Uh, sweetheart (pardon the condescension; it’s just so…apropos):
a) I haven’t said a word about Paterno’s race. I’d ask why you have if the answer weren’t already obvious.
b) The correct spelling is “pissant.”
c) The correct word is “discussion.”
Perhaps if you’d gone to school with us hillbillies back in the fifties when you had to actually learn stuff to be passed from one grade the next you’d know these things. 
I knew it!
Make that “to” the next.
Go ahead, point and laugh! I deserve it for not catching that on preview.
I did say above that there were structural problems with this law. It made no provision for the inaction or malfeasance of the superiors that the abuse was reported to. This is being addressed by the state legislature, and that’s well and fine.
This does not let Paterno off the hook. At any time he could have notified state police. And I am unconvinced that he had nothing to do with the decision to handle the Sandusky matter internally and never bring charges againgt the man, even from the university police.
An interesting tidbit:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=ap-pennstate-paterno
Penn State is cutting licensing ties with Paterno. Not that this means a whole bunch but it does indicate that they are trying to sever the associate between his name and the university.
So back to the OP. Joe, you could have retired with grace, dignity and your reputation intact.
Because there is nothing to wait for, and because there is nothing else we could see that would change the conclusion that Paterno was morally compelled to do more than he did. You seem (to take you at your word) to think that we’re in a world where facts can be undone. Paterno was told (to take the mildest sworn version) of “sexual contact with a young boy.” Putting aside your earlier obsessive focus on the literal (slight, and meaningless) difference in the verbiage of the GJ’s characterization of Paterno’s sworn testimony and its characterization of McQueary’s testimony about “anal intercourse with a ten year old boy,” you seem to argue that some (unspecified, or in many cases, simply made up by you) circumstances or internal thought processes of Paterno . . . what, undo that baseline triggering of the need to aggressively pursue the situation, follow up? What fact could come out that would do that (no, you CANNOT say that maybe despite all the sworn testimony, Paterno will now say that he didn’t hear about “sexual contact,” or that he really meant “touching the kid’s leg in a non-sexual way.”). Those aren’t FACTS. Those are fables at best, perjuries at worst.
So doggedly sticking to a “wait and see” approach for non-existent facts that wouldn’t change anything has NO benefit. Does it have a cost?
Yeah, a pretty big one. It encourages behavior like Paterno’s (because in your world, I guess he’d still be coaching, thus vindicating his lackluster response to what was clearly a long term f’d up situation with several members of his staff). And while I’m not usually one for citing “chilling effects” and the like, I can’t think of many situations where the term applies better – do we really need to be taking the position that facially plausible claims of sexual assault on minors have some optional level of “I didn’t think it was that serious” response? Before you come in with some foolishness about a “rush to judgment,” no one here has (yet) advocated that Paterno should have marched out and executed Sandusky. Just that he could and should have done many, many things more than what he did (including reporting an eyewitness description of a serious felony to, you know, the people who investigate felony reports (hint: not, in the first instance, the AD)). Are there false or misunderstood or malicious allegations of sexual assault? Sure – and even so, someone needs to affirmatively take the lead in figuring out whether the claim is plausible enough to merit further action.
If Paterno wanted to make independent decisions as to the plausibility or gravity of the charges that, he reasonably could have known would and did cause the investigation to die on the vine, his minimal responsibility was to be running around that campus with a deerstalker hat and magnifying glass for the next month figuring out who claimed what had happend to whom, and who saw it. That might have been unorthodox, but since he could and did know that the AD “investigation” wouldn’t accomplish anything, it’d have been a Hell of a lot more morally defensible than what he did[n’t] do – he avoided the hard choices of figuring out how plausible it was that Sandusky was a crminal (or an alternate hard choice, that McQueary was an insane/malicious/idiotic liar, 'cause one of those two conclusions is inevitable). Nope, kick it down the road. “No my yob” as the less-than-industrious janitors at my old apartment building used to say.
