Patrick Smith - Getty Images
STATE COLLEGE, PA - Silence seems apt when nothing makes sense.
"If the most ironclad form of determinism is real, you could not do anything about it anyway, because your anxiety about determinism, and how you would deal with it, would also be determined."
-Steven Pinker, from "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer
It didn't occur to me until late Sunday morning why our cultural stories are devoid of the complex personality. I need to care for you to succeed as an author and, frankly, there's just no time. Are you not committing each character to either virtue or villainhood with every line? Well, then you're writing the 2006 version of The Last Kiss. IMDb isn't sure beyond a statistical error if your artwork is better than Road Trip staring Tom Green.
If we can't care about Joe Paterno in the context of narrative, what's the point of sports television when we could just as easily create another reality pawn store show? My personal proof that the former head football coach is even a real person is nothing more than two separate events in which I was, for seconds, within ten feet of the man. And yet, I've been writing about the institution he built for year now.
Paterno was a paramount part of the college football script, and that's why we're talking about him today. But being a script, his role needed established by the storytellers. Drawing up tidy little character developing features in his name was a pretty doable task in 1968. It was intern-level editorializing when Paterno won national championships and institutionalized the Grand Experiment. It turned harmlessly conflicting when Paterno couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he was young enough to carry on in 2001. It became utterly impossible in November of last year.
Joe Paterno is dead, and I'm still unable to reconcile anything.
How could a man accused of instilling no influence to prevent the worst kind of harm be called the most important influence in the lives of players who didn't even like the guy?
How could a man who cared so very much about Adam Taliaferro and his tragic tale not be seen showing the same public support for child abuse victims in 2002, or at the very least after the Grand Jury report in 2008?
How could a man who suspended former running back Austin Scott the week before his (subsequently dropped) sexual assault charges not banish Sandusky from football buildings after official accusations were made?
How could a man unwilling or unable to ask Mike McQueary for more details also be investigative enough to make a pattern out of unannounced trips to his players' classes to keep track of attendance?
How could a man be so defiantly resilient in the face of his institutional superiors in 2004, yet not have taken control of the Sandusky situation in 2002?
How could a man so well-versed and clearly in love with the classics not see a real life sickening tale staring him in the face, the lead role cast by a man he'd knowing of for decades?
There aren't answers to any of those questions, by the way. Admitting that is not helping resolve my understanding of what just happened.
It's frustrating. What's more so is that there are perfectly reasonable questions -- what exactly did everyone know, what exactly did everyone do, why the hell was Sandusky in the weight room this fall? -- that we aren't likely to have answers to and therefore aren't likely to be able to judge and project upon. Or maybe the specifics don't actually matter. Prohibition was supposed to cure all social ills rather promptly in 1919. A mandate for full information about how the institution of Penn State failed might end with just as much futility.
Either way, we're now living in a Paternoless world where the events just are, because of the conditions that caused them. I'm concerned by the very real possibility that this is going to have to be good enough.
Be sure to become a fan of BSD on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!
3 recs | 190 comments
I don't get it.
I asked myslef a lot of questions, but it seemed to me the answers were the same as before November.
FB6244 - January 24, 2012
Quick Question(s):
1. How do we know that JS was in the gym this past fall before he was arrested? This keeps getting tossed around, but I’ve never seen its source.
2. Per Prohibition: This is completely unrelated to anything here, but was the consumption of alcohol between 1920 and 1933 really as out in the open as the writers of “Boardwalk Empire” make it to be? I just finished the second season this past week and the consumption/sale of it was all over the place, like the Volstead Act wasn’t even in existence. I’m assuming that “BE” is exaggerating this for dramatic effect, but I’m still curious.
Bob Sacamano - January 24, 2012
There was a nice documentary on Prohibition lately
On PBS.
The answer in Atlantic City was yes, it was wide open. The feds didn’t have the manpower to enforce it and the local and state authorities either didn’t want to or didn’t want to expend too many of their limited resources on it.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
Thanks man!
The Ken Burns documentary? I haven’t seen that yet, but I generally like everything that guy does.
Bob Sacamano - January 24, 2012
Yeah watch it.
But also read “Last Call” by Okrent. Might be the best book I’ve read in like a year.
Kevin Powers - January 24, 2012
well, I'm not exactly sure what circles you live in
but my guess is somewhat similar to how open people are about marijuana consumption
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
very similar
it wasnt illegal under the volstead act to possess liquor. It was only illegal to distribute or distill it. So you could flaunt your liquor all you wanted.
swiggy04 - January 24, 2012
Since nobody else seems to remember point one after reading point two...
The best I could do when the rumors about Sandusky being ‘on campus’ in the week prior to the release of the Grand Jury presentment started circulating was to trace them to two uncorroborated blog postings – in other words they’re bullshit as far as I’m concerned.
leeharvey418 - January 24, 2012
Yeah I would really like to know how often
he was on campus, around campus, in the weight room, etc.
FB6244 - January 24, 2012
Joe Paterno's life is a Greek Tragedy
His life was pretty much a straight ascent — with some highs and lows along the way for dramatic effect — until he reached the absolute pinnacle of coaching: 409 wins. “The minute you think you’ve got it made, disaster is just around the corner.” – Joe Paterno
Once he reached that height, there was only one way to go, and it ended, as it had to, six feet under.
Like any Greek tragedy or good work of art, though, the value of Paterno and his life will ultimately be determined in the eye of the beholder. But my eyes are still confused from the crying (and the LSD).
If Joe Paterno was alive now and the scandal had happened but he was still going to be the head coach of the Nittany Lions in the fall, and you guys asked me to give him a “grade” in a poll (because that’s what’s done around here), I don’t know what grade I’d give him…B? I doubt I’ll ever really know what a “fair grade” for Paterno’s life is, but I bet that in some time, the doubt I have will be less disquieting.
spakajewia - January 24, 2012
Great insight
Thinking that Paterno’s life mirrored the Greek tradegies he revered is as poetic as it is comforting. I hope he saw the past few months in the same way. The romantic, glorious fall of a man whose only fault was being human after a lifetime of superhuman accomplishments.
tbs5005 - January 24, 2012
Thanks for this, Kevin
This really sums how I feel about things. I think everybody, no matter what side you came down on, was hoping for some sort of conclusion to this, some answers and clarification as to what exactly happened. I think I’m coming to grips that we may never know more than we do now, and Joe won’t be around to talk about it (if not defend himself). And it bothers me.
