For whatever reason, this seemed a good day to launch a new feature that may or may not become a regular feature. These are some more or less random musings that really did not make for a good full column…
Say It Ain’t So Joe
Whatever you want to think about what Joe Paterno did or did not do in this case, it is difficult to imagine the university handling this more poorly. I am not here to defend Paterno’s failure to act more decisively, but there seems to me a better way to have handled this matter.
After all, Mr. Paterno is 84 years old, long past his prime, he had served the university fairly well for 46 years, had run what everyone calls a clean program. Should he have called the police himself? Yes, but so should have a number of other people. He instead allowed the athletic director to handle the matter.
He did not witness the act, he did not partake in the act itself. It was not his best moment, but they should have allowed him to bow out more gracefully at the end of the season, as he should have ten years ago, frankly. I understand the university is embarrassed, and they should be. But overreacting now will not make up for underreacting in 2002.
Equally ludicrous was the fact that the firing apparently set off rioting in Happy Valley, as angry students flipped over a TV van, set off fireworks and threw objects at the police. Are you kidding me?
Local accounts have the police being far outnumbered by students. And, of course, the police met the rioting crowds with tear gas. It was an absurd ending to a situation that has been botched for the last decade.
The End of Rick Perry?
For those who missed it, Presidential Candidate Rick Perry froze up as he attempted to list the three federal departments that he planned to cut, naming Education and Commerce but freezing up on the Department of Energy.
Pundits were quick to liken it to the Howard Dean screaming moment, but I’m not so sure.
But Perry was concerned enough to rush into the spin room and try to ‘fess up.
“I’m glad I had my boots on tonight,” Governor Perry said. “I stepped in it out there.”
He added: “I may have forgotten Energy, but I haven’t forgotten my conservative principles.”
And later: “I stepped in it, man. Yeah, it was embarrassing. Of course it was.”
On the surface, perhaps not a big deal, but it comes on the heels of back-to-back poor debates in September in Florida. Moreover, Herman Cain’s campaign having faltered, Mr. Perry was hoping to take advantage.
By the way, I would be remiss if I did not point out that apparently Republican Debate audiences are as unconcerned about sexual harassment as they are about the death penalty. I say that because they booed questions on Mr. Cain’s alleged conduct as they roared in delight at the number of people that Governor Perry had seen executed on his watch.
I think that puts Mitt Romney clearly back in the driver’s seat, something I think most Democrats fear the most.
Topete
I guess we should not be that surprised to see another strange occurrence in the Topete trial. From the start, this has been as slam dunk as slam dunk could be. You have a defendant who shot and killed a Sheriff’s Deputy while leading him on a high-speed chase. The chase and shooting were caught on video. He confessed. This is a no-brainer.
And yet, we have seen flub after flub, starting with the fiasco of locking the public out of the arraignment court back in June of 2008. It has taken three years, surely well over $1 million in costs to taxpayers, to get the death penalty that will most likely never be applied.
Now we have a juror who wants out because she cannot bear to make the ultimate decision. Well, who blames her?
The prosecution has had every advantage here, every major ruling went their way, they get a process of death qualification that basically removes all skeptics on the death penalty for consideration, and they still might not get the death penalty.
DCEA
Do you think maybe the council should have enacted those $2.5 million in cuts in September when they had the chance? The PERB ruling probably eliminates any chance we have for concessions now. And it may very well eliminate any chance for concessions in the next round of MOUs. The employees have to be emboldened by this debacle that is entirely on the hands of city staff.
I am still waiting to see if a head actually rolls on this one. The employees can now sit back and force the city to lay them off and hope that cuts in city services lead to a public backlash that can get them some sort of tax increase.
That said, the math is a problem. We have an economy not moving in the positive direction. My guess, based on the closures and moves of business, is that we will actually lose sales tax revenue this year. We are facing at least $7 million in increased cuts for PERS and OPEB. Something has to give.
The only thing we can say for Steve Pinkerton, it is not his mess and it really is not completely this current council’s mess. But like water, they have to clean up the mess. We are far less confident about a good outcome than we were in June.
Clinton Parish Dodging Vanguard
The Vanguard has now gone above and beyond the call of duty trying to get Judicial Candidate Clinton Parish to do an interview about his candidacy. We checked with County Clerk Freddie Oakley, but he has not officially filed any papers. Having no other means to contact him, we sent him an email on his county email address. No response.
We do it a second time and get the following response, “This e-mail account is an inappropriate means of conducting political business. Clinton Parish Deputy District Attorney, Yolo County.”
A few days later, we spotted him at the Farmer’s Market and he gave me his official candidate’s email while explaining why it is improper to contact him on the county email address. Got it. Emailed him. No response. Emailed him again a week or two later. No response.
So on Thursday, as I’m leaving the court building, I see Mr. Parish and call out to him, making a phone gesture to call me. He says, “I’m currently being paid by the county.”
Got it – he’s dodging the Vanguard. Apparently, this seasoned lawyer and judicial candidate is afraid that this little old citizen journalist is going to trip him up. I mean, why else would he be dodging the interview? Then again, Cosmo Garvin of the News and Review did call me “the most dangerous man in citizen journalism, at least around here,” so maybe that’s scaring him off. It just strikes me that those who have nothing to hide, hide nothing.
Thanks for reading.
[quote]He did not witness the act, he did not partake in the act itself. It was not his best moment, but they should have allowed him to bow out more gracefully at the end of the season, as he should have ten years ago frankly. I understand the university embarrassed, they should be. But overreacting now will not make up for underreacting in 2002.[/quote]
My regular third Thursday column in the Vanguard will be on the topic of the sex abuse scandal at Penn State. I am an alumnus of Penn State, so have an interesting take on the entire matter…
Interesting column concept!
Look forward to your view on Paterno and PSU.
My son-in-law graduated from Penn State a few years ago and you might see me around town wearing Penn State tshirts. Being a Penn State fan I must say there’s no excuse for Paterno and McQueery not following up and MAKING SURE THAT SANDUSKY WAS BROUGHT TO JUSTICE for his acts. Who knows how many more children were abused after it was found out that Sandusky was a predator. I know if it was I who had gone to higher ups and this evil person was still walking around free with access to the campus I would’ve gone screaming to the police. David, you being a strong advocate for children and a family man I can’t believe you could write off Paterno’s actions (non-action) so easily.
I’m not writing them off, just don’t think he should have been fired after a long career for something that happened a decade ago.
Good point David, it happened a decade ago allowing how many more children to become victims since then? Sorry, but Paterno’s non-action (cover-up) makes him almost as culpable as the sick Sandusky himself.
If that had been your child and you found out 10 years later that Paterno had knowledge of the incident would you be so forgiving to now allow him to bow out gracefully?
A winning football program covers a multitude of sins !
Biddlin, exactly. I think that is what was behind the whole cover-up. I think Paterno was more worried about the backlash to his program then those children.
I like this column concept. Though it will make it hard on the moderator.
Related to the Rick Perry gaffe… that was a very difficult thing to watch. For me it was not so much any indication of his lack of fitness to lead; it was more a realization that he would be another whipping post for the liberal political/media/entertainment consortium. My personal challenge steering clear of political vitriol has to do with this tendency for the left to focus on personal character assassination of their political opponents rather than policy records and strategies. Frankly, I am pissed off when perpetual gaffers like Joe Biden are treated with undeserving respect, while the left media relentlessly hounds and skewers right-side politicians for every twitch.
I am tired of it all. Perry’s obvious problems with public speaking will end up being too much fodder. It really does not matter if he would be the best President. The left political/media/entertainment consortium has made it clear that right-side candidates must possess limited human characteristics to survive.
[quote] I know if it was I who had gone to higher ups and this evil person was still walking around free with access to the campus I would’ve gone screaming to the police. David, you being a strong advocate for children and a family man I can’t believe you could write off Paterno’s actions (non-action) so easily.[/quote]
I think you will find some of my revelations even more shocking than what you know thus far…
[quote]Frankly, I am pissed off when perpetual gaffers like Joe Biden are treated with undeserving respect, while the left media relentlessly hounds and skewers right-side politicians for every twitch. [/quote]
Amen! I hate the constant “gotcha” mentality of the media…
DMG: [i]I’m not writing them off, just don’t think he should have been fired after a long career for something that happened a decade ago.[/i]
Perhaps firing is over-reacting for the moment. I would have preferred to see him put on “administrative leave”, and let the legal process play out, then decide what to do. It seems highly likely that he knew what was going on, but the legal system is supposed to help resolve issues like that.
I don’t think the fact that it happened a decade ago excuses him any more than clerical supervisors are absolved of wrongdoing for ongoing knowledge that they may have had of the priest/child sex abuse scandal events and didn’t act on.
[quote]I don’t think the fact that it happened a decade ago excuses him any more than clerical supervisors are absolved of wrongdoing for ongoing knowledge that they may have had of the priest/child sex abuse scandal events and didn’t act on.[/quote]
Interesting that you bring this up – an analogy to the priest/child sex abuse scandals has been mentioned on numerous talk shows. As I said before, I think you will find some of the further revelations about the Penn State scandal even more shocking…
[i]” I am an [b]alumnus[/b] of Penn State, so have an interesting take on the entire matter …”[/i]
Since this is an off-topic column, let me address the strange Latin grammar, which we have incorporated into English for a handful of words, which makes you an alumna, not an alumnus.
[b]Alumnus[/b] — singular for a male (never a female) who attended the college or university in question. It is unnecessary to have graduated to be an alumnus or an alumna.
[b]Alumni[/b] — plural for the males or a mix of males and females who attended the school in question.
[b]Alumna[/b] — singular for a woman who attended the school in question.
[b]Alumnae[/b] — plural for the women who attended whatever school.
[i]” I am pissed off when perpetual gaffers like Joe Biden are treated with undeserving respect, while the left media relentlessly hounds and skewers right-side politicians for every twitch.”[/i]
Jeff, Joe Biden is regularly portrayed as a complete buffoon for his frequent blunders, his verbosity and his strangely implanted hair.
The difference between Biden and Perry is that Biden can fall back on a long and mostly solid history as a United States Senator who for years was the chairman of the judiciary committee and the foreign relations committee. Biden used that latter role to travel the world and meet with every major foreign leader for the last 35+ years.
By contrast, Perry has no great record of substance. Throughout his term as governor of Texas he has been considered a lightweight. He is just not the sort of man (like a Newt Gingrich) who seems to have given a lot of thought to the major political issues outside of Texas.
When he was in the Texas legislature he accomplished very little. His only claim to fame there was his staunch support for Al Gore’s presidential campaign in 1988. He was very successful as the Texas ag commissioner. But that job was mostly just acting as a salesman for crops grown in Texas. He didn’t have to memorize three departments worthy of being cut. And as Lt. Gov., the only notable thing he did was to fight with Karl Rove and by extension George W. Bush.
JB: [i]Perry’s obvious problems with public speaking will end up being too much fodder. It really does not matter if he would be the best President.[/i]
Presidential stature, including good public speaking skills, is a very desirable quality in a candidate. It is one of several key elements that made Ronald Reagan stand out against Jimmy Carter. I don’t see how Republicans will choose Perry at this point.
I just wonder why Perry couldn’t have had a set of notes in front of him that would have included the phrase, “Dept. of Energy”.
JB: [i] The left political/media/entertainment consortium has made it clear that right-side candidates must possess limited human characteristics to survive.[/i]
I find that whatever consortium you have in mind is an equal-opportunity apparatus when it comes to political gaffes. The only reason that it appears to be reliably trashing Republican candidates for the moment is that there isn’t a Democratic primary happening this time around. The news/media/entertainment apparatus focuses on whatever novelty of the moment drives ratings over whom they want to see as president. I see it as purely a business decision.
[quote]I don’t think the fact that it happened a decade ago excuses him any more than clerical supervisors are absolved of wrongdoing for ongoing knowledge that they may have had of the priest/child sex abuse scandal events and didn’t act on. [/quote]Interesting comment… it’s been years n(13+) but I remember hearing rumors that in DJUSD, teachers engaging in “consensual sex” (except it can’t be, if the child is ~15) that was reported to the administration and ‘quashed’ by the union, where the teachers were allowed to resign and move away.
My take on the Penn State scandal: I think this thing probably goes back to 1998 or 1999. The alleged child rapist, Jerry Sandusky, was considered a great football coach when he “retired” in 1999. He had just been voted the best assistant coach in the NCAA; and then, for no explained reason, he stepped down as Paterno’s defensive coordinator at age 55 and never worked in college football again. My suspicion is that people inside the Penn State program knew he was a sexual predator 3 or 4 years before Mike McQueary saw Sandusky raping a 10 year old boy in the coaches’ lockerroom showers in 2002.
Why did this never get out? Why were the police not brought in to investigate? At the heart of it, I think the answer is money. Penn State football makes profits of tens of millions of dollars every year. Last year it profitted by $51 million. The people who ran that program–including Paterno and the president of the university and the athletic director–seemed to believe that if they let this news get out back in the late 1990s, it would tarnish the Penn State brand. So they engaged in a cover-up, by trying to manage Sandusky. They fired him, but they agreed for his sake and for the sake of the brand name to not ever say why.
When the 10-year-old boy was raped by Sandusky in 2002, there was already a culture of protecting the brand, of keeping things in-house. My guess is that Paterno never really knew how vicious that incident was with the child in 2002, because he did not want to know. He wanted to protect the brand. McQueary actually told a large number of people about what he saw, not just Paterno. But McQueary also clearly understood that his professional future was inside the Penn State program, and if he blabbered to people outside the program what he witnessed, he would be guilty of tarnishing the brand and harming his own career. So he played the good soldier and stayed silent until he was called before the grand jury 8 years later.
To those who think Joe Paterno was not at the heart of this culture on Penn State, I think you are wrong. I think that Paterno, due to his great tenure and accomplishments on and off the field, set the tone that everyone else followed. The football coach was more powerful than the president of the university and the athletic director, who nominally were his bosses. As David says, Paterno should have been ousted about 10 years ago, due to the fact that he was old and no longer a great coach. But barring this sort of scandal, no one at Penn State had the power to fire him. Joe Pa ran the show.
So when Paterno–whose last name, by the way, was shortened from Paternostro by his grandfather–looked aside at the Sandusky situation in order to protect the brand, so did everyone else. They all worked for Paterno. They all looked up to him and looked to him for guidance. Insofar as there was a conspiracy of silence and non-action and a culture of fear, most of the blame for that in my view falls on Joe Paterno.
He deserved to be fired this week. He will forever be stained by his bad decisions related to this scandal. My guess is that as more facts come out and Paterno is sued and the university is sued and others are sued, everyone will point to Joe Pa as the one man who could have stopped this criminality back in the late 1990s, but failed to act.
“but there seems to me a better way to have handled this matter.”
Perhaps, then again the eyewitness account of Sandosky allegedly (though, the evidence sounds strong) anally raping a 10 yr old boy at a PSU facility probably would’ve been best handled by contacting the police immediately…Paterno, the Director and whoever else knew should’ve done this. Evidently, Paterno reported the incident to his superior, who didn’t contact law enforcement, and that’s sufficient. The bigger question, in my mind, is how was Paterno able to carry that around all those years, knowing Sandusky still had access to the very (or similar) facilities he had been observed sexually abusing a child?
I don’t know all the details of this case, but after Sandusky was observed forcing anal intercourse on a boy and Paterno didn’t contact law enforcement (after he realized his superiors wouldn’t)…really who gives a damn about how Paterno’s career ended. If the allegations are true, Sandusky single-handedly ended the childhood of that boy, giving him a lifetime of trauma and no one protected him. Paterno and anyone else who knew of this failed to help this child and perhaps the real tragedy is that Sandusky may (I believe there are victims post-Paterno) have sexually abused other children in the subsequent decade.
Paterno/Director helped sweep the anal rape of a young child at a PSU facility under the rug, but why? Is it because the program/money meant more to them than that boy, justice, preventing further sex abuse acts from occurring?
Criminally, Paterno likely did no wrong, but as a human being…he failed. I guess college football coaches aren’t mandated reporters…
The Rick Perry situation, combined with the Herman Cain sex scandals, raises the question: Will the GOP nominate for president a man who most of the activists in that party dislike? They did tht four years ago when they nominated John McCain. So it is certainly possible. But for two very different reasons, many of the fire-breathing right wingers loathe Mitt Romney.
Mitt, because of his record in Massachusetts, especially his health care plan which is so similar to Obama’s plan, is hated by most people in the Tea Party. Obamacare was the rallying point for creating the Tea Party movement. Tearing it down is the glue which keeps the Tea Partyists active. So nominating Mitt Romney for president would be a huge slap in the face for that group, no matter what Mitt now says about Obamacare.
The other group which hates Romney is the conservative, evangelical Christians who make up a majority of Republican primary voters in many states: they hate Mormons. They largely think Mormonism is a cult and is not a monotheistic faith system. They don’t mind being allied with Mormons. They just simply don’t want a Mormon representing them in high office.