Hell, I don’t even know, (or care) what Paterno’s political beliefs are. Just that he failed to act when he had a moral duty to do so. Legally, he may not have committed a crime. Morally, he’s responsible.
They are fairly well known to be Catholic-influenced conservative.
And you’re right – so what?
I am not a particularly left-leaning member of this board (no, I know it’s shocking, but read my posts). And – so what? The fact that a guy is a member of a club that I might have some general affinity for means I apply a different standard of justice, morality, appropriateness to him? Not hardly.
To be fair to SA, I can’t figure out if his motive is political (or what it is – God knows it’s nothing that makes sense, but the disingenuous with which he’s pursued red herrings like trying to reintroduce the “it was some form of ambiguous horseplay” suggests it is not well-motivated). I had not read it as pro-conservative, or pro-PSU-sports, but I really cannot figure it out.
But, as the political tangent led SA off on the further tangent of why-isn’t-anyone-pitting-the-recent-Hollywood-child-star-pedophile stories, it must be because you’re all covering for your liberal buds in LaLa Land – let me (though I have less credibility as a right winger) officially say that any Hollywood producer or agent who molested the Coreys, or any of those '60s-'80s child stars, is scum and should lose any semblence of position of authority or respect. So far there’s been no indictments and thus no detailed description of a culture of coverup (yet), so there’s been little specific factually to pit/discuss, but let me get it out that if that happened, those guys and anyone who enabled them (and I’m perfectly willing to believe Hollywood is full of perverts), can hang from the same post as Sandusky and Paterno. Are the Hollywood pervs likely liberal? Sure, but that doesn’t affect my judgment of their culpability for being pervs. They’re culpable not because they’re loony liberals, but because they are degenerate predators (okay, maybe there’s some overlap . . . I kid (sort of)). Maybe an actual leftie could join me in the no-brainer that says, no, no one’s writing a free pass (I hope) for credibly-accused liberal icons who molested little kids, nor should they, 'cause this is a moral, not political, issue.
NO! 
Me, neither, although I have my suspicions. I think it’s either that he truly can’t fathom that one of his heroes might have feet of clay, or that he’s gotten so conditioned to knee-jerk disagree with everything posted on this board to continue to see himself as the lone (conservative) voice of reason amidst the snarling masses of idiot liberals.
Don’t do this. Don’t allow him to distract this thread, and this discussion, and this condemnation of ACTUAL examples of moral turpitude, into a hypothetical and theoretical discussion of unproven allegations. It’s EXACTLY what he’s hoping for - to hijack and derail and obfuscate and juke and jive until we’re all discussing something that might or might not have happened, and then he can jump in and draw incorrect parallels.
Until the lefties respond (gee, hope we can find some on this board…), how 'bout a backsliding libertarian?
I’d say anyone who tries to use this as a "Let’s point the finger at the ____ (conservative or Catholic*, or white, or optometrically-challenged) is being as disingenuous as SA.
Pedophilia trumps any label, to such a degree as to make the scum’s other affiliations meaningless.
*Although I confess to a momentary knee-jerk reaction when I read “Catholic”: I immediately thought “Oh, great, the Religion of Child Molestors strikes again” … but I would never post that, of course. :~}
You know what? You’re probably, no, certainly, correct. Should’ve let the tangent remain a tangent . . . .
This (& other comments along the same lines) misses the fact that Sandusky is going to be sued by all the victims. And as dim as his chances are in the criminal trial, they are a lot worse in the civil suits, where the standard of proof is a lot lower. And the point here is that whatever chance he does have goes out the window if he pleads guilty in the criminal case.
ISTM that the only chance Sandusky has of preserving any assets (other than possibly divorcing his wife) is to somehow beat the rap in the criminal case and then negotiate some sort of settlement with the victims (who will be primarily be focused on deeper pockets anyway).
Different organizations have different standards. But what’s more to the point is that your assurances to the contrary, the facts in this case are that in 1998 Sandusky was investigated for showering with a kid, the police were called, and an arrest was not made. The police investigator at the time felt that it was a “boundary issue”.