PSUtopia - January 24, 2012
Sometimes situations are complex, and being a participant in viewing them
with clouded love and confusion makes it even harder to understand. Religious or not, it’s not really our job as humans to figure out a final judgement on someone besides ourselves. It’s between them and whatever God they may or may not believe in.
We are viewing a situation in hindsight with knowing the whole story or the complexities around it. Joe’s whole life was his focus on his players, education, and his family. I don’t think he maliciously made a decision to not care, he just had other focuses and places he felt comfortable making judgements, and maybe this was an area he didn’t. We really don’t know.
Honestly, we may never know the answers to the questions you posted, and they’re really good ones, but is it selfish to want the answers? I think the only people with a claim to the whole story are the victims. It’s their peace that’s the most important.
mleepsu08 - January 24, 2012
Well said.
I said a while back that we would probably never know enough to make some people change their mind. Since then we have learned a little more (Paterno himself saying he did not follow up in the most friendly possible interview setting), yet none of those people have changed their minds, and now there’s 0 chance they ever will.
Paterno was a man who did a lot of good and set some lofty ambitions which I thought were the gold standard for college football. I spent a lot of time over many years defending the truths behind those standards – that they were real, not just PR; that PSU really did graduate most of its players and that most of them actually got an education in the process. Whenever somebody said “everybody does it” in regards to poor academics or NCAA violations, I could always say, “No, not everybody does it. Joe Paterno doesn’t do it”.
Because he didn’t do enough in regards to It, it will be nearly impossible to make that case above. Not that the case is any less true but rather that there’s now a perfect retort that can’t really be argued – yes, he graduated players and cared about the rules, but he had this other thing – this inexcusable inaction – this awful oversight – and as a result you can’t argue the good any more without being forced to either admit the bad or even worse, come off as clueless about it.
Paterno’s good works now can’t be pushed as an example. That’s horrible to have to say, but it’s how I feel.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
It would depend on the other person you were talking to
If you’re having a conversation with someone who has the ability and/or willingness to see the complications of an issue, then I think you can still reference Joe’s accomplishment and his approach to college football and simultaneously acknowledge his mistakes. If not, then it’s not worth having a conversation.
speedomike - January 24, 2012
What I'm seeing in our fanbase, though
is the urge to paint anybody who sees any of those complications as not worth talking to. Which narrows the audience to a very small subset of the original Joe Choir.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
that is about as ignorant a claim as the supposed ignorance you are claiming in others.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
I counted the other day
how many media outlets / columnists were still considered OK by large swaths of our fanbase and ended up with, pretty much, just Sally Jenkins and, if you go all the way down to bloggers, that Walter Uhler guy.
Everybody else I could think of has been attacked for being ignorant or biased because they posted something along the continuum of “sees complications” to things even I think are suck (like SbB).
M1EK - January 24, 2012
And even Sally Jenkins
is only OK to most of those people because they didn’t read in depth in the Q&As, I’m betting.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
Sally Jenkins did Joe no favors
She didn’t ask enough relevant questions. She would have made him look better by pushing harder, not just focusing on his frailty. As a journalist, I found her piece to be mostly bullshit and a huge, huge, disappointment.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
You are making a big assumption
that in pushing harder she would have uncovered only more exculpatory statements.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
She stated her purpose
as allowing him to tell his story on the record. She did very little editorializing, she just asked him some questions and recorded his answer. There’s certainly a place for that.
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
the fact that Joe could have rehearsed answers to these questions that painted him in a perfect light
but instead went out there and was honest with people shows to me that 1) he is remorseful of what happened, but also that 2) he didn’t intentionally cover things up because he wanted to protect anything, but rather things wound up getting brushed aside because certain people didn’t pursue the allegations and he didn’t follow up aggressively enough.
I sensed regret in how things played out, but not regret in his actions at the time (hindsight being something different)
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
You're right
This Posnanski article is Joe Paterno, and if anyone thinks this is some attempt to spin or garner PR, I don’t know what to tell them. This brought a smile to my face. I can only hope to have such grace, or live such a life that it makes sense for me be so graceful.
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
That article was awesome
I can only hope to become half the man that Paterno was.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
Yes, but
none of the people who insisted that they were reserving judgement until they found out whether Joe followed up have changed anything now that they have learned he didn’t follow up.
And not just “aggressively enough”. He said he didn’t follow up at all. In his own words, in the most friendly venue possible.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
I disagree
I’ve changed my mind, and I was one of those reserving judgement.
I now find myself similarly aligned to what jesse. said. Paterno isn’t blameless, but his blame is so far on the left side of the scale that I won’t vilify him.
I’m still attempting to sort through the nuances. This isn’t black and white and it never will be.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
Then I believe you owe me
an apology. Or at least a “you know what? You might have been right, and it might not have been an accident”.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
I don't agree with you
Just because I’ve changed my mind, doesn’t mean that I think it might not have been an accident.
In fact, I whole heartedly disagree that this was anything other than a mistake in judgement.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
And a mistake
That I think every other person would have made.
In fact, I think most people wouldn’t have even done as much as Joe did do.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
You misunderstood me
I was right, and it wasn’t by accident. I made a case based on what you would have to believe had happened in order to believe that Joe had followed up, and that it was a pretty unlikely series of things to all be true.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
Okay, enough. Everyone.
We’re not tolerating this bullshit argument for the 9,389th time today. Everyone stop.
Chris Grovich - January 24, 2012
Seriously
can we create another blog specifically for these rehashed arguments so I don’t get tricked into thinking there may be new and noteworthy opinions on a post with a large amount of comments?
BTW, great job with the site, specifically with the recent events, can’t imagine how tough it is.
bigs26 - January 24, 2012
This might be the best idea I’ve heard in weeks. Easy rec.
Kevin Powers - January 24, 2012
Wow.
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
Have you considered
that maybe you’ve made your point? Without agreeing or disagreeing with your opinion, I think we’re all well aware of it by now.
It’s like an old message poster a while back who ripped the Big Ten refs every single day for being biased towards Michigan. We get it, we agree or we don’t, but can you come up with some new material?
PSU Mudder - January 24, 2012
I've considered it
but when I see people continue to post wrong things over and over again, I realize I have not made the point.
I find it curious how you have not made this suggestion to those who disagree with my opinion, yet keep posting stuff about how the media is biased or ignorant. Are we not aware of their opinions by now too?
M1EK - January 24, 2012
In that regard
and maybe I’m not paying close enough attention to the discussions as they drag out, but I’m not seeing a clear instance of one single poster on the opposite side of your argument continually showing up in thread after thread to jump in the fray.
People are going to be wrong on the internet. After you tell them, you have to let it be.
PSU Mudder - January 24, 2012
See past points I've made
about # of readers versus # of participants.
I disagree with your other contention as well but will let it drop for now.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
I hate to do this again...but
it just keeps getting left out.
When people make comments about “following up” can they also finish their phrase to make it clear who they are talking about Joe “following up” with?
It’s pretty apparent that some people think asking MM if he was satisfied with the outcome does not constitute following up, to others it does and that makes a very big difference in the interpretation of events.
bconway6 - January 24, 2012
Correct
The “not following up at all” is a complete lie.
FB6244 - January 24, 2012
a key point in this is that Joe could not fix this alone
letsgopsu - January 24, 2012
Yes.
Following up with MM, assuming it happened, is not sufficient, because MM’s position in the organization was such that he could be reasonably assumed to be too scared to speak up if he thought the investigation had been bogus.
So by following up, I mean the only follow up that matters – to the people with actual legal responsibility.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
See thats fine.
I can understand the merits of the opinion. Reasonable people may disagree on that opinion for various reasons I don’t wish to get into here, but that is a more complete statement than simply asserting “He didn’t follow up” repeatedly.
bconway6 - January 24, 2012
There are no merits to that opinion.
McQuery was not ‘too afraid’ to go to Joe in the first place. Until there’s some believable EVIDENCE of intimidation, there is no reason to believe McQuery was afraid to tell Joe the truth about what was happening at any time. None.
PSUEnrg02 - January 25, 2012
there's also the whole part about Curley testifying that he followed up with Paterno.
Since he’s accused of perjury, who knows what he says is true or not, but it is still out there. That wouldn’t have been Paterno following up, per se, but it would have been a follow up between Paterno and someone that mattered.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
This point has been made repeatedly
and for some reason keeps getting ignored. I was one of the people that pulled the quotes right out of the testimony. Follow-ups occurred, right back down the chain of command. Anyone that has been insisting otherwise for months should really consider apologizing.
cs93 - January 24, 2012
Don't hold your breath.
leeharvey418 - January 24, 2012
annnnd *EXHALE*
after reading the mods pleading below, I agree wholeheartedly. Sorry I posted – this is not helping any of us right now.
cs93 - January 24, 2012
Dont be sorry
that was information I was unaware of.
skarocksoi - January 25, 2012
I'm not assuming that
It’s simple math. When you’re close to the bottom, a series of even random movements will probably move you up.
It’s clear that a huge portion of the public and media are hell-bent at filling in the unknown bits (not to mention the bits already covered in the testimony) of the story with the version that makes Joe look as bad as possible. Therefore, anything he says to clarify those gaps will, on the whole, make him look a bit better. Nowhere to go but up.
Granted, his answers might (and in a few cases did) scuttle the assertions of those who want to paint him as totally perfect and blameless, but there aren’t too many people out there like that. You seem to think they’re legion, but outside this board, I haven’t seen any.
For Joe, the value of a lot more questions would be that he could show that for every decision that he made in 2002 (insofar as he can remember them) he had a reason that seemed like a good reason at the time and was not aimed at facilitating child-rape. Obviously, a lot of the things he believed to be true at that time – for example, that Schultz was competent at his job – turned out to be false and it’s fair to ask whether or not he, as head coach of the football team, ought to have known them to be false. But he could at least explain his motivations.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
large swaths of our fanbase have made a running tally?
or a handful of people have made individual and separate comments on a handful of outlets? And in what context? In their treatment of reporting of the scandal, or in their supposed “memorial” segments? I know you have this thing about addressing specific individual people about their shortcomings, but I’m still going to point out a glaring problem you have: you make generalizations of large groups of people based on the actions of a few, and then apply those generalizations specifically to everyone within that group. I don’t know if it is intentional, or if you are just incapable, but that is besides the point, it is still a problem.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
Generalizations get a bad name
You can’t have useful discussions about most things without engaging in them at some level.
And I find the characterization of the commentariat here as generally thinking the media is some combination of ignorant and biased as a supportable, reasonable, generalization.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
for what it is worth
while I dislike much of what ESPN is put out, I do think it is a bit ridiculous when people blame every member of ESPN for the Syracuse/Fine tapes, and calling them hypocrites because of the way they lambasted Paterno. I still don’t like most of those media personalities for their treatment of Paterno, but I doubt any of them had a clue what was going on at Syracuse.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
Yes, but
The top Brass at ESPN has made a company-wide decision to (mis)handle that the way they have. The company as a whole deserves blame.
But yeah, I admit I’m still following a few ESPN baseball writers. I think those guys are great.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
the company as an entitiy deserves blame
but the individual members do not…at least not for the Syracuse situation (unless, of course, they were involved, and then yes, they do deserve the blame)
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
ive said it before
but the PSU and Syracuse scandals were similar in accusation only. The Sandusky scandal was so much further along both in information and organization. The Bernie Fine thing was just alleged victims of throwing stuff out there at the time. The fact that half these alleged victims of Bernie Fine have now recanted their stories, admitted to doctoring evidence, and admitting to flat out making it up shows where the Syracuse allegations stood at the time they were announced to the public.
Not that I like how ESPN handled Joe Paterno’s role in everything, mind you. But I dont find their reporting the Jerry Sandusky scandal hypocritical to how they reported the Bernie Fine scandal.
swiggy04 - January 24, 2012
The problem that I have
is that ESPN and others are judging Joe Paterno by hindsight and the totally of accusations and not what HE knew at the time, which doesn’t seem like more than what ESPN had on Fine.
Paige2PSU - January 24, 2012
But you forget...
ESPN says they aren’t the police and have no obligation to do the police’s job for them.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
im talking about the scandals as a whole
they arent similar at all except in name. I agree about JoePa, its easy for people to sit in judgment and tell you which decision THEY would make knowing how each decision would turn out.
But I really don’t think ESPN had some sort of agenda to under-report the Bernie Fine scandal, I just think there was far less information out there to report.
swiggy04 - January 24, 2012
I don't think ESPN has a pro or anti Paterno agenda at all.
Nor do I think they are for or against child sexual abuse. I think they are for making money, and will talk about whatever it is that accomplishes that. If means eviscerating Joe Paterno on Monday and exonerating him on Thursday, that’s what they’ll do.
It doesn’t have anything to do with kids. It’s about page views, hits, recs, sponsor dollars and at the end of it all money. ESPN will talk about whatever you want for as long as you want them to talk about it. And when your bored, I heard Kobe Bryant banged some stripper, she’s hot, here is a picture.
That’s not biased. It’s not journalism either, but that’s not really the point.
jesse. - January 24, 2012
This, a thousand times.
NittanyLyndon - January 24, 2012
unless im misreading you
i was addressing the idea that ESPN had an agenda to purposely under-report the Syracuse allegations. Not that they had some form of pre-determined agenda against Paterno.
swiggy04 - January 24, 2012
My opinion.
Is that ESPN is an enormous corporation owned in it’s entirety by an even larger, more soulless corporation. Their only agenda is profit. There is never an ulterior motive, not is it a grand conspiracy.
They make money. That’s what they want to do. That’s who is reporting the information, and that is the “everybody else” that’s supposed to make me feel stupid, or as an enabler of child sexual abuse.
jesse. - January 24, 2012
Where's the damn picture?
jtothep - January 24, 2012
Oh, snizzap
First time I’ve been around the vicinity of deleted portions of threads.
Kudos to you, Sir Dot, for being the culprit, allowing me mere instigator role.
jtothep - January 24, 2012
Unfortunately results oriented thinking is very hard to overcome.
I’d like to do a fanpost about this, but I’m not sure I’ll have the time in the next few weeks.
When playing poker, it is entirely possible to do everything right and still loose many many hands in a row. Just because you make the right decision does not guarantee you will win that particular hand. Sometimes the unexpected just happens.
Often probability and chance are not given the proper respect they deserve in the grand scheme of things. It is not possible to estimate accurate probabilities in these types of situations, but in any situation where there is more than one possible outcome, the possibilities of each of those outcomes are somewhere between 0 and 1.
The tricky part is trying to formulate what to do next such that you give yourself the best chance to do the right thing. Unfortunately you can take every chance to give yourself the best odds of having done the right thing, and it can still turn out badly.
bconway6 - January 24, 2012
It’s a pity nobody wants to talk about that. I wrote a 2,200 word post 10 days ago, numerous recs, hundreds of comments…
No discussion of what I set forth as an idea to make sure this never happened again. The failure to have that discussion anywhere has disillusioned me a great deal.
jesse. - January 24, 2012
I wrote a long piece on my Facebook page because I was tired of hateful posts from people who know jack about the situation
I ended it like this
People are spending so much time hating on what Joe “didn’t do” but they will never do jack shit themselves.
letsgopsu - January 24, 2012
It would be nice
If instead of just being angry, people channeled their anger into something positive like you mentioned above.
Maybe somewhere there’s a fan base that did this in the face of an unspeakable horror. Surely if there was, we’d have heard about it by now.
PSUPing - January 24, 2012
I bet you and I would disagree
On many things as they relate to sexual assault. But I’ll have the conversation, with you, or anybody else that cares to have it.
This shit has been nothing but masturbatory finger pointing for nearly three months now. No progress made. None.
Joe Paterno’s dead. Now what? Problem solved? What do you want to do now?
jesse. - January 24, 2012
well, I think sexual assault is bad
I think most people who are assaulted don’t report it. I think that people who have tried to make money off it have made it more difficult for the real victims who often have their own motives, background and behavior questioned. I think that many people turn a blind eye because they think it is none of their business, or they don’t want to get involved etc.
And you are right, we have seen nothing from the university or Second Mile on measures put in place to avoid this.
letsgopsu - January 24, 2012
FWIW, I thought PSU SVU was a good idea.
…or maybe I’m confusing your post with another one.
Either way, I think the problem is that we aren’t ready to move on to the ‘how do we prevent this from happening again’ phase, and as for myself, I know I won’t be ready until at least the Freeh report is released. We’re still trying to get our heads around exactly what did happen, and only once that happens will we be able to think of what to do next.
leeharvey418 - January 24, 2012
if only the Freeh report actually had power behind it.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
I'm willing to have this discussion.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
I think theres time to get there
if you are talking about child sexual abuse at large. I think things are too personal with things in the news still to get beyond this particular situation to the greater questions.
On the other hand I don’t know if there is enough room, either in terms of pages to fit typed characters onto or airwaves to adequately take on this subject in a public way. It can’t happen on the pages of CNN etc.
This is more of a topic that requires vast amounts of careful study and a foundation to tackle it in a more academic way, like you described in your fanpost if I remember correctly.
I meant to point out a more general problem with results oriented thinking. If you happen to get into a car accident and die on your way to work, was it a bad decision to have driven to work? That type of thing.
bconway6 - January 24, 2012
Hey dot, I'm with you on this
Anyone who prefers deterrence to good ol’ retribution should. Anyone who wants to make the world a better place and not just satisfy their bloodlust would want this.
Just a few practical steps that I can take with me wherever I go: 1. Understand the problem of child sex abuse more thoroughly, 2. Make sure any place I work or volunteer does what they can to educate and structure policies and rules to effectively deal with any issues that do arise.
I am not a politician, and most of them probably don’t care all that much about this unless there’s a camera in front of them, but those are something everyone can do. There are huge institutional issues. There are huge cultural issues. But people need to want to be proactive, and it doesn’t seem enough people are ready for that yet.
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
I've been wondering
about the differences in state reporting laws . . . not only how they differ, but the impact on identifying and stopping abuse. What are the views of child welfare professionals and those in the justice system?
I’ve suggested to several reporters that they could do some good by looking at these issues, but all I get is crickets.
nps - January 24, 2012
Reporters try to pin things on faceless politicians every day...
and all they hear is crickets. Why would a discussion of the laws covering an already uncomfortable topic be any different?
leeharvey418 - January 25, 2012
It is a supportable generalization
However, I think the problem is how you apply it.
The media is biased and ignorant of many issues. They are experts on nothing (a generaliztion in itself, though mostly true) and are required to present accurate facts on such a wide variety of subjects that it is overwhelming. They are also required to do this in increasingly smaller time scales.
The best journalists tend to be of the investigative kind. They work for months or even years on a story digging to uncover every kernel of truth and fact. They don’t have the same 30 minute deadline (an exageration, though not by much) that the majority of journalists do. However, it isn’t the investigative journalists that are writing stories on the nightly news.
If you don’t see the inherent ignorance and bias that this creates in the media, especially the 24 hour news media that dominates the headlines today, then you either aren’t looking, or are being willfully ignorant yourself (and to be clear, I’m saying you as a plural, not calling out you, M1EK). I’ve been overwhelmingly skeptical of the news for some time now. Almost every time I see a story in which I have a reasonable knowledge of the subject matter, my skepticism is confirmed as important details are missed.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
One way to look at this
is that every time Sara Ganim makes a report, if it doesn’t support the pro-Paterno narrative, notice how many people will say “she really messed this one up”.
And then when she makes a report which reinforces the pro-Paterno narrative, the same people will cite her.
When you see that that often, it’s clear that the measuring stick has nothing to do with bias or ignorance or investigation – it has to do with whether they post things that the person wants to hear.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
I've not seen anyone say that she really messed this one up
Although thats besides the point.
The point, at least for me, is that by and large news coverage is biased and ignorant. Applying that to this situation is easy because I am comfortable in assuming that I have a much clearer and more informed understanding of the situation than 99% of the people reporting it. It allows me to weed out the bullshit. I have my own inherent biases, but that doesn’t invalidate my opinions, particularly if I’m more informed than the news sources that I cite.
You do touch on a good point at the end- people are attracted to what they want to hear. We’re so conditioned as a society to accept editorilization in our every day news, that we forget whats real news and what isn’t. So we tend to choose news sources that match our worldview, rather than challenge it. But making that point in and of itself inherently recognizes that bias and ignorance exist in news media.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
Ganim has messed up
It’s bullshit to say that we (because certainly not I) are calling her out only when she fails to be “pro-Paterno.”
She at least seems to always check her sources and get her facts, by themselves, correct.
My problem with her is that in a few cases she’s drawn connections without explaining what she’s implying, which leads one to think she’s being deliberatedly vague so as not to reveal that the implication is bullshit. Like when the Patriot pointed out that Joe invested in some things that Second Mile board members invested in. So what? If she’s implying that this gave Joe motivation to cover-up something that would make Second Mile look bad, that’s dumb. A) because he didn’t cover this up B) even if he did, protecting his own program would obviously be far more important to him than the reputation of some guys he met a few times. It’s just silly.
Also, in a few cases she’s run stories that are really just the half-baked opinion of some “expert” that really has no special knowledge of the situation. Like that one where she interviewed some PR flak who thinks it was unlikely that Erickson hadn’t read the March story on Sandusky in the Patriot. That was stupid. Just because one of a million PR flaks in America thinks something doesn’t make it true. She might as well have interviewed some crazy homeless person.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
by the same measure
any time you (and I’m not using the royal you) see someone say Ganim (or others) messed something up, or any time they report something which reinforces the pro-Paterno narrative, you will point out those instances, but not when people do find fault with things that appear in the pro-Paterno narrative, or when people agree with aspects of stories that don’t shine Paterno in the softest light.
When you see that that often, it’s clear that the measuring stick has nothing to do with bias or ignorance or investigation – it has to do with whether they post things that fit your narrative.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
Not buying it.
I said Sally Jenkins was a friendly venue, not biased, for instance.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
Stop dealing in absolutes.
Every media story, regardless of source or author, should be judged on its own merits. If Paterno taught us anything it should be this. You don’t generalize every piece of someone’s work when making a criticism. You criticize the individual piece.
I can only speak for myself, but when I criticize an article or story online, it’s because I see there are details that are either wrong or omitted to fit a larger narrative. This is not what should be done by objective journalists. All the facts should be presented, and they should be validated prior to making them. It goes both ways, so I’m not trying to claim that you are the only person dealing in absolutes, but that’s the problem with generalizations. When you start to generalize things, you place blame and criticism on things that do not merit them on their own, and suddenly things are only being painted in black and white.
Succss With Honor Always - January 24, 2012
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
SarcasmJam - January 24, 2012
The GIS for this phrase mostly sucked, but I kinda dug Philosoraptor
Especially his spelling.
jtothep - January 24, 2012
Even if he is a philosopher
He is still a raptor.
jesse. - January 24, 2012
Clever girl
skarocksoi - January 24, 2012
If you see that one on your screen
It’s already two late
/2 raptors beside you
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
I can't imagine that only Siths would deal in Aboslutes
jtothep - January 24, 2012
Raptors, right?
I think the Raptor is just trying to distract you. He absolutely wants to eat you.
jesse. - January 24, 2012
Won't be the first time
I’ve been eaten by a raptor after being distracted by an Abo slut.
jtothep - January 24, 2012
Can I just say that I closed out this window
about an hour ago disgusted with BSD’s commentary.
Needless to say I didn’t realize we were only a few steps away from a discussion on Raptors. Love you guys.
PSUinBOSSton - January 24, 2012
That's the thing about 'Ignore'
It’s got a shelflife. At some point you gotta switch up to Volume-to-Volume, at whatever segue juncture becomes available.
jtothep - January 24, 2012
I don't even know what a Sith is
\has only seen one Star Wars movie
letsgopsu - January 24, 2012
I haven't seen any for over a decade
I don’t support terrorism
falconnuke - January 24, 2012
Whether bias and ignorance, or just laziness, bad reporting does the public a great disservice
I’m not looking for reporters to defend one “side” or another, just to present the truth, so that I can make an informed decision. That was sorely lacking in this case.
It started with the depiction of the Grand Jury presentment as a complete description of the people and events surrounding Sandusky’s actions. An inquiring mind and a few clicks of the mouse would have described what a presentment really is—a prosecutor’s document, designed to get an indictment. It is not, by design, a summary of facts, yet it was reported to be.
I am not by nature a contrarian, but I do like to question the conventional wisdom—just scratch at the assumptions and say "is that really so?" In so much news coverage, narratives develop because they sound plausible and comport with some of what we already know. The problem comes when this narrative becomes accepted fact, and isn’t questioned.