A side issue with Romney and religion is that he was for a long time avowedly pro-choice. He served on boards for family planning and so on. But for political expediency, he changed his views late in life. But I doubt this will make much of a difference for pro-life Republican voters. They accepted Ronald Reagan’s politically expedient change of position on abortion. The accepted George HW Bush’s conversion. They seem to accept Herman Cain’s many different positions on abortion that Cain cannot seem to coherently explain. So on abortion they will probably give Romney a pass. But on the holy trinity, magic underwear and golden plates, not so much.
Yet the far-right Republicans may be stuck with Romney, because Perry is dead, Bachmann is dead, Cain is dying and Gingrich, whose own staff all abandoned him, is a sure loser in November 2012. What separates Romney from the others is that he can beat Obama. And if the economy stays bad, Romney will beat Obama.
[quote] Apparently, this seasoned lawyer and judicial candidate is afraid that this little old citizen journalist is going to trip him up.[/quote]
Just guessing, but maybe he doesn’t consider you to be a journalist? Maybe he thinks you have an extremist viewpoint and are out to sabotage him?
ERM
“I think you will find some of the further revelations about the Penn State scandal even more shocking…”
Are you referring to the rumors that possibly Sandusky was pimping out young boys to rich donors?
As far as Perry is concerned I’m in the “anybody but Obama camp”.
So that being Perry and Cain are now too maligned to get elected I’ll settle for Romney if it means he can beat Obama.
“had run what everyone calls a clean program.”
lol! apparently not, we are finding out his program is about as dirty and slimy as it gets!
“He did not witness the act, he did not partake in the act itself.”
but he was privy to what happened, or at least enough that he had an ethical and legal obligation to do make sure that it went to law enforcement. it is not like he sat on this for a week or month, this happened for years, well more than long enough for him to take the steps he needed to make sure what needed to happen happened.
It was not his best moment, but they should have allowed him to bow out more gracefully at the end of the season, as he should have ten years ago,
[i]”The only reason that it appears to be reliably trashing Republican candidates for the moment is that there isn’t a Democratic primary happening this time around.”[/i]
The “only” reason? I think not. I guarantee that the media and entertainment machine treating Obama like they did Bush would have negative impacts on Obama’s approval ratings and it would also negatively impact the Democrat brand. Media shapes perceptions and perceptions shape voter opinion.
This from mid 2009…
[quote]”In a study to be released today, the Center for Media and Public Affairs and Chapman University found the nightly newscasts devoting nearly 28 hours to Obama’s presidency in the first 50 days. (Bush, by contrast, got nearly eight hours.) Fifty-eight percent of the evaluations of Obama were positive on the ABC, CBS and NBC broadcasts, compared with 33 percent positive in the comparable period of Bush’s tenure and 44 percent positive for Clinton. (Evaluations by officials from the administration or either political party were not counted.)
On Fox News, by contrast, only 13 percent of the assessments of Obama were positive on the first half of Bret Baier’s “Special Report,” which most resembles a newscast. The president got far better treatment in the New York Times, where 73 percent of the assessments in front-page pieces were positive.
A striking contrast: Obama’s personal qualities drew more favorable coverage than his policies, with 32 percent of the sound bites positive on CBS, 31 percent positive on NBC and 8 percent positive on Fox”[/quote]
Let’s look at one example: How much media coverage was given to Obama’s chain smoking habit compared to the attention they paid to Bush’s drinking during his college years?
According to the PA’s Child Protective Services Law:
“A report is required when a person, who in the course of employment, occupation or practice of a profession, comes into contact with children, has reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of medical, professional or other training and experience, that a child is a victim of child abuse.”
Accordingly, any teacher, staff, administrator, grad assistant or coach (and others who in may routinly come into contact with children) are [b]mandated [/b] to report any and all suspected child abuse to the Department of Public Welfare.
It apperas that most people report by calling the “Childline” (800#), which seems to be a fairly straightforward matter. Yet, that same statute goes on to state that mandated reporters at an educational institution are only obligated to “notify the person in charge of the institution, school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person in charge of the suspected abuse.”
