Thank you Penn State article,....Yahoo/Huff Post
- Thread starter TheGLOV
- Start date
Well, she is a fiction writer.
here's the contact info for faculty at Cardozo Law: LINK
Hamilton, Marci A.
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
212.790.0215
hamilton02@aol.com
@Marci_Hamilton on twitter
Hamilton, Marci A.
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
212.790.0215
hamilton02@aol.com
@Marci_Hamilton on twitter
Paterno’s dissemblers at the University and in his family declared in response to these new revelations that there was no “clear evidence” that Paterno knew. Really? How is it possible at this late date, scandal after scandal and post Spotlight, for them not to hear themselves? Knee-jerk denial does no one any good, particularly when we are dealing with a confirmed serial child predator. There is a thing called decency.
So let’s assume Paterno knew in the early 70s. Why would he have kept his knowledge about Sandusky quiet? Well, by the early 1970s, Sandusky had transformed Penn State football into Linebacker U and in 1973 they went undefeated. The program was clearly on the way to the very top, and with Sandusky as defensive coordinator Penn State would win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Paterno knew and chose to keep Sandusky. Why? Because it served his ends.And because children are dispensable, especially the ones in Sandusky’s Second Mile charity, which drew from a population of boys with troubled homes. This is precisely the same reason the bishops let children suffer and the same reason the Solebury School ignored a long history of abuse on its campus, not to mention Horace Mann, Poly Prep, the Boy Scouts, and on and on.
Penn State fans now have a new choice: continue to make Joe Pa a saint despite the facts, or help the survivors find justice by desisting with your empty defenses. Denial that will drag down Penn State even farther or justice for the kids that suffered? To quote Kierkegaard, it is “Either/Or.”
So let’s assume Paterno knew in the early 70s. Why would he have kept his knowledge about Sandusky quiet? Well, by the early 1970s, Sandusky had transformed Penn State football into Linebacker U and in 1973 they went undefeated. The program was clearly on the way to the very top, and with Sandusky as defensive coordinator Penn State would win national championships in 1982 and 1986. Paterno knew and chose to keep Sandusky. Why? Because it served his ends.And because children are dispensable, especially the ones in Sandusky’s Second Mile charity, which drew from a population of boys with troubled homes. This is precisely the same reason the bishops let children suffer and the same reason the Solebury School ignored a long history of abuse on its campus, not to mention Horace Mann, Poly Prep, the Boy Scouts, and on and on.
Penn State fans now have a new choice: continue to make Joe Pa a saint despite the facts, or help the survivors find justice by desisting with your empty defenses. Denial that will drag down Penn State even farther or justice for the kids that suffered? To quote Kierkegaard, it is “Either/Or.”
damn HuffPo, just let em off a one year boycott. now they are on a permanent vacation . . .
well holy guacamole, that didn't take long . . .
Marci Hamilton connected to SNAP
and the Philly DA's office . . . oh what a tangled web we weave . . .
Marci Hamilton connected to SNAP
and the Philly DA's office . . . oh what a tangled web we weave . . .
She's full of dog doo. I guess taking Bernie McCue at face value is solid philosophy.
Why give her a click.................ignore the BS.
A bunch of tripe is what this is.
on transforming PSU into LB U. First it was Joe who put all the talent on D, and at LB first.
second, every drill, technique Jerry every used, wrote about in his book, 'Coaching LB's the PSU way' was given to him by Dan Radakovich, everyone. Jere even acknowledges as much in the intro to his book.
don't obfuscate her hysteria with facts.
clearly, when Joe was called by a victim in 1971, he said, "gee, I might win a national championship in 10 years or so with this Sandusky kid. I just have to make sure I bench players over minor issues to create the illusion I discipline people in my program, so no one will suspect I am harboring a pedophile. And when a Grad Assistant comes to me in 30 years, after Sandusky has retired, I gotta keep a lid on it by properly reporting it up my chain of command. WHEW! FOOTBALL!"
yea I know.
I talked to my brother the other day, in general he is not a sports fan, and in general conversation he brings up, 'while it looks like Joe knew back in the 70's'. Now he is an educated man, and I ask, 'Bro did you even read the article?' 'No, just the headlines', to which I say, 'go back and read the article, does it make any sense at all?? Why would some kid say he is abused and the only person on the face of this earth he'll speak to about that is Joe? How does some kid get Joe and the AD (Jim) on the line at the same time? Does that make any sense at all?? And the guy the collaborates the story is some 'Crazy Sarah' running around SC' 'Well I guess I'll read it'.