I can handle the truth . . . I just wish I could get more of it.
nps - January 24, 2012
i'm not sure it's fair to paint the "fanbase" that way
some commentors in one corner of the internet might fit that description, but that’s it.
spakajewia - January 24, 2012
please not now
He has not even been buries yet. Please, please, as a fellow fan, please not today.
letsgopsu - January 24, 2012
Except that he DID 'follow up'
and he did it multiple times over a period of months. He made a decision to stay out of the investigation because he didn’t want to be seen as attempting to influence it. So he left Curley and Schultz alone, but gave McQuery multiple opportunities to tell him if he was uncomortable with how it had been handled. McQuery has given no indication that he ever told Joe that Curley or Schultz had handled it improperly.
So I still fail to see Joe’s ‘inexcusable inaction.’ He took the actions he thought most appropriate given the information he had at the time.
PSUEnrg02 - January 24, 2012
Black and white thinking
I don’t know whether’s simply a lack of intelligence, or some sort of defense mechanism, or if it’s the way our society is set up, but there are so many people who can’t see the nuances in life. I never understand this. Life is complicated. People are complicated. It’s just as stupid to call Joe a saint and think he did no wrong as it is to call him a child rape enabler who should rot in hell.
Kevin-you’re right. It’s frustrating. And, ultimately, you nailed where my disappointment in Joe’s handling of Sandusky lies. He seemingly did the bare minimum, and that’s so contrary to what he’s been about his whole life/career. Michael Wilbon made a good point yesterday (I know-amazing) that Joe has been on the right side of so many things in his life, and yet he seemed to be on the wrong side here.
Who knows-maybe it’s a good thing. We learned a lot from the good Joe, now we need to learn from his mistakes.
speedomike - January 24, 2012
I've defended Joe steadfastly, but not because I don't see some error in his actions regarding Sandusky.
I’ve defended him because I think what he did SHOULD have been enough and was at least as much as most people would have done.
I also think it probably wasn’t entirely clear to him that the appropriate action had not been taken (after all, the administration did do something and McQueary didn’t seem to object to it).
I love Joe, I admire the way he motivated all of PSU to do better, but unlike people have accused me of, I never revered him as a God or thought him infallible. In fact, not a Saturday went by in the Fall where I wasn’t sure he made at least a couple of bad decisions. With Joe being just a man (I once let him out in front of me on campus, so I know he is a real person… he doesn’t fly or teleport home), it is quite easy to reconcile his behavior in 2002. He did what almost everyone would do and, in doing so, he made the mistake of putting trust in other people to do their job so that he could do his.
I see a mistake, but in order for me to believe that Joe failed morally, I have to believe he KNEW then that what he had done was inadequate to handle the situation… considering his track record, that isn’t a leap I’m willing to make.
I’ve long made the argument that it is the media and the people outside of SC attributing God-like qualities to Paterno, and their certainty that he did know stems directly from his reputation as the omnipotent leader of all of PSU… which is a false assumption proven wrong, if nothing else, by his unceremonious firing.
There’s a lot of animosity out there on the web and keyboard quarterbacks who want to ruffle feathers or are to dumb to put a coherent sentence together. There’s also media outlets fishing for ratings. These people, and the people who blindly defend Joe with equally incoherent and unintelligent misinformation, are the people commenting the most. I think quite a lot of the rest of America sees things as being quite the gray area they are. This is very much the same as politics… most people I know are in the great middle and shake their heads at the fools standing on either side.
BNittsDeMilo - January 24, 2012
You're first two sentances
are exactly how I feel.
FB6244 - January 24, 2012
Joe was a General
He was well prepared for the fight of doing and demonstrating that which is right and good, but like any smart general, he chose the battlefield. For years over the course of an unending war he led his troops and gamely fought the battles on the practice field, in the Lasch building, at Beaver Stadium, and in the library.
One day, he was the victim of a sneak attack. The battle came to him, he was unprepared, and he floundered. He made bad decisions, the true nature of which will never be known, and he lost that battle. Like a general whose troops die in an avoidable circumstance, kids got hurt. And like a general, he was appropriately relieved of his command. It may not have been his fault, but ultimately he was in charge and must take responsibility. This does not make him a bad guy, or a monster, or evil, or greedy, or conspiratorial, or an enabler, or anything other than what he was — a righteous leader of men. He won most of them, and there was one he lost.
History has recognized the accomplishments of Grant, Patton, MacArthur, and others to far outweigh their shortcomings. With the benefit of time, the world will see the entirely of the picture of Joseph Vincent Paterno, and will recognize that the good far outweighed the bad.
PSU Mudder - January 24, 2012
not specifically talking about this situation
but I’ve never been a fan of firing people for isolated, non-malicious mistakes.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
isolated non-malicious mistakes
is one, simplistic, way to put it.
More complicated ways to put it are noting that in a sense, that mistake was made anew every day from 2002-2008, for instance.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
again, I wasn't talking about this situation.
That is why I put that I wasn’t talking about this situation. It doesn’t really apply because of what you said. But there are many other situations where one, isolated, non-malicious mistake is made and people are terminated for it. But hey, good job reading within the context.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
That's nonsense
It wasn’t a new mistake every day unless they had new information everyday.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
No.
Not following up is a new mistake every day you still don’t do it, is what I mean, and what many others have meant.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
It's one...
mistake with large, lasting unintended consequences.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
You can view it either way.
Each day you put something off you should have done can be viewed as a new mistake, or it can be viewed as making the original mistake even bigger. Either way, it is not one small mistake.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
Small mistakes...
can have large consequences.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
My problem with your thinking M1EK
is that you’ve always been willing to assume Paterno knew quite a bit about the situation and that he did not have reason to think it had been handled appropriately. I’m not saying this to provoke an argument, and I will certainly read your response later but I have to get back to work now, but you stating that he made the mistake everyday assumes he didn’t think it had been investigated and handled.
Was it a mistake to think that? Maybe. In hindsight, definitely. But if that’s the mistake he made, then he only made it one time.
Otherwise, you’re saying that Joe knowingly allowed the administration to bury this. That’s a hell of a lot worse of an accusation. And I don’t think that fits at all with the actual information we do have.
BNittsDeMilo - January 24, 2012
Nope.
I’ve been really clear on this. Please don’t spread false narratives.
I have said that when Paterno saw Sandusky continuing to be on campus and knew that he was continuing to work with kids, that then he should have followed up and asked why that was being allowed to happen.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
I'm not trying...
to be argumentative, but how many times did Paterno see Sandusky around campus? It’s not clear to me. Sandusky spent his time on campus in the weight room area. An area, I’m under the impression, that Paterno rarely ever spent any time. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think Paterno saw him on a daily basis, which the narrative seesm to imply.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
And how many times was he with kids?