[i]”Jeff, Joe Biden is regularly portrayed as a complete buffoon for his frequent blunders, his verbosity and his strangely implanted hair.”[/i]
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXSI_ccRUNc[/url]
I think Biden has been given many passes… too many compared to the attention routinely directed at GOP politicians and candidates.
Also Rich, your points about Republicans rejecting Romney, Perry or Cain because of flip-flops… there is another area demonstrating left media bias. Obama has a long list of campaign positions that he has completely flipped on. The media mostly gives him a pass on all of these things. They are protecting Obama and the Democrat brand… while they attack and marginalize the Republican brand.
[i]”Also Rich, your points about Republicans rejecting Romney, Perry or Cain because of flip-flops …”[/i]
Isn’t, in your view, a politically expedient change of position on abortion — such as Romney’s — a bit more than a flip-flop?
What I find interesting is that no Republican I can think of who has changed his position from pro-choice to pro-life (usually when he has to please a new constituency) has ever paid a political price for that. That is, no one calls b.s. on them. In a way, I think that is a laudable attitude. It is — and I mean no offense by this — similar to the Protestant religious view on the acceptance of Christ as a personal savior: when a person has that faith, they are, according to that religion, set for eternity. Even if that renaissance comes late in human life, the person is heaven-bound, no matter what he believed before his conversion, no matter how evil his previous acts.
Jeff: “[i]How much media coverage was given to Obama’s chain smoking habit”[/i]
None, because there is no valid evidence that he is a chain smoker.
[i]”Accordingly, any teacher, staff, administrator, grad assistant or coach (and others who in may routinly come into contact with children) are mandated to report any and all suspected child abuse to the Department of Public Welfare.”[/i]
ADREMMER: When the Pennsylvania AG, Linda Kelly, was asked why she did not prosecute Paterno under this reading of the law, she said he was legally (not morally) off the hook because he learned of the abuse allegations at work and he then reported those allegations to his superior at work, the athletic director ([url]http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/news?slug=pf-forde_paterno_not_regarded_target110711[/url]). If Paterno had learned of the allegations of child abuse outside of his work environment, the AG says your read would be correct. [quote]Kelly said Paterno responded as legally obligated when informed, in 2002, by a graduate assistant coach (identified in news reports as current Penn State staffer Mike McQueary) that he witnessed Sandusky sexually assaulting a child in the showers at the Penn State football facility. She said his timely reporting of the incident to his titular superior, athletic director Tim Curley, fulfilled the coach’s legal responsibility. [/quote]
Don: he is a chain smoker. In the news recently are a bunch of reports that he has recently kicked the habit. Google it.
I have googled it, Jeff. The only sources for the notion that Obama is a “chain smoker” are rightwing gossip blogs. I’m surprised you consider them credible.
It was popular among left-wing blogs to claim that GW Bush had started drinking again during his presidency. There was never any evidence of that, and I think it is quite likely that he remained abstinent. I thought those accusations were unfounded and therefore reprehensible. I think the claims about Obama’s smoking are equally unfounded.
“I’m surprised you consider them credible. ” Thanks, Don . boy did I need that laugh .
Rich:
Your take on Romney is right on. However, one should be concerned that “prediction is hard, especially when it concerns the future.” (Mark Twain or somebody like that).
Obama ain’t Bob Dole and Romney ain’t Clinton,
“After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs.”
front page of NYT this morning.
Rich:
Your take on Romney is right on. However, one should be concerned that “prediction is hard, especially when it concerns the future.” (Mark Twain or somebody like that).
Obama ain’t Bob Dole and Romney ain’t Clinton,
“After a Romney Deal, Profits and Then Layoffs.”
front page of NYT this morning.
rifkin writes:[quote]When the Pennsylvania AG, Linda Kelly, was asked why she did not prosecute Paterno under this reading of the law, she said he was legally (not morally) off the hook because he learned of the abuse allegations at work and he then reported those allegations to his superior at work, the athletic director. If Paterno had learned of the allegations of child abuse outside of his work environment, the AG says your read would be correct. [/quote]
First, in your opinion did he learn about this second-hand info. ‘on’ or ‘off’ the job?
Second, thanks for introducing morals to the equation in the legal arena…now that the door is open, let us see where we go from here on this and all other topics on this blog…
It seems to me that the PA law 23 Pa.C.S. § § 6301—6385 is flawed. IMHO the law must [b]require[/b] that that ALL mandated reporters directly report suspected child abuse to the proper authorities, not their superiors. The employers should be notified secondarily.