(fwiw Crazy Sarah was some women that ran around my home town yelling at people random stuff. EX she looks at my Mom, while I am at best 5, and yells, 'where's my Husband' and yells the same thing to the next car going by. )
I refuse to click the link but what you've pasted is a ridiculous attempt on the part of the author to shape the narrative he/she wants the public to believe. The first paragraph starts with "So let’s assume Paterno knew in the early 70s". Then the author goes into a weird scenario in which Joe apparently knew Sandusky would be solely responsible for bringing a couple of national championships to Penn State over a decade in the future. Yeah, Joe could see what would happen in the next decade. Then the author mentions Solebury School, Horace Mann, Poly Prep and the Boy Scouts in a lame attempt to somehow connect them to Joe Paterno. But the paragraph began with "assume" which means what followed was conjecture.
Then in the final paragraph the author says we Penn State fans have a choice to make regarding Joe "despite the facts". What facts? The author didn't present any. He/she admitted to assuming then later acted as if facts had been presented. What bullshit. These people wouldn't know a fact if it bit them in the ass.
This screams of Ira Lubert and Paul Silvis trying to keep their Second Mile connections out of the spotlight.
EXACTLY! And this is more proof (to me at least) that Anthony and others are getting really close!
Exactly.
I'll never understand people who get up in arms about garbage like this. Don't read it, don't click it, and don't pay it an ounce of attention.
Because you're in the barn yard much of the day, take a breather, take a trip to the mountains and take in some fresh, mountain air.
I may as well be. The "factual content" is the same.
As an aside, I always hate it when someone overuses quotation marks when writing but now I find myself doing the same. It's hard to avoid when discussing what someone puts forth as a "fact" when it's really an assumption or opinion. The same goes for the Freeh "report" which really wasn't a report at all. "Ethics" of the Nov. 2011 BoT?? Don't even get me started.
That was all Marci's "protege" and webmaster Courtney who supposedly has a law degree or has taken "courses" but doesn't use it. https://www.linkedin.com/in/courtneysoliday Her current day job is "Branding" for "AOLBuild" https://twitter.com/AOLBUILD so she's basically just another propganda artist for hire.
She used her connection to Arianna Huffington of the "AOL Leadership Team" to get it RE-published at Huffpost. http://corp.aol.com/about-aol/leadership
Last edited:
In the Paterno vs. NCAA thread, I made a comment about those who purported to care about victims making a face like they smelled manure if they ever met any of the actual real victims (who they consider beneath them anyway). In case you can't visualize it, Marci has kindly given us a demonstration.
Not surprising this appears in a publication where if it feels good it must be correct, let the facts be damned. Decision based on emotion, and the more outrage you can generate the more correct your opinion is. The entire country needs Logic 100 and Critical Thinking 101.
I'll go buck naked before I wear one of those stupid blue ribbons. And trust me, nobody wants to view that sight.
I'm not wearing something to prove that I'm not in favor of child sexual abuse. Normal people have that as their default position.
Oh, boy. I haven't written a letter in a while. I'm going to thoroughly enjoy (ahem) Hitch slapping that European Philosopher straight back to medieval Europe where she belongs.
She too has the choice to become an investigator and reporter of journalist fact or be a lazy wordy speculative gossip monger. It's either or in everyone's case. Hers is no exception.
Sandusky didn't become the DC until 1977, so he wasn't responsible for our great defenses of the early '70's, as she states. She's a moron.
the easiest fallacy of her article is she starts a paragraph with "let's assume", and then treats that assumption as FACT to prove some ridiculous point that in 1971, Paterno KNEW Sandusky would be the mastermind of a defensive scheme that would win a championship 11 YEARS LATER.
boy, these so-called journalists accuse US of worshipping Joe, but they tend to imbue him with powers beyond mortal comprehension
Double quotes (" ") are for actual word for word quotes, otherwise single quotes (' ') are what should be used. Paraphrasing is a great example for single quotes.
It is what it is, Ned, what most people believe... Freeh and the OGBOT gave us the gift that keeps on giving!! The false narrative won't be eradicated until the Fraud is hanging upside down, if.
What you say is so obvious, it's unbelievable that it escapes the analysis of "experts" or those with the power of the pen (keyboard).
We can all stop bashing Courtney now. We've had a talk and I've given her some more information. (She actually unblocked me to talk about it.) Will she take down the blog? I don't know and I won't demand she does. But maybe, at most she will write a follow-up, at the least, not use Marci's rhetoric any more as her basis for SOL reform calls.
This is all on Marci Hamilton now.
This is all on Marci Hamilton now.
and maybe in the future, Courtney can respond to factual challenges to her "blogs" with something more than condescending sarcasm.
She only did that to people who addressed it as if she were the actual author.
Anyone confusing a re-post of someone else's screed didn't actually read it OR the original from Hamilton-Griffin which was released on May 12th, or they would have recognized it was a duplication right away. So maybe the sarcasm was because people didn't read very well before jumping in?
It might have been more productive to ask her why she just re-posted it without checking any of it for veracity.
If an AP writer writes an article and it is "aggregated" without any changes by a bazillion news outlets who do you address about the contents? The original author or the "copiers"? IMHO you go for the original author, and you can go after the copiers for-just copying.
Last edited:
