012, when Sandusky was finally brought to trial, young witnesses like these, and others like them, would be the deciding factor in convicting the coach.

Now, in 1998, it was the job of the cops, and District Attorney Ray Gricar, to find the other victimized kids, interview them, and stop Sandusky from doing further harm.

Like many small-town cops, PSU’s Officer Schreffler had some idea what to do. He also had an idea what not to do with the case.

The same afternoon he interviewed Zach, Schreffler took two important steps.

At about 1 pm, he reported Zach’s story to the Centre County Children and Youth agency. He spoke with caseworker John Miller.

At 4 pm, Schreffler contacted Assistant District Attorney Karen Arnold, who worked for DA Gricar.

“I contacted (the DA’s office) early on in the investigation because of the allegations and the fact that Karen Arnold was the assistant district attorney that was handling child-related cases, so I wanted to get them on board right away,” Schreffler says.

Schreffler would further explain to Louis Freeh’s staff in January 2012 that, “he decided to call the prosecutor at the outset of the investigation so he did not have to ‘worry about Old Man sticking their nose in the investigation,’ which he knew from experience could occur.”

In other words, Detective Schreffler was concerned about possible interference from his higher-ups at Penn State. As we now know, this was a real concern.

During their first phone conversation, Assistant DA Karen Arnold told Detective Schreffler to interview “everyone” — including Zach’s friend Brandon — “as soon as possible.”

A few hours later, at 6 pm that same night, Center County CYS case worker John Miller arrived at Schreffler’s office. The two went together to Brandon’s house and interviewed the second boy at about 8 pm that night.

Brandon’s story would be familiar to the other boys. He told the investigators he’d met Sandusky through the Second Mile program, and that he’d been on campus twice with the coach.

“Sandusky took (Brandon) to the gym to lift weights,” Schreffler wrote in his 1998 report. The boy “said that they used the treadmill and the universal gym. He also said that he wrestled ‘Jerry’ and he tried to pin Jerry.”

Brandon “went on to say that he had taken a shower with ‘Jerry.’ (W)hile in the shower ‘Jerry’ come up from behind and lifted him up in a bear hug. Brandon demonstrated used a chair how he was hugged.”

The police now had two witnesses on record. And both boys were quite talkative and helpful.

Jerry Sandusky now was tantalizingly close to getting caught.

All the police now had to do, obviously, was to identify and interview the other Second Mile victims, such as Matt, Dustin, and Brett (and God knows who else), and Sandusky’s goose would be cooked.

But unusual interference from higher-ups in the DA’s office, and Children and Youth Services, prevented that from happening.

Enter Ray Gricar and PA DPW

The next day, on May 5, 1998, officials at the Centre County Children and Youth office held a meeting to decide “what to do,” according to notes found in Freeh’s report.

CYS officials advised Detective Schreffler that they’d decided to kick the Sandusky matter upstairs, to their overseers in the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare in Harrisburg.

The reasons for kicking the matter upstairs, and who was involved in this decision, aren’t clear, and deserve thorough public investigation. The stated reason concerned conflicts of interest. But it was also because Sandusky was considered a VIP. Think football. Second Mile. Foster home. Referrals. Contracts.

The local CYS office had multiple long-standing conflicts of interest with Sandusky’s Second Mile.

Most obviously, CYS had contracts to place kids in Second Mile’s foster home, while Second Mile’s executive director, Jack Raykovitz, held a contract with Centre County CYS to perform child evaluations.

But the conflicts ran deeper than that.

In his 2012 report (itself financed by Penn State), former FBI director Louis Freeh attempts to superficially explain some of what happened next, and why:

“There were several conflicts of interest with (Centre County) CYS’s involvement in the case (e.g., CYS had various contracts with Second Mile including placement of children in a Second Mile residential program; the Second Mile’s executive director had a contract with CYS to conduct children’s evaluations; and the initial referral sheet from [psychologist Alycia] Chambers indicated the case might involve a foster child). In light of these conflicts, the (state) Department of Public Welfare (‘DPW’) took over the case from CYS on May 5, 1998. DPW officials in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania took the lead because of Sandusky’s high profile and assigned it to caseworker Jerry Lauro.”

Even so, the state DPW would soon kick the matter back down to the county Children and Youth agency. Why was this? Who was involved in this decision(s)? Again, the matter requires full public investigation.