Don: Are you refusing to believe that Obama was addicted to cigarettes, or just quibbling over the word “chain”?
I think he’s disagreeing with the word “chain” which describes a particular form of the addition where one is basically smoking cigarettes constantly.
Jeff-You understand money and as tight fisted as all you folks in the much envied Davis are, why do so many of these folks want to keep piling on cost to this water project ?
[i]”First, in your opinion did he learn about this second-hand info. ‘on’ or ‘off’ the job?”[/i]
I have no opinion on where he learned of it beyond what Linda Kelly stated in her press conference: she said that under PA law, anyone who learns of a crime against a child while at work or in a work situation is legally obligated to report that to his titular superior; and AG Kelly said that is what Paterno did; and she said that is why he is not legally culpable. Further, it was AG Kelly, not me, who brought up the issue of moral culpability. She said in her press conference (paraphrasing here) that “just because someone is not legally culpable does not mean he is not morally culpable.”
David: [i]”I think he’s disagreeing with the word “chain” which describes a particular form of the addition where one is basically smoking cigarettes constantly.”[/i]
Ok, that is a quibble to deflect from accepting my point. Obama has smoked for 30 years. He admits to being addicted to cigarettes. Frankly, we do not know if he smokes one cigarette after another because the media does not report on it.
Note the mainstream media attention paid to the Internet ad by his campaign manager Mark Block over smoking. Now check the mainstream media’s reporting on Obama’s addiction to cigarettes. Of course the mainstream media is all over the reports that Obama has kicked the habit.
My initial point was that the liberal political/media/entertainment consortium routinely assassinates the character of politicians and candidates on the right, while they routinely protect character perceptions of politicians and candidates on the left. IMO to deny this means you are either a left ideologue knowingly well-served by this imbalance; are ignorant about the facts; or you have a stake in keeping the profile of the profession of journalism at lofty levels presently, significantly, undeserved.
biddlin: [i]”Jeff-You understand money and as tight fisted as all you folks in the much envied Davis are, why do so many of these folks want to keep piling on cost to this water project?”[/i]
I look at projects from a comprehensive cost-benefit perspective. I include both quantitative and qualitative critera and measure this against the alternatives. At this point I think people lined up against the surface water projects fall into four camps:
1. Political axe to grind agaist the current CC.
2. Believe some miracle will occur in the future that is our opportunity to satisfy our output efluent and input quality.
3. Are ignorant of all the facts or not understanding of the potential risks and costs for failing to adequately address state compliance requirements.
4. Don’t care that it will cost more later.. just want to keep their rates as low as possible now.
I think the #1 and #4 camp are united with a common and potential selfish shared goal to block the project at all costs. However, I think they are the minority. I think most Davisites are in the #2 and #3 camp. In my case, I think I know enough of the facts. What I am lacking is a clear explanation of the alternative to the surface water project. At this point the alternative is muddled with a whole lot of “ifs” and this means quantitative risks.
[quote]Since this is an off-topic column, let me address the strange Latin grammar, which we have incorporated into English for a handful of words, which makes you an alumna, not an alumnus. [/quote]
LOL I checked this word before I used it. According to my Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is pretty old (1973), alumnus is defined as “one who has attended or had graduated from a particular school, college or university”…
[quote]Are you referring to the rumors that possibly Sandusky was pimping out young boys to rich donors?[/quote]
No, I didn’t hear that one! But there are other much more disturbing details which you can read about in my article…
I’m really enjoying this “off-topic” column of issues, which makes for interesting discussion…
David. Nice idea for this column
“According to my Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is pretty old (1973), alumnus is defined as “one who has attended or had graduated from a particular school, college or university”…”
Elaine: I would suggest a new dictionary (not that this particular definition is outdated) but language is not static, I would bet a lot of words the meanings have changed and some have passed out of usage.
David, fwiw, I wouldn’t recommend anyone buy a new dictionary today, unless they don’t have the Internet handy. For the very reason you gave, the Internet is a better tool than a tangible reference book: meanings and usages do change; books stay static.
ELAINE: [i]”According to my Merriam-Webster dictionary, which is pretty old (1973), alumnus is defined as ‘one who has attended or had graduated from a particular school, college or university’ …” [/i]
I think my original explanation was lacking. It’s not really a question of how M-W or other dictionaries define ‘alumnus.’ I looked it up in a half-dozen dictionaries and they all pretty much say that. The question, I think, is how alumnus and alumna are properly used. (I hope that is not a distinction without a difference.)
