That isn’t one of the options. Either argue in good faith, or shut the fuck up.
It occurs to me that parents may not have been so trusting of leaving their kids with Sandusky, or may have been quicker to realize something was wrong, if he did not retain so much Penn State access even after Paterno knew of the abuse.
The fact that he attended events with Penn State players and took the kids to the Penn State campus allowed him to glom on to the Paterno aura of respectability and to the hero worship the kids probably had for Penn State Football.
It’s just disgusting to think about.
Breaking news on ESPN that Sandusky claims to just have showered with the kids, but nothing else. How ironic if he gets off, but Paterno’s legacy is permanently destroyed. Crazy shit.
That’s apparently from an interview with Bob Costas that will air on Brian Williams’ NBC show tonight.
For those with a handy supply of half-bricks and a spare TV.
How in the WORLD does he think this makes things any better? What reason does a 60-year-old man have to shower, alone, at night, in an empty athletics building, with young boys who are not his biological children? Does he somehow think that just showering with them is going to make everybody say “Oh, well that’s TOTES acceptable!”?
I’m sure he’ll answer those questions in the interview that starts in an hour, but I cannot watch, because I do not have a strong enough stomach or a calm enough disposition. That, and I’d rather watch the Packers beat the Vikings than listen to an aging pedophile diminish his own crimes.
This is an example of the mental contortions in which some people are engaging to defend Paterno’s inaction. The indictment summarizes Paterno’s testimony, but now we’re supposed to doubt the summary because it’s just a summary, does not use quotes, and is written by a prosecutor? Sorry, but that’s absurd.
The indictment is not a motion intended to persuade. Rather, it constitutes the grand jury’s findings of fact, based on the testimony they heard. There is absolutely no basis–none–to conclude that the author of the report skewed the facts to fit his or her “interest in the outcome.”
Watching the interview now. Is anyone else seeing a huge red flag every time Sandusky uses the term “horsing around”.
Why does that phrase keep popping up in this case?
[Labrador Deceiver, just a note to let you know that you left the door wide open with that post, but I’m not going to be crass enough to take the bait-just this once.]
Sandusky: ‘I Shouldn’t Have Showered With Those Kids’
You think?
Ugh, ESPN showed a little bit of the interview after the pasting of the Vikings by the Packers, and it was not pretty. I personally think that his attorney is a drooling moron to allow Sandusky to give the interview.
I found it VERY interesting that when Bob Costas flat-out asked Sandusky, “Are you a pedophile?”, Sandusky’s response was something like “well…I like spending time with children and being around children…but…not in a sexual way.”
Seriously. Your first response to that question should be “Hell, no.” Not waffling around about spending time with kids.
Bet Jerry Sandusky wishes he could learn how to do that.
Seriously, it woulda saved him a shit-ton of trouble…
I have no idea but one thing I think is an ABSOLUTE certainty: Starving Artist, brickbacon, Fotheringay-Phipps or jtgain should be along at any moment to provide us with a totally obvious and reasonable explanation for why a 60-year-old man would find it acceptable to shower with little boys.
And horse around in the nude with them.
And have them fall ass first on his erect cock.
Repeatedly.
Hey! The man likes to stay clean & teach the heimlich maneuver! Since when is time management a crime?
The claim you made earlier is not supported by the link you provided. You said the following:
The interviewee says nothing about Paterno or children. He states that Sandusky was definitely around, and that “anytime guys wanted to help out, do charity work, that was always an opportunity for us to go out into the community and help out.” It says nothing about Paterno suggesting they involve themselves with the charity, nor does it says ANYTHING about attracting children to Sandusky. In fact, it doesn’t make much sense that a player would know very many children that they could bring to the charity anyway.
I apologize, I missed the context of your quote. However, you are the one alleging that Paterno not knowing about certain things would necessitate a cover-up or conspiracy. There is no reason to assume that whatsoever.