Detective Schreffler says, “when I first contacted Centre County Children and Youth Services, they contacted the State Department of Welfare, stating that the State Department of Welfare was going to take over the investigation, and then it went back to the county. There was some confusion there.”

State DPW investigator Lauro would now sit in on some of the interviews with Detective Schreffler.

Even so, within a few days, by May 9, the state DPW kicked the case back down to Centre County CYS, and the local agency appointed its own counselor, John Seasock, to interview Zach. (At the time, Seasock was not licensed by the state.) This despite the fact that Zach had already been “evaluated” by his own licensed state-registered psychologist, Dr. Chambers.

Seasock, I should add, was under contract with the county CYS agency.

As such, both the state and local children and youth protective agencies were already deeply involved, and share blame.

“We were totally against it,” Schreffler says of Seasock’s evaluation of Zach. “The District Attorney did not want it. The police did not want it.”

Who wanted Seasock involved?

“Children and Youth Services and the State Department of Welfare,” Schreffler recounts. But he mentions no names.

Freeh relates, “During the (May 9) meeting with Seasock the boy described the incident with Sandusky. Given that the boy did not feel forced to engage in any activity and did not voice discomfort to Sandusky, Seasock opined that ‘there seems to be no incident which could be termed as sexual abuse, nor did there appear to be any sequential pattern of logic and behavior which is usually consistent with adults who have difficulty with sexual abuse of children.’ Seasock’s report ruled out that the boy ‘had been placed in a situation where he was being groomed for future sexual victimization.’” (This incidentally was at odds with psychologist Chambers’ evaluation; Chambers clearly recognized Sandusky’s grooming pattern.)

After speaking with Zach, CYS’s Seasock would issue a report exonerating Sandusky.

Freeh writes, “On May 9, 1998, Schreffler discussed the outcome of Seasock’s evaluation with Seasock. While Seasock said he identified some ‘gray areas,’ he did not find evidence of abuse and had never heard of a 52 year old man ‘becoming a pedophile.’ When Schreffler questioned Seasock’s awareness of details of the boy’s experience, Seasock acknowledged he was not aware of many of the concerns Schreffler raised but stated Sandusky ‘didn’t fit the profile of a pedophile,’ and that he couldn’t find any indication of child abuse.”

Freeh, in his report, moreover notes, “Seasock served as an independent contractor at Penn State from 2000 to 2006. His first payment from Penn State was made on April 20, 2000 for $1,236.86. His total payments were $11,448.86. The Special Investigative Counsel did not find any evidence to suggest that these payments had any relation to Seasock’s work on the Sandusky case in 1998. According to the Second Mile’s counsel, there was no business relationship between Seasock and the Second Mile.”

(I’ll note that Freeh himself was paid $6.5 million by Penn State to produce his incomplete report, which many have since called poorly undertaken, selective, and a whitewash.)

The bottom line, of course, is that counselor Seasock got things wrong.

Seasock, like DPW’s Lauro, in fact got things dreadfully and tragically wrong.

DA Gricar orders appearance of an investigation

Even so, we should keep in mind, Seasock, CYS, and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare did not oversee the police, or the Centre County District Attorney’s office.

That job belonged to DA Ray Gricar.

A few days into the investigation Gricar strangely intervened, and removed Assistant DA Karen Arnold from the case.

“Ray was my boss and he said he would handle it,” former ADA Arnold told me. “I only had the Sandusky case for a few days. I don’t know why Ray handled it the way he did. I can’t read his mind. I’m not a mind reader.”

“I had talked to Karen Arnold, I would say, probably at least two or three occasions, and Mr. Gricar at least two occasions,” Schreffler remembers.

As criminologists, and not social workers, Gricar and his law enforcement team had to do one thing, and one thing only, to crack the case: they had to identify and interview the many Second Mile kids surrounding and victimized by Jerry Sandusky.

Matt, Dustin, Brett and the others. In fact, a circa-1998 photo shows Sandusky surrounded by many of these victims.

But no one would interview these kids for almost 15 years

Detective Schreffler explains what instead happened: “(I) contacted the DA’s office, gave them an update of what was going on, and there was a subsequent plan to make another phone call to Mr. Sandusky with the intent of having him come back to (Zach’s) house to solicit more conversation.”

Rather than trying to locate and interview more victimized Second Mile kids, as was required to crack the case and protect the kids, Gricar’s plan became to try to trap Sandusky into implicating himself.