I feel like this is another strawman that has been constructed. I doubt that Sandusky had children on campus every day after the ban, and even if he did, how often did Paterno see him?
And once again, we still don’t know Paterno’s understanding of the events. I’m hoping that when Schultz and Curley present their defense, they will make it clear what their conclusions of the 2002 incident were, which is what would have been used to justify not allowing Sandusky on campus with children.
Finally, why is Joe supposed to be outraged and not McQueary? If Joe saw Sandusky on campus with kids, it’s likely MM saw it too. MM was the person who actually witnessed the alleged abuse. If he didn’t feel the need to take action, how is it fair to place that burden on someone further removed?
Succss With Honor Always - January 24, 2012
I didn't spread a false narrative...
I spoke to the narrative that, by reading your countless posts, you seem to be behind. In order to believe Joe should have followed up more, you have to assume he he either shouldn’t have accepted what the administration did given what he knew or that he was complicit in a cover-up. I have not seen you say that Joe actively covered this up, so I have to assume that you think Joe knew a lot about the situation. And if Joe knew a lot about the situation and therefore shouldn’t have accepted what the administration did, then he either is morally bankrupt or a party to a cover up (if they all had a lot of information, then you can’t call this a misjudgment anymore… everyone knows what to do with strong evidence against a child molester… it has to be a cover-up).
So, it isn’t a false narrative, it is a series of logical conclusions. If you assume that Joe knew a lot about the situation, then he is either a monster or participated in covering it up (and again, a monster). This is exactly why people react so angrily to you.
My point stands. If Paterno thought the situation had been handled (and McQueary didn’t seem to indicate to Paterno otherwise according to his own testimony), then Paterno had no reason to re-assess that situation. Especially if Sandusky was not hanging around Lasch building with children anymore (which McQueary also said, he never saw again). He made the mistake of thinking some vague accusations he received had been handled appropriately by people that should have known more about handling this than he did. His mistake was not in following up. His mistake was in trusting that what the people above him had decided was appropriate.
BNittsDeMilo - January 24, 2012
I don't think it's really that complicated
As far as I can tell, the answers to all of these questions are that Joe didn’t believe he understood the issues well enough to get too involved.
On the one hand, he wouldn’t want to be seen to be trying to help Sandusky out of jam, given that Sandusky worked for him and was an important part of the program. But given that Joe and Jerry didn’t really get along, he wouldn’t want to prejudice it the other way.
Given that McQuery’s testimony wasn’t 100% decisive, he wouldn’t want to accidentally leak to the press or public that Sandusky is a child molester if, it turned out, that he wasn’t. But he also wouldn’t want to mess up the investigation in some way that would somehow put the kid in danger, “tip off the suspect,” or mess it up legally. In retrospect, I think this latter horn of the dilemma isn’t that dangerous, but I can see how he might think that.
Dealing with kids skipping class or getting into fights were issues that Joe had been dealing with since he was a player himself. He was comfortable with those issues and their implications. They were in his wheelhouse. This wasn’t even his own employee, let alone a player over whom he had total authority. Comparing those two situations is bogus.
I’ve gone over this hundreds of times in my head and read all of the relevant testimony over and over. And the conclusion I come to is that it was a group screw-up, but Joe’s part if in was minor. The main fault lies with McQuery and Schultz.
McQuery knew what he saw and a) failed to go to the cops immediately, when that would have done the most good b) failed to follow-up after he saw that it wasn’t really being resolved c) failed to tell Joe, when he had the chance “no, I’m not all right with how this is being handled.”
Schultz was the only one who knew about 1998. He had the most information. He also should have known that the reason Joe told McQuery to talk to him was because he was the head of the police. He should have known that he wasn’t really a cop and couldn’t do a proper investigation. He should have known that they needed to cover their asses by having something in the police files, at least.
I don’t know why those two guys failed as they did. I don’t think it was to cover anything up, because they did tell other people and didn’t make much effort to keep it a secret. They will be judged by their conscience.
Even if Joe had followed up with Schultz more firmly, what good would that have done? Schultz would have told him “there’s nothing here that we can go to the police with” and Joe, given that McQuery didn’t give him all the details and McQuery said he was ok with things, would have had to believe him.
And even if Joe had compelled McQuery to talk the cops, I’m not sure there’d be a different outcome for Sandusky. If McQuery didn’t see a rape and only saw glimpses of things, Sandusky denied it and the kid, scared out of his wits, denied it, what evidence would they have to go with? The existence of the 1998 report didn’t keep Sandusky from working with kids. Why would another report do any more good? I’m not sure it would.
M1EK is wrong again.
JoePa proved that you can have a successful football team without violating the NCAA rules or failing to graduate players. The numbers speak for themselves. He could have machine-gunned down a whole kindergarten class and that wouldn’t change those accomplishments.
Thomas Jefferson slept with his slaves and participated in some dirty political tricks and slandered former friends. That he did those things doesn’t invalidate the Declaration of Independence, make the separation of church and state less of a good idea, or tear down the University of Virginia.
What’s good is good and what’s bad is bad.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
I want to comment about this
but I can’t really think of anything to add. I will add one thought: I think people are tearing down JoePa just because he was JoePA. If this came out about other coaches, sure they would be criticized, but I don’t think there would be quite the national condemnation. I’m still of the belief that JoePa made a mistake years ago in failing to fully understand the gravity of the situation, and trusting the wrong people to handle it properly, but I don’t think his mistakes warrant the effective social punishment handed out to him.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
Thanks for writing this, Kevin
I was going to post something similar but thought it was too soon and that a lot of Penn Staters might take it the wrong way.
Complex public figures, and well written fictional characters for that matter, always carry internal conflict which cause them to make dubious decision. Joe Paterno, for all the he good represented, was not infallible to being human. He may have felt loyal to Sandusky. He may not have understood the true ramifications of the situation. Who knows?
Since his death, I read a lot of praise for his work and dedication. Fans told stories of chance meetings, players praised his virtuous leadership. All of which are well deserved.
But at the same time I cannot not ignore faults in his statements to the press, his side of the story of the scandal, and even some of the vitriol against him by a former player and ex-Penn State employee. I just cannot not dismiss them.