It is not irrelevant because it intimates a bad motives and actions taken by people for which there is no evidence. People have repeatedly alleged that Paterno and others conspired to keep the whole thing under wraps. I on the other hand have contended that there is no proof of that, and no incentive for a number of the actors to agree with to conspire.
You are confusing two different things. The allegations in '98 which were investigated by the police resulted in no charges being filed. He subsequently retired in '99. Whether the two are related is up for debate. At the very least, it would seem that, unlike what some have claimed, the matter was not widely known publicly. Just based on the fact that several glowing articles were written by competent reporters after his retirement which do not mention the inquiries or a cloud of suspicion. We also have the release of Sandusky’s book, Touched, in 2001. Do you really think that would have gone over without comment if the incidents in '98 were known about publicly? Here is an article from a reporter who admits to being fooled by Sandusky. Notice when he inquires about his retirement, he is asking whether it was consternation due to him being passed over in succession plans, not about any allegations of him showering with kids. Now, does that mean Paterno didn’t know? No, but it does give us some appreciation for the fact that the presence of the allegations was not particularly widely know. Even reporters, whose careers could be made on such a story, and thus have plenty of motivation to report on them, did not know.
Second, your claim that all they did was take away his keys, was a response to the 2002 incidents which Paterno, among others, was obviously aware. By this point, he no longer worked for PS, and thus could not be fired. In hindsight, they definitely should have done more, but you understanding/presentation of the timeline is off.
I sincerely doubt that. Plenty of abusers operate without access to college football teams. Another part of your premise that is faulty is that the parents in this case were particularly interested and involved. I don’t mean that as a claim they are culpable in any way, but to show why people who prey on kids often prey on certain kids, with a certain home life, with certain types of parents. In essence they look for easy prey, where there will be little parental oversight, giving them far more autonomy and opportunity. If you are to believe the current thread with a supposed victim of Sandusky’s, he stated he on some level preferred the company of Sandusky (despite the abuse) because of his unfortunate home life. Second Mile’s ties with PS didn’t seem to enter into the equation.
Please feel free to quote me where I have ever disputed the allegations made against Sandusky, defended the actions you mentioned above, or praised Sandusky as a human being. I’ll save you some time, you won’t find anything like that at all. But don’t let the facts ruin your fun. I know how enjoyable it must be attacking that straw man, intimating I’m a pedophile, and praying for bad things to happen to me for having the temerity to question the mob.
An NY Times Op-Ed by David Brooks possibly explaining McQueary’s lack of action after seeing a kid get raped:
Not what McQueary is saying now: Mike McQueary: ‘I made sure it stopped’
Can’t say that I am surprised no one’s guilty in this scandal. :rolleyes:
Do you disagree with the point he is making? If so, what specifically is bothersome or erroneous in your estimation?
Not at all. In fact, it’s pretty much what I assumed happened with McQueary. That’s why I posted it. My issue since day 1 has been with the higher-ups (especially Paterno) who sat on the information for years, knowing that there was no resolution.
I used the term “possibly explaining” because it’s a theory, but we have no way knowing if it applied in this particular instance.
ESPN is reporting that according to a source familiar with the state investigation, McQueary did stop the assault. That’s a more objective party and presumably they wouldn’t lie for McQueary.
While we might be able to point to historical behaviour and trends about how people report or react to offensive/dangerous situations, I don’t think that’s really much of an excuse, so much as an explanation. Doing nothing - for nine years - is still a choice and it’s still a moral failing. We don’t justify other crimes, petty or not, with “well, X% of people would have done the same thing”, so while there’s an interesting discussion to be had about the brain and how it reacts to things, it’s still not enough to let someone off the hook for not doing what they could to stop a sexual predator from assaulting children.
It’s true, we don’t know what we would have done in the same position as McQueary. But, we do know what he did (and didn’t) do - and those things were not enough. Those things were still wrong. Perhaps in another situation in the future, another McQueary will think twice, and make the right choice because he heard about this case - at least, we can hope.