For some reason Gricar thought everything hinged on a mea culpa from Sandusky. But it didn’t work.

The plan was to have Zach’s mom call Sandusky and to ask the coach to drop by her house as a subterfuge for the cops to overhear what he might say. This would happen not once but twice, while Det. Schreffler and two different State College borough cops eavesdropped from other rooms.

On one of these visits, Sandusky would famously tell Zach’s mother, “I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won’t get it from you. I wish I were dead.”

Freeh writes, “Sometime between May 27, 1998 and June 1, 1998, the local District Attorney (Ray Gricar) declined to prosecute Sandusky for his actions with the boy in the shower in the Lasch Building on May 3, 1998. A senior administrator of a local victim resource center familiar with the 1998 incident said the case against Sandusky was ’severely hampered’ by Seasock’s report.”

Gricar’s defenders say that the case was fatally undercut by the actions of the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare.

No doubt DPW muddied the waters. (Freeh notes that DPW informed police on May 13, 1998 that the state agency wanted to “resolve the matter quickly.”)

But leaving the blame solely on the incompetence or conflicts of the state DPW and county Children and Youth Agency doesn’t ring true.

The social workers, the psychologists, the cops and the DA’s office could have, had they chosen to do so, pushed the case, together or separately.

This in fact is what finally broke the case years later.

Instead, in 1998, those involved, including DA Ray Gricar, collectively decided not to push the case.

On June 1, perhaps even after DA Gricar decided to close the case, Schreffler and DPW’s Jerry Lauro interviewed Sandusky.

In their interview with Sandusky, Det. Schreffler took Seasock’s advice.

Freeh writes, “Seasock recommended that someone speak with Sandusky about what is acceptable with young children and explained, ‘The intent of the conversation with Mr. Sandusky is not to cast dispersion (sic) upon his actions but to help him stay out of such gray area situations in the future.’”

Schreffler explains that he and Lauro “advised (Sandusky) that we were investigating an allegation of an incident that occurred on May 3rd between 7 and 9 p.m. and started talking to him about Zachary. During the course of the interview, (we) asked him if he had ever been in the shower with other young boys. He stated that he had. He was asked if there was anything sexual that took place. He said not. He was concerned about the effect it would have on Zach as far as if he did anything to upset Zach. The interview as far as my questioning probably was about 15 minutes.

“I did say to (Sandusky), ‘I would tell you not to shower with young boys again,’ and he stated something to the effect he did think maybe it was inappropriate, that he wouldn’t do it again.”

Sandusky obviously was lying. Even so, he got the telegraph from DPW and DA Gricar.

Jerry Sandusky would never again attempt to shower with, or molest, Zach.

It would be a different story with other boys.

Detective Schreffler says he phoned DA Gricar after this June 1 interview with Sandusky.

“I felt there should be some charges, something, but the DA didn’t feel there should be,” Schreffler says. It was DA Gricar’s decision, Schreffler adds.

At the end of his 12-page, 1998 police report, Det. Schreffler wrote, “Reporting Officer advised Sandusky not to shower with any child. Sandusky stated he wouldn’t. CASE CLOSED.”

It’s worth recapping the large number of officials and agencies that were ineffectively involved in this failed 1998 police incident: the Penn State University police; State College Borough Police; the Centre County DA’s office; Centre County Children and Youth (including unknown managers, a caseworker and a psychologist); the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (including unknown officials and an investigator).

Other questions remain: Did DA Gricar consult with anyone in Harrisburg, at the attorney general’s office? A review of Gricar’s telephone and mail records is warranted.

The bottom line is that none of these agencies or individuals did much to stop Jerry Sandusky, or to help the victimized kids, who could have been easily found.

The obvious should be stated: a complete public investigation of this 1998 incident is required to determine the causes of these systemic failures, and to ensure that it won’t happen again.

Smart career move

As for DA Ray Gricar, Louis Freeh’s report notes, “The District Attorney at the time of the 1998 incident has been missing for several years and has been declared dead.”

DA Gricar was set to retire later in2005, a few months after his mysterious and famous disappearance.

Had he lived, Ray Gricar certainly would have taken heat for stopping the 1998 investigation involving Zach and Brandon.Due to DA Gricar’s inactions, Sandusky would be given a green light.