Throughout this thread people have been sure of all sorts of things.
Well, yeah, if you include being molested by the “mentor” then sure. I’m not sure you’re following this discussion. The point here is that other people were not fully aware of what Sandusky was doing with these kids. The issue is whether the parts of Sandusky’s relationship with the boy that were known to Paterno et al were enough to raise enough suspicion such that his/their actions would not suffice.
On another note, I see that despite the predilection of people in this thread to rush in gleefully posting any new salacious details they’ve seen, no one has posted the following. As noted previously, many people in this thread have their minds made up and have already figured out exactly what happened and who did what, and they don’t want to be confused with facts. Far be it from me to cause any cognitive dissonance. However there is always the more thoughtful minority, plus the lurkers, and for their benefit I cite the following
I haven’t seen Dranov’s name before this, in any of the stories or in the grand jury documents. The news story cited by Fotheringay-Phipps claims he testified to the grand jury. I wonder why he wasn’t mentioned by the GJ? Or maybe there are GJ docs I haven’t seen.
That’s what I meant. I feel the paragraphs following that statement clarify that - perhaps you are the one not following the discussion?
Even if Sandusky is nothing more than a serial “boudary issues” moron, that is not a relationship that, I feel, benefits any underprivileged child.
Even with the latest doctor’s “testimony”… the doctor is also morally guilty of not doing enough, IMHO. There was still a real chance that some kid was being abused, and not acting immediately…as in, that evening…was a moral failure by McQueary, McQueary’s father and Dranov.
If Dranov is a medical doctor, then his failure is even more glaring, as I believe he is responsible for following up on a reputable allegation of abuse (though perhaps not legally, as he wasn’t technically at work at the time).
So many people willing to cover up, “assume the best”, turn a blind eye… so sad. 
The source for this story about Dranov’s testimony is an anonymous tip to The Harrisburg Patriot News.
Dranov himself has refused to comment so far. It’ll be interesting to see what turns up tomorrow in Sandusky’s hearing.
Of course, none of it changes the fact that Paterno has admitted that he was told something sexual went on with a child and that he promptly washed his hands of the matter.
No, you’re not following the discussion.
What we are discussing is not Sandusky, but Paterno et al. The issue is whether it should have been obvious based on the mere fact of Sandusky’s hanging around with kids that he was a molestor. In this context, the only relevant facts are what these people knew of Sandusky’s relationships, not facts that they were unaware of and which emerged later.
If you merely wish to make the point that relationships with child molestors are not good for kids, that’s your prerogative. Not exactly a grounbreaking concept, but perhaps you feel you need to make your position clear on this important matter. It’s a big MB and has room for all sorts. My only observation here is that if this is the case you should not quote other people’s words that were written in another context and then address your words to theirs, as this tends to incorrectly frame their words in the wrong context.
It appears that Sandusky waived his right to a preliminary hearing at the last minute. Yahoo story here. Somewhat clearer story here.
I read the ‘somewhat clearer’ story but I’m still, well, unclear on something. The article says: “After Magistrate Judge Robert Scott asked Sandusky if he understood he was waiving certain rights, the former coach said yes.”
What certain rights does he give up?
As I understand it, he is giving up the right to get a look at some of the evidence that will be used against him at trial. He is also giving up the right to have the judge consider whether the trial should even occur based on the prosecution’s evidence. Now it will go to trial without anything being presented by the prosecution in advance.
As if this whole thing can’t get any crazier, there is this from Deadspin:
I watched this buffoon lawyer for awhile this morning. As Deadspin put it, he “has been lawyerin’ like a man who got his J.D. from the bottom of a cereal box.”
His lawyer is freaking nuts. Sandusky should get an ethical defense and nothing more. The lawyer should make sure that the case is tried in the courtroom and not in the media (so no more interviews), make sure his client doesn’t get railroaded by a rush to convict, make sure the prosecution plays by the rules and plays fair. Instead he’s going to be the lawyer who crusaded on behalf of a serial child molester. What kind of person wants to be that guy?