Let me quote from dictionary.reference.com ([url]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alumnus[/url]) about [i]the correct usage[/i] of alumnus: “Alumnus (in Latin a masculine noun) refers to [b]a male graduate or former student[/b]; the plural is alumni. An alumna (in Latin a feminine noun) refers to a female graduate or former student; the plural is alumnae. Traditionally, the masculine plural alumni has been used for groups composed of both sexes and is still widely so used: [u]the alumni of Indiana University[/u].
[quote][b]”Off-Topic Column: The Sad Ending For Joe Paterno and Fitting Ending for Rick Perry”[/b][/quote]Great experiment for catching up on several interesting stories, David. But, while there may be sadness in Happy Valley, none is appropriate for the well-deserved ending of Coach Paterno.
[quote][i]”He did not witness the act, he did not partake in the act itself.[b] It was not his best moment[/b], but they should have allowed him to bow out more gracefully at the end of the season, as he should have ten years ago, frankly. I understand the university is embarrassed, and they should be. But overreacting now will not make up for underreacting in 2002….I’m not writing (Paterno’s offenses) off, just don’t think he should have been fired after a long career for something that happened a decade ago.”[/i][/quote]Actually, I can’t imagine it wasn’t his WORST moment (or decade). Certainly, he can’t have ANY moments that make up for this monumental one. Coach no doubt is bound for Hell in the long run.
In the meantime, and in fairness, any civil lawsuits that come up probably should be capped (at least in Paterno’s case) to every single penny he’s “earned” from all sport-related sources since the day McQueary reported to him until the date of his death, whenever that’ll be.
Of course, you are “writing off” and minimizing Paterno’s failures if you wanted the university to allow him “to bow out more gracefully at the end of the season” after the school’s trustees acted on the grand jury report ( [url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/72283642/Grand-Jury-Report-on-Gerald-Sandusky[/url] ).
As one personally responsible for letting Sandusky rape every child he attacked after 2002, Paterno deserved not one whit of special/graceful consideration.
Surely you jest. By “he did not partake in the act,” do you mean he’s excused because his penis wasn’t caught inside a child like Sandusky’s?
After all, he did partake in an act of conspiracy until the grand jury report became public. Why reward Paterno for successfully covering up for a known child rapist for so long, and providing the opportunity and a home for continuing sodomy of helpless children?
As the most powerful player in this slimy operation, the coach has as much to explain as does McQueary does for not simply stopping the in-progress anal sexual assault of the 10-year-old. Both have gotten off much too easy so far.
Regardless of who avoids criminal charges for their involvement in this, they deserve whatever public shame and civil actions come their way in coming years. The university trustees have [u]not[/u] over-reacted. It appears they are the first Penn State actors who have reacted appropriately since 2002.
I look forward to your evaluation, Elaine. I encourage you to consider a call for the trustees to offer the football squad members transfers to other schools to finish out their university sports eligibility.
Since the football program, the coaches and their nominal supervisors and the facilities all were a part of this criminal football enterprise for nearly a decade, school authorities need to cancel the football program for some set number of school years. Maybe for two or three years.
At least as long as it takes for all the victims to come forward and allow law enforcement to determine the magnitude of the crimes committed in this “clean program”–in the locker room, university vehicles, on the sidelines, during travel to big games, etc. (Any bets on whether eight is enough?)
Did it not sicken you to see the big prayer show that opened the Penn. State-Nebraska game? Take a knee. Play on!
[quote]I look forward to your evaluation, Elaine. I encourage you to consider a call for the trustees to offer the football squad members transfers to other schools to finish out their university sports eligibility. [/quote]
Actually, that is not a bad idea…
[quote]Did it not sicken you to see the big prayer show that opened the Penn. State-Nebraska game? Take a knee. Play on! [/quote]
One of the things that always bothered me about the town Penn State is located in is that it lived/breathed/ate football. The town of State College seemed to exist for nothing but football…
David Greenwald claims that ” . . .apparently Republican Debate audiences are as unconcerned about sexual harassment as they are about the death penalty.”
David, are they as unconcerned as the liberal media were about JOHN EDWARDS?