Thanks in large part to Gricar, Jerry Sandusky would proceed to molest a long list of kids with impunity.

Thanks to Ray Gricar, the stage was set for all that was to come.

For Ray Gricar, his disappearance would turn out to be a smart career move.

TIMELINE OF 1998 CYS/DPW INVESTIGATION by Ray Blehar

May 3, 1998 9:00PM Victim 6 dropped off at home by Sandusky.

May 4, 1998 7:43AM Mother of Victim 6 calls Dr. Chambers.

May 4, 1998 11:25AM Mother and Victim 6 report incident to police.

May 4, 1998 12:25PM[1] Police Det. Schreffler explains incident to J. Miller, CYS.

May 4, 1998 3:00PM Victim 6 and Mother meet with Dr. Chambers.

May 4, 1998 8:10PM Miller and Schreffler interview B.K. (friend of V6).

May 4, 1998 9:30PM Miller and Schreffler re-interview Victim 6.

May 5, 1998 9:00AM CYS holds meeting to decide “what to do.”

May 5, 1998 1:55PM J. Lauro, DPW, informs Police he will be assigned to case.

Lauro states Sandusky will be interviewed on 7 May.

May 7, 1998 11:00AM Lauro meets with police.

Lauro rec’d transcribed interviews of V6 & B.K.

Lauro reviewed case file of J. Miller (CYS).

May 7, 1998 11:15AM Lauro and police go to residence of Victim 6.

Lauro interviews mother of Victim 6.

May 7, 1998 ADA Arnold advises police to postpone evaluation of V6.

May 8, 1998 11:20AM Police inform CYS to postpone evaluation of V6.

May 8, 1998 11:40AM[2] Police inform DPW to postpone evaluation of V6.

May 8, 1998 11:55AM Lauro informs police to DPW is going forward with evaluation.

May 8, 1998 2:00PM Victim 6 evaluated by John Seasock, contractor of CYS.

May 9, 1998 12:30PM Seasock informs police of results of evaluation of V6.

Seasock states Sandusky does not fit profile of a pedophile.

May 11, 1998 3:10PM Seasock returns call of mother of Victim 6. Advises Sandusky’s

calls to her son are customary weekly follow ups by Second Mile.

Mother states her daughter who is SM is not called weekly.

May 13, 1998 Police informed that DPW wants to “resolve the matter quickly.”

< 18 day inactive period >

June 1, 1998 11:00AM Schreffler and Lauro interview Sandusky. Determine no sexual assault occurred.

[1] According to Pa. 055 § 3490.171 (b) CYS was required to immediately file a report with ChildLine (DPW) and according to Pa. 055 § 3490.56 (a), CYS was required to notify The Second Mile within 24 hours of receipt of the report of suspected abuse. (4)(b) The Second Mile was required to implement a plan of supervision. (4)(c) CYS was also required to notify The Second Mile of the results of the investigation.

[2] See Appendix A, 1998 University Park Police Report, page 10

[1] See Appendix A, 1998 University Park Police Report, page 10

just crazy the lack of independent thought

.

@rmb297

Nice work, sir.
Login to view embedded media

left who I have any faith in. Now that the 17th has come and gone I hope Sue and the past letterman truly got a chance to celebrate what it is they represented for all of us. Is there anything left to review or is this officially a dead issue until the lawsuits? I am not going to bash the A9 but I certainly hope PS4RS takes a good hard look before endorsing these folks again or we see a groundswell to diminish their influence [PS4RS not the A9]
It is nauseating to see so much ill formed rhetoric spewing from the media and the masses with no response from our leaders. Even after 5 years no one tries to correct the record publically save folks like Franco.
Anyway anything from your viewpoint on the horizon?

The other 2 folks who i have faith in btw are Wensilver and Ryan.

Best of luck

Roswellion

How about bada-bang?

