A surprisingly fair Sandusky scandal article from the Wash Post.
- Thread starter interrobang
- Start date
I am surprised by the comments toward rural folks. For the record i am far from a rural folk having lived most of my life in Pburgh, Detroit, Atlanta and SoCal. I now spend half my time in SoCal and half in a small beach community in NC that is populated by what I would call a rural mentality. I find these folks kind, generous, hard working and friendly. Given a choice who i want as a neighbor one of these folks or some elitist snob from Manhattan, San Fran or LA and it isn't even close. Oh by the way this subject had nothing to do with the OP.
So, your comments about people from Manhattan, San Fran or LA equate them all to be elitist snobs? You don't think there are people in these locations that are kind, generous, hard working and friendly?
Who is really being the snob?
Of course there are uro. I was attempting to show the same generalization's everyone earlier in the post had toward rural America. I will say this however there are a lot more of our friends in SoCal who think they are smarter, better, and much better informed and "worldly" than folks in NC than the other way around. In NC they just shrug their shoulders and say "those people really seem kind of strange to me". Different not inferior. Just my personal observation.
I rarely hear a southerner demean a northerner but the other way around is quite common. Just sayin....
I read the article and thought, maybe, just maybe, someone, anyone would think, wow, Sandusky started a charity to help at risk children? THE SECOND MILE...Sandusky adopted kids numerous times? And was in investigated and cleared to adopt those kids? 1998 was investigated and Sandusky was cleared by police and professionals? And he fooled all those people and we expected JVP to go all Rambo on Sandusky??? Nahhhhhh...BSpn told us JVP enabled Sandusky.
“Do whatever you need to do to keep the NCAA from giving us the ‘Death Penalty,’ ” trustee Paul Suhey wrote. “I don’t care if you have to bring your own bulldozer over and drag it to your farm, do it!”
Erickson replied, “That’s precisely what I’m trying to do, Paul.”
Never forget, Paul Suhey and Rodney Erickson are dickless scumbags.
Erickson replied, “That’s precisely what I’m trying to do, Paul.”
Never forget, Paul Suhey and Rodney Erickson are dickless scumbags.
Your Penn State donations at work:
One man alleged that in 1988, Penn State assistant Kevin O’Dea walked in while Sandusky was touching him improperly in a locker room and O’Dea did nothing. O’Dea, now an assistant with the New Orleans Saints, said in a statement through his attorney this was a “complete fabrication” and pointed out he didn’t work at Penn State until 1991. Penn State officials never contacted O’Dea before settling with the alleged victim, his attorney said.
One man alleged that in 1988, Penn State assistant Kevin O’Dea walked in while Sandusky was touching him improperly in a locker room and O’Dea did nothing. O’Dea, now an assistant with the New Orleans Saints, said in a statement through his attorney this was a “complete fabrication” and pointed out he didn’t work at Penn State until 1991. Penn State officials never contacted O’Dea before settling with the alleged victim, his attorney said.
Erickson knew there wasn't going to be a death penalty. The whole story is a crock and evidence from the Corman case proves it.
The first photo is of Joe and Sandusky which makes it seem like they are good buds to those who don't know any better. A cheap hook for the article and misleading.
Both of you make good points. Another thing that irks me is how some on the board look down upon farmers. Where would the world be without them?
The media can't even find another photo of them to use. There's more photos of Bigfoot than Sandusky and Paterno together.
Not really.
The Endowment Act, legislation Corman introduced, required “any institution of higher learning” in the state that was required by a governing body to pay a monetary penalty of $10 million over the course of multiple years to pay the money into a state-administered trust fund.
But the NCAA fought its enforcement, and Corman and state Treasurer Rob McCord filed suit against the sports organization in January 2013.
The NCAA lost in its last attempt to have the Endowment Act declared unconstitutional when Judge Yvette Kane, of U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, denied a request for an injunction barring its enforcement.
In her ruling, Kane upheld Commonwealth Court Judge Anne Covey’s repeated affirmations of the constitutionality of the Endowment Act.
FWIW, the print version of the article appears in today's paper issue and consumes 3/4 of the sports section page 1 and two full additional pages inside with photos. That's a rarity for any subject in any section.
Yet here you are reading and commenting on comments on posts on a message board.....
I don't see how that's relevant to the fact that there was no death penalty threat or cram down by the NCAA. The evidence showed that Erickson and the PSU Board began negotiating the penalties on the Monday after the Freeh Report was issued. That was before the NCAA Executive Board met to vote.
Corman's attorney, Matt Haverstick, stated (and the evidence showed) there were two tracks of actions. The dealing between Erickson and Emmert was the real track of decisions. The dealing between Gene Marsh and the enforcement staff was a sideshow.
All of this mess to simply protect a few people who should have been the focus of investigations; put the University, the football coach, the football program, students, fans and alumni out in front of the hordes of media and the public eye - like Lambs to the Slaughter. So a small handful of people can escape quietly in the night.