Ten years ago this loss would have bothered me all week. Now, I'm watching our women's volleyball team and have put the game in my rear view mirror. I guess it started with STEP and my giving season tickets I held for nearly 40 years. Then there was our own BOT rushing to judgment on Joe, his firing, and our surrender to the NCAA. Throw in the continuing arrogance of our BOT, President, and Alumni Association, and I have a University I barely recognize and can no longer relate to. I've said before that I may wake up some day and just decide to turn my back on Penn State forever. If it happens, I will always have my memories, the friendships, and the joy of watching the golden years of Penn State football. I really think if I had not found this Board I would have been gone already. The fact that I could watch us get blown out by a very average college team and not feel badly means that day is very close.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/jim-ha...ados-fake-michigan-depth-chart-144351930.html

Compete with the Hanson Bros. and that abiding Dude....
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/colora...depth-chart-for-michigan-photo-160258925.html

http://www.centredaily.com/news/local/education/penn-state/board-of-trustees/article102164037.html
To: Penn State Trustees, President Barron

cc: Penn State alumni networking


The events of March 2012 prove why the Alumni Trustees and other Trustees of character should treat this resolution with the contempt, disrespect, and noncompliance it deserves. That was when the Board issued a unanimous statement to the effect that it fired Joe Paterno for “failure of leadership,” a phrase it used twice. This statement was later proven false by Keith Masser’s and Kenneth Frazier’s depositions in a court case, which makes every single member of the Board in question a liar. This includes not only those who authored and published the dishonest statement in question but also those who acquiesced to it by “standing behind the decision of the group.”


This is emphatically clear from the U.S. Military Academy’s Honor Code, which says a cadet “shall not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do.” This means you not only can’t lie, you can’t be a party to a lie. Suppose for example that a group of cadets is responsible for a task, and something goes very wrong with it. The leader of the cadets, John Surma, says, “Let’s tell the Superintendent of West Point that Cadet Paterno failed to perform his leadership duty,” and Cadets Eckel, Lubert, Peetz, Frazier, and Masser all agree. Surma and his friends lie to the USMA’s Superintendent by scapegoating Cadet Paterno, which is of course cause for expulsion if it is discovered. So much for those who were probably responsible for the actual lie, but now we come to the passive followers. If Cadets Myers, Deviney, Riley, Arnelle, and so on remain mute rather than telling the Superintendent, “No, Sir, that is not what happened,” they are guilty of tolerating those who do, which also is cause for expulsion. This is why the alumni showed absolutely no mercy or restraint in firing the alumni Trustees in question, and under openly dishonorable conditions, even though we recognized that they were followers (sheep) rather than leaders. Their silence made them parties to a dishonest statement, especially noting the word “unanimous” in the March 2012 statement. No person of character is required to “stand behind the decision of the group” when the decision is to lie to and on behalf of the organization to which they owe a fiduciary duty.


Why, by the way, is the USMA’s Honor Code so draconian? Why will it expel cadets for lying or cheating (normally punishable by a zero grade, or at worst failure of the course, in a civilian university) as well as stealing, much less “tolerating those who do?” The issue of scapegoating a dead subordinate actually came up after the turret explosion in U.S.S. Iowa. So-called naval officers blamed a purportedly gay sailor for sabotaging the ammunition for the purpose of killing himself, when the real issue involved problems with the ammunition and possibly the automatic rammer that forces the charges into the gun’s breech. Had their scapegoating of the sailor been allowed to stand, the real problem would not have been dealt with and it could have happened again at the cost of more lives and possibly an entire ship. Lying and cheating can get service members killed, and lose very expensive equipment, in a military context. The launch of the space shuttle Challenger also took place over the objections of an engineer who would not “stand behind the decision of the group,” with the result that NASA earned the derisive nickname “Need Another Seven Astronauts” while the engineer in question was the only person to retain his honor and credibility in the aftermath. Former Trustee Al Clemens is similarly the only Board member from March 2012 to retain his honor and credibility, while Penn State’s reputation was ruined by Trustees who “stood behind the decision of the group.”


Under no circumstances should any Trustee allow his or her good name be used to support dysfunctional conduct by Ira Lubert, Mark Dambly, Keith Masser, or any of the other 11/9/2011 holdovers whose incompetent, dishonest, and self-serving actions have already caused enormous damage to the University.


William A. Levinson, B.S. ‘78

Saw the article this morning...."Nike Up"

link: http://www.foxbusiness.com/features...et-windfall-deals-from-nike-under-armour.html

'Pay To Play' Colleges Get Windfall Deals From Nike, Under Armour

By Thomas Barrabi Published September 14, 2016 Sports
Increased competition between apparel titans Nike (NKE), Under Armour (UA) and Adidas is forcing all three brands to pay more money than ever before to outfit top college football programs like Michigan and Ohio State in their latest gear. But current NCAA apparel deals – while huge compared to similar contracts of years past – are still a bargain for the companies as they jockey for market share.