This is the leadership we have had.
They don't need evidence - they have the ability to accuse and stand back, and that is all they need.
"The dispute results from stubborn “Paterno-deniers,” “Joebots” and “truthers,” for whom no evidence will be strong enough to condemn the beloved former football coach"
When I first read that in the article I thought that was a pretty unfair statement and an egregious attack on Paterno. From that moment I did not think the article was a very fair characterization of the situation.
Fair enough, why then the disdain for rural America? Have you been to a 3rd world country? I would liken some of our urban blight as more third world than rural America. IMO from east of Denver to just west of Pittsburgh you have a lot of rural America. I drive it a lot going coast to coast. Drive is boring but the "folks" are great.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
The big difference is education. Southern states have some of the worst public schools in the country and those folk grow up and live and work in the same towns forever. I certainly wouldn’t look down my nose at Southerners as a group, but Alabama almost elected an alleged (with very credible accusers whom even Breitbart editors believed) serial pedophile to the Senate. F that.
Yes almost but they didn’t did they. The good people of Alabama held their nose and voted for a D which for them is quite hard. But the folks in Detroit put in a serial abuser for 50 years, the folks in New York a serial sexter and a few years back DC put in A mayor who was snorting coke on camera. Something about glass houses and throwing stones rings a bell.
Exactly. These people who think there aren't lists of bad actors on their side of the aisle just crack me up. Here's a newsflash...Rs and Ds both suck!
Excellent points. To many southern evangelicals, abortion is a form of genocide. From that world view, supporting a scuzball like Moore is a good trade-off because he would work to end abortion (i.e. genocide from their view) as a senator while his opponent is pro-choice (i.e., permissive of genocide from their view). Alabama is chock full of evangelicals and despite that Moore still lost.
People who can't grasp that their values are not shared by all would rather embrace stereotypes and throw stones than think through the situation.
Exhibit A follows next:
Last edited:
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Your president endorsed said serial pedophile. How you live with that is beyond me. And those ‘good’ folks were Democrats - your kind lined up en masse to support a child predator. Would be a cold day in hell when I would place decency and morality over partisan politics.
I read the article in the Washington Post on the Sandusky situation at Penn State. Relatively fair assessment. A few things I disagree with. However, you should take the time to read the comments. There are a host of biased vitriolic statements about Paterno that do not reflect an appreciation for what transpired in 2001.
A couple of points that I struggle with regarding this continuing troublesome situation:
1) I think there is a split in discussing this topic. There are those including many Penn Stater's that believe that there was either naïveté or negligence on the part of the Board of Trustees and top administrators in acknowledging what happened in 2001 and dealing with it in a forthright manner. However, there is a split when it comes to adding Joe Paterno into the discussion. On the part of many alums and supporters, there was the distinct belief that he acted appropriately by placing this situation in the hands of administrators who were trained to deal with it. I support this position for two reasons. First, Joe was a football coach - not a social worker or child protective services worker. This situation was out of his sphere of knowledge and he was smart enough to give it to those who knew what to do. Whether they acted in a professional manner is surely in question and the recent court decisions would lead us to believe that they were negligent. Second, JS retired in 1998/99, which meant that JS was no longer formally in the employ of PSU and therefore no longer under Joe's authority. He was, so to speak, a ward of the Board of Trustees who granted him the Emeritus status.
2) It has been well-documented that Joe's children and his grandchildren were frequent guests in the Sandusky household and that in fact, the grandchildren may have been given to the Sandusky's for baby sitting when necessary. It does not make sense that if Joe knew about Jerry's tendencies, that he would permit his children or grandchildren to ever be in that household!
3) In my opinion, Joe had to be smart enough to know that the consequences of a coverup far out weighed honest and forthright admission of the problem. In my opinion, admission would have placed PSU in a far better position in the public's eye than a coverup. And, I believe they had to know that was the case.
4) As a psychoanalyst who has worked with pedophiles and victims of childhood sexual abuse, I can tell you that when there is an allegation that a family member, friend, colleague, or admired figure has been accused of sexual abuse, the first reaction is DENIAL! It takes some time and discussion before the denial is lessened and the reality sets in. And when the denial is broken, usually the first action is NOT to call the police. More likely, you will call your priest, rabbi, family doctor or whomever else you might trust. Example: What would you do if a neighbor revealed to you that your 18 year old son had been abusing their 12 year old daughter? Would you call the police? I doubt it. You would confront your son, talk with your wife, call a doctor or member of the clergy, talk with a trusted family member - but you would not call the police. At least not until the situation had some clarity. And that is usually what happens. And it seems that a variation on that theme was what happened at PSU.
5) Was there an attempt at a coverup at PSU? I do not honestly know. What I do know is that they did not deal with it in a proper manner. And, I do not believe that it was an issue for Joe Paterno to deal with - in fact, his involvement could have discouraged or tainted any real investigation of JS and his actions. Moreover, in my heart I do not believe that Joe would have put the reputation of his football program above the welfare of a child. That is totally inconsistent with the man's nature and history.
6) Last, I feel that there is genuine culpability on the part of the Board of Trustees. They gave JS Emeritus status - not Joe. They gave JS the "keys to the kingdom" - not Joe. And, what about the Second Mile? They seem to have "skated" and seemingly avoided investigation and culpability.
And please, would you all refrain from using the statement "I should have done more." The actual statement is: "WITH HINDSIGHT, I could have done more." That is a completely different statement, as the first suggests knowledge whereas the second does not.
We survived, the University survived and the football program survived. Why? Because WE ARE!
A couple of points that I struggle with regarding this continuing troublesome situation:
1) I think there is a split in discussing this topic. There are those including many Penn Stater's that believe that there was either naïveté or negligence on the part of the Board of Trustees and top administrators in acknowledging what happened in 2001 and dealing with it in a forthright manner. However, there is a split when it comes to adding Joe Paterno into the discussion. On the part of many alums and supporters, there was the distinct belief that he acted appropriately by placing this situation in the hands of administrators who were trained to deal with it. I support this position for two reasons. First, Joe was a football coach - not a social worker or child protective services worker. This situation was out of his sphere of knowledge and he was smart enough to give it to those who knew what to do. Whether they acted in a professional manner is surely in question and the recent court decisions would lead us to believe that they were negligent. Second, JS retired in 1998/99, which meant that JS was no longer formally in the employ of PSU and therefore no longer under Joe's authority. He was, so to speak, a ward of the Board of Trustees who granted him the Emeritus status.
2) It has been well-documented that Joe's children and his grandchildren were frequent guests in the Sandusky household and that in fact, the grandchildren may have been given to the Sandusky's for baby sitting when necessary. It does not make sense that if Joe knew about Jerry's tendencies, that he would permit his children or grandchildren to ever be in that household!
3) In my opinion, Joe had to be smart enough to know that the consequences of a coverup far out weighed honest and forthright admission of the problem. In my opinion, admission would have placed PSU in a far better position in the public's eye than a coverup. And, I believe they had to know that was the case.
4) As a psychoanalyst who has worked with pedophiles and victims of childhood sexual abuse, I can tell you that when there is an allegation that a family member, friend, colleague, or admired figure has been accused of sexual abuse, the first reaction is DENIAL! It takes some time and discussion before the denial is lessened and the reality sets in. And when the denial is broken, usually the first action is NOT to call the police. More likely, you will call your priest, rabbi, family doctor or whomever else you might trust. Example: What would you do if a neighbor revealed to you that your 18 year old son had been abusing their 12 year old daughter? Would you call the police? I doubt it. You would confront your son, talk with your wife, call a doctor or member of the clergy, talk with a trusted family member - but you would not call the police. At least not until the situation had some clarity. And that is usually what happens. And it seems that a variation on that theme was what happened at PSU.
5) Was there an attempt at a coverup at PSU? I do not honestly know. What I do know is that they did not deal with it in a proper manner. And, I do not believe that it was an issue for Joe Paterno to deal with - in fact, his involvement could have discouraged or tainted any real investigation of JS and his actions. Moreover, in my heart I do not believe that Joe would have put the reputation of his football program above the welfare of a child. That is totally inconsistent with the man's nature and history.
6) Last, I feel that there is genuine culpability on the part of the Board of Trustees. They gave JS Emeritus status - not Joe. They gave JS the "keys to the kingdom" - not Joe. And, what about the Second Mile? They seem to have "skated" and seemingly avoided investigation and culpability.
And please, would you all refrain from using the statement "I should have done more." The actual statement is: "WITH HINDSIGHT, I could have done more." That is a completely different statement, as the first suggests knowledge whereas the second does not.
We survived, the University survived and the football program survived. Why? Because WE ARE!
My goodness
."your President" that says it all. I thought he was our President
- "good folks were D's" last I looked Alabama was the reddest state in the country. For a D to win in Alabama the R's either switched or stayed home.
- "cold day in hell when Partisan politics had priority over morality and decency" - I agree and i hope your feelings were the same for Bill Clinton whose accusers were absolutely as credible as Moore's. I guess that shows a lot of "your folks" put partisan politics first. A final thought about Alabaman's. The fact the DT could support Moore and yet enough R's stayed home shows me they aren't the lemmings "your people" suggest they are.
BTW read the post above yours by Keyser and that explains the dilemma many folks felt about the election
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Your president is also an accused sexual predator. And you still voted for him. Enjoy the game.
Why don't you and @roswelldawg10 take this to the Test board?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
This might be the first article where the media actually questions what was up with the second mile. Better late than never, but why weren’t there questions about that organization from day one?
I’ve seen your posts. You bait people into political “discussions” and then try to take the high road out of it.