That’s compared to the $200 million that brands regularly pay to associate with a single professional athlete – a risky investment given the possibility of injury, such as former Chicago Bulls point guard Derrick Rose’s series of knee issues after signing a massive contract with Adidas.

The college apparel boom peaked in May, when Under Armour agreed to pay UCLA a record $280 million in cash and gear over 15 years. The record stood at a comparatively paltry $90 million as recently as 2014. Other recent deals, such as Nike’s 15-year, $252 million contract with the Ohio State Buckeyes and $250 million agreement with the Texas Longhorns, have been similarly expensive.

“This was epitomized by the agreement made by Ohio State and Nike this summer, which leveraged the 50,000 students on campus and their large alumni base to bolster the overall value of the agreement for Nike,” Jensen said. “The schools have just in the past few years become much more savvy about negotiating these agreements from a position of strength due to the recent re-investment in the North American market by Adidas and Under Armour’s willingness to spend big in their efforts to grow market share.”

While Nike’s brand has long dominated sports in the United States and is becoming increasingly entrenched overseas, Under Armour is in the early stages of its development. The company’s chief executive, Kevin Plank, is still searching for ways to bring Under Armour products to consumers that weren’t previously aware of the brand and how it differs from legacy companies like Nike and Adidas.

Deals with colleges like UCLA and Cal Berkeley give Under Armour an entry point into the West Coast market, Plank explained during a July conference call.

“Bringing both the UCLA and Cal Berkeley athletic programs into the Under Armour family raises the profile in California that we already have through great partners in sporting goods, mall, as well as existing and even new department store partners like Kohl's, which has over a 100 stores in California,” Plank said

I feel really crappy this morning after see this article and thought why should I be the only to feel crappy, so I'm sharing. I really & truly hate most people anymore.......tying Joe to Cosby WTF.

"Most schools honor their legends, we fire ours".

The Paterno-Cosby connection (column)

Mike Argento, margento@ydr.com 8:03 a.m. EDT September 14, 2016
Penn State takes on a school this week that has its own problems with one of its legends.

Until the Sandusky scandal, the worst thing Joe Paterno ever did, as far as fans and observers of the program were concerned, was run the ball twice up the middle in the '79 Sugar Bowl, costing the Nittany Lions a shot at upsetting Alabama and winning a national championship.

Yes, those were more innocent times, a kind of idyllic, gauzy memory faded by time and the horrors to come.

The point is, you can't jump into the Wayback Machine and change the past.

Yet the university seems to want to, choosing to commemorate the 50th anniversary of Joe Paterno stepping onto the turf at Beaver Stadium as head coach before Saturday's game against Temple.


THE YORK DAILY RECORD

Should Penn State honor Joe Paterno?



Of course, Paterno is gone, his legacy, at least outside the cozy confines of Happy Valley, in tatters. The Paterno apologists, those living in the PSU bubble, don't believe that for a minute. They still think the guy did no wrong, even if the preponderance of the evidence indicates otherwise.

There is no reason to continue to re-litigate what Joe knew and when he knew it. There is no point. The die has been cast, the sides picked. Either you believe that Paterno had enabled a monster to prey on little boys, or you believe that Paterno was framed and that the evidence against him was all fabricated and that he had no idea what was going on – that he was St. JoePa of Mount Nittany.

Neither side is completely right. Paterno's legacy is, well, complicated. He was a flawed human being, as we all are, and his mistakes, or conscious decisions, to favor football over protecting children from a predator, or whatever you chose to believe, were legion.

Yes, Paterno did a lot of good for the university, his players and the students at Penn State. And yes, he may have done an incredible amount of harm to Jerry Sandusky's victims. Both of those things can be true, although trying to convince Paterno dead-enders of that is an impossible task, the world being a black-and-white place with no gray.

Anyway, the university's decision to honor the coach before Saturday's game is curious. And it indicates that Happy Valley is still an insular place, like that town in the Stephen King novel sealed off from the rest of the world by an impenetrable dome.

Outside that bubble, it appears to be yet another instance in which Penn State doesn't get it. Already, according to a column in the Detroit News, an entrepreneur in Michigan has printed up a bunch of maize-and-blue T-shirts emblazoned with "JoePa knew" and plans to sell them prior to next week's Penn State game in Ann Arbor, donating the profits to child welfare agencies.

And elsewhere, there are numerous comments on the Intertubes suggesting that the best way to honor Paterno is with a 30-year-long moment of silence.

THE YORK DAILY RECORD

Local students manage backlash from Paterno editorial


Yet others have suggested that Penn State honoring Paterno is akin to Temple honoring its most illustrious alum, Bill Cosby – pointing out the coincidence that the commemoration will come before a game against a school that has had its problem with one of its legends. In this context, "illustrious" means "notorious," or "creepy."

That is, of course, absurd – kind of like comparing apples to cocker spaniels.

Superficially, the two things may be kind of similar. Cosby was every white person's favorite black grandfather for a while, peddling Jell-O pudding and yelling at kids to pull their pants up and get off his lawn, just as Paterno was everybody's favorite cranky Sicilian grandpa yelling at kids to pull up their pants and get off his lawn.

Yet Cosby is himself an alleged monster. If you believe the allegations against him, he preyed upon young women, drugging them and doing terrible things. Paterno, if you believe the allegations, enabled a monster. Cosby may be Temple's most famous alum and a former member of its board of trustees. When the allegations started piling up, Cosby resigned from the board.

Paterno was the face of Penn State and worked for the university for more than 60 years and was fired when the allegations were leveled against him. The university, against some strident opposition, has been trying to distance itself from the old coach, tearing down his statue and trying to let the past lie in the past.

Sure, it doesn't seem quite right comparing the two, but you would never catch Temple having anything to do with Cosby now. Cosby is dead to Temple now.

But Penn State still feels it has to honor Paterno.

It's just not a good idea.


THE YORK DAILY RECORD

Premature adulation for JoePa (editorial)


How the university is handling it is even worse. The athletic department issued terse releases, not explaining anything, only saying it planned to go ahead with the commemoration, not offering any details or even paying lip service to the victims of the scandal.

Coach James Franklin, asked about it at his weekly press conference, said: “That's something that is a decision that our administration makes. Again, we're so consumed with graduating our players. We're so consumed with getting our players ready to play and be successful on the football field and make great decisions in the community. That's our focus.

“I think as you guys know, I was one of the first people in my opening press conference to show my respect for the history and traditions and all the wonderful things that have happened here. But after that, guys, there are a lot of things that I think people hit me up on Twitter about and questions that I get asked that I'm not involved in. Those things are for the administration."

Say what you will about Franklin as a coach, but the man knows when to punt.

Completely uninformed prediction: Last week, I was remiss in making my completely uninformed prediction for the outcome of the Penn State-Pitt game. Had I done so, I think I would have predicted Penn State losing by three after a chance to take the lead late in the fourth quarter was wiped out by an interception in the end zone. (This prediction business is so much easier if you wait until after the fact.)

This week, I think Penn State wants to bounce back from last week and show that, perhaps, they have practiced tackling and stuff. And they are probably seeking revenge for last year's embarrassing loss to Temple.

http://www.ydr.com/story/sports/col.../14/paterno-cosby-connection-column/90308392/

Hi all,

I do not live in Lion Country and feel pretty unprepared to debate Paterno's involvement in the Sandusky garbage. Every time, for the past 5 years, that someone learns that I am from PSU the Sandusky stuff inevitably comes up and they either ask what I think or tear apart how disgusting Paterno is (this is coming from NE Patriot fans, speaking of morals and cheating, but I digress).

I debate what I can, and it eventually ends in them saying stuff that is inaccurate, followed by "well, he HAD to know." (Yesterday I was talking to a guy who claimed that Sandusky was molesting boys on campus, while a coach, for decade -- then he gave me the time frame of 94-09... he was befuddled when I told him that Sandusky was not a coach after 1999).

Can someone point me in the right direction, or give me a rundown on some of the facts (problems with the Freeh report, etc)? I've read most of it over the past 5 years, but am too rusty on it.

I am also starting law school next fall, so I imagine that that will lead to some debates on the subject... I want to be better prepared.

Thanks for any help!

I was surprised at the prices of tickets for pro games. Of course, I haven't been to a NFL game since the Eagles played at Franklin field & a few games at the new stadium...Veterans.

How much does it cost to watch your football team?
The price of football tickets
moneytips.com
4:16 PM, Sep 12, 2016
Link: http://www.fox47news.com/financial-fitness/how-much-does-it-cost-to-watch-your-football-team


If you plan to go to a NFL or major college game this year, stop by the bank for a significant withdrawal — and perhaps a loan application if you like premium seating. The NFL has never been more popular, while major college football received a boost from the demise of the BCS and the initial college playoff, so ticket prices can be sky-high.

Tickets may be available through box offices at face value, especially for college games, but for NFL games, the secondary market is usually the way to go. The NFL Ticket Exchange, StubHub, and other vendors have plenty of supply for almost any game.

The Seattle Seahawks tops the league with most expensive ticket. According to the 2016 TicketIQ State of the NFL Report, to see the Super Bowl XLVIII champions play at CenturyLink Field it will cost you $466 per ticket on the secondary market.

The New England Patriots will play in four of the ten most expensive games this season. A pair of tickets at the Gillette Stadium (because who goes to a football game alone?) is $1,674 for the Patriots matchup against the Bengals or $715 each against the Seattle Seahawks.

Other teams with high average ticket prices on the secondary market include the the New England Patriots at $461, the Denver Broncos at $454, and the Chicago Bears at $377.

What team is a bargain? The team with the cheapest tickets are the Jacksonville Jaguars. Average tickets for the EverBank Field are $141. The Jaguars join the Cleveland Browns ($145) and the Kansas City Chiefs as the only teams with average ticket prices under $150.

These prices are likely to rise as the season progresses, so get your tickets early.

For you college fans, the TiqIQ Top 25 keeps track of pricing for the 25 highest-priced college football teams. Far atop the list is the Fighting Irish of Notre Dame, with an average ticket price of $332 as of this writing. The best current deal available is for $33 to watch the Irish crush the University of Nevada's Wolf Pack, while the cheapest price to see the special meeting between Notre Dame and Michigan State University is $194 per ticket.

Only two other schools have average ticket prices above $200. They are in the SEC, but it is probably not the schools you are thinking of. Georgia comes in second at $235 and Texas A&M is third with $201. Alabama is 11th at $164. The SEC claims nine of the top 25 expensive ticket spots, followed by the Big 12 with six, the Big Ten with four, the PAC-12 with three and the ACC with two.

If you are priced out of your preferred game, consider games with lesser opponents. Ticket prices for the most desirable game matchups skyrocket based on demand, but they also fall for horrible mismatches. If you just want to watch your favorite ranked college team in action and don't mind watching them beat up on Middle Southeastern Nowhere State College, tickets for that game will be quite reasonably priced. For NFL teams, if your favorite team is likely to be good, you may be out of luck, but for teams competing for the top draft pick late season bargains are usually available — especially in colder outdoor stadiums.

With some planning, you can find relatively inexpensive tickets to see your favorite team and enjoy the live football experience. Don’t forget to enjoy the tailgate experience as well. Have fun, and load up in the parking lot to avoid stadium concession prices. They are skyrocketing, too.

This article was provided by our partners at moneytips.com.

To Read More From MoneyTips:

Sports Stars Who Turned Down Millions and Quit

The World's Richest Athletes of All Time

Most Expensive Sports Stars' Homes

the only good news is that the comments are fairly positive. This guy, Livingston, is a horses ass. I've emailed him and offered to meet him for coffee to discuss, he never responds.

His comments are out of date and in great error.

a-hole. I hope Jay responds to him.

What were you doing?

https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search...~US~appfocus5&param4=googlesearch-bb8~firefox

Welp, I'm out. I watch football on Saturdays now. I know Philly's symphony and opera aren't as good as Pittsburgh's (tic Phillys are amazing, great way to impress a girl) but I will find something else to do on Sundays.

Very interesting podcast.

Adam and Mark and open the show with John Ziegler in studio. They open the show talking about how their perceived political affiliations may have possibly hurt them in their professional circles. This leads to a discussion how media narrative can shape the public’s perception of a story, and how this pertains to the Sandusky case. Next John informs Adam and Mark about some of the odd circumstances surrounding the Sandusky case, and expresses his belief in the innocence of both Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno. He explains how he believes Matt Sandusky is the biggest bad actor involved in the case.

http://reasonabledoubtpodcast.com/2016/08/john-ziegler/

i am a school that sits in the shadow of the tower of ignorance???

They benefit from Penn State, not the other way around. Plus many of them are just obnoxious. Let them wallow in anonymity and mediocrity forever.