The way Joe Paterno has been presented all these years made him too perfect. And because of that, we think we know him. That’s why fictional heroes are so 2 dimensional these days. That’s why politicians present themselves as one ideal instead of a complex one. Because it’s easier for the public to understand.
On another note: I met the Coach briefly. Had cell phone cameras been invented then, I would have proof that I existed in the same world as he. But I didn’t even own a camera then so alas I just have the memory. And now I’m just writing about it and what I think I know about him. Which is very little.
Mr. Rosewater - January 24, 2012
It seems to me
The problem arises because we are conflating Joe Paterno the legend and Joe Paterno the man. For the majority of our adult lives, Paterno has been rock solid. He successfully carried out the Grand Experiement. He molded men into boys. He cared about family, and was genuinely interested in people. Years of living humbly in State College and successfully devoting himself to a purpose larger than himself helped create an aura around him. That aura, the mystique, began to define Joe Paterno, the legend.
Meanwhile, Joe Paterno the man continued to live his life by the same guiding principles. However, Joe Paterno was human. He made mistakes. He wasn’t the omniscipent being that we began to believe he was. He made decisions with less than perfect information and relied on the people around him to help him with the problems he wasn’t able to. Sometimes, those people failed. Sometimes, he did.
We also live in a world in which we want desperately to believe that we have some control in our destiny. That every decision we make will provide a desired outcome. We want to believe that if we are good enough, if we live our lives principled enough, than nothing bad can ever happen. So we see a situation like this in which horrible things have occurred. We attempt to examine the timeline and devise a narrative that explains how this could have happened. We want someone to blame. It is a necessary function of belief in complete autonomy.
And so, we examine a situation in hindsight, build a narrative, and blame someone. It helps subvert our own existential thoughts and prevents us from thinking that we don’t control everything. It gives us a false sense of hope and security.
In this case, we see Joe Paterno, the legend, and wonder how he could have not done more. We forget that he was just a flawed man while we search for questions about our own deeply flawed and scary existence. We want to believe we can irradicate evil, and wonder why Joe Paterno, the legend, didn’t see it coming. Why he couldn’t recognize the signs on the wall that are so clear in our narrative written in hindsight. We blame him because we can’t accept that sometimes we can’t prevent evil.
Joe Paterno was human, and as such, was flawed. He made mistakes. One mistake clearly resulted in unimaginable suffering. But that mistake was not made in malice. That mistake could have been made a million times by a million people without the same consequences being suffered. If we judge errors in judgement simply by the consequences and not by the facts surrounding the judgements themselves, then we will always find ourselves confused, angry, and hurt because we will never make sense of this world by doing so.
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
*molded boys into men
I should probably read a little closer before posting
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
Maybe the first rendition is partly true. Sometimes we have to see ourselves
less as being in control and powerful (man) to what we really are (boy) man-in-waiting.
be4time - January 24, 2012
People are uncomfortable with complexity
The ability to be comfortable with complexity is perhaps one of the major benefits I got from being an English & Italian Lit major and discussing literature every day with some very talented professors. The human need to diagnose and categorize things as concrete is very real, but not very realistic. The truth is almost always some shade of gray and context is everything. Once you realize this, you can embrace ambiguity, and be skeptical of anything that isn’t ambiguous, as it’s likely misleading.
I’m reminded through this whole ordeal of a Luigi Pirandello play “Cosi e’ se vi pare” (Wonkily translated to English as “Right you are (if you think so)”). If you’re really into literature, I’d suggest checking out some of Pirandello’s work, because he really delves into the tricky difference between reality and perception in human consciousness and bigger themes of relativism (it’s rumored that Einstein loved his works).
It’s a complex story, but basically centers around have completely conflicting views of what’s going on with the town prefect’s, who keeps his wife locked inside their house and goes to visit his mother-in-law every day but won’t let her see his wife. The people of the town gossip and tell everyone what they see as the “truth” and try to discredit and bring down the other person’s version. Basically either the m-i-l or s-i-l has to be insane, and his wife is either the m-i-l’s daughter, or that daughter is dead and he has remarried.
They all look for supporting evidence and make their arguments. At the end, the prefect’s wife appears and tells people that she is both the m-i-l’s daughter and the s-i-l’s second wife, but to herself “nobody.” The last line of the play is by Laudisi, who is sort of the voice of reason, who says “You have the truth! But are you satisfied?”
The main takeaway of the play is that the truth depends just as much or more on perception than on what some would suggest is “absolute truth” or “objective reality”. My translation would be closer to “It is as it seems to you”.
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
We can sit here all day and debate the what if's and the whys.
But at the end of the day Joe Paterno left the world a better place than he found it, and his legacy, while tarnished, is also one of unparalleled success and honor.
carolinaeasy - January 24, 2012
Well this is my last comment
It’s really this statement by M1EK that is so violently wrong.
“Paterno’s good works now can’t be pushed as an example. That’s horrible to have to say, but it’s how I feel.”
If Joe really did something awful here – which I don’t think he did, but even if he did – you might be able to say that he is not an ideal to be pushed. But that’s probably true for a whole lot of other reasons anyway. Kids growing up today live in a different world than Joe did so he even if he were an absolute saint, he wouldn’t be an example to follow in every aspect of life.
But it is absolute unmitigated stinking bullshit to suggest that because somebody does something wrong, that the things they did right are no longer right. That just doesn’t make any sense.
And with respect to Joe’s “legacy,” it is not what newspaper writers will say about him. So many columnists think that’s what Legacy means – what the wiki article will say or what the biography will say. That is an insignificant part of a legacy.
A legacy is the real stuff one leaves behind, and when it comes to Joe, we can say, as the kids do now, “SCOREBOARD, BITCH.”
Five kids, 17 grandkids, 60 year marriage.
409 wins.
No NCAA violations.
Graduation rate way over the average.
Gazillion dollars earned and donated.
Countless boys made into men and, most importantly, a lot of those boys were headed the wrong way had they not gotten into football and may have gone the wrong way had they gone anywhere else to play (as it is, a few still did go the wrong way. He wasn’t perfect).
Nothing Joe could have done in 2002 would tear down the library or turn those men into bad people, etc, etc. So all those writers out there can shove the"legacy" up their ass.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
Tone-deaf
What do you think the retort is going to be to “SCOREBOARD, BITCH”?
Hint: It’s probably going to include number of kids molested by Sandusky.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
Here's the real problem with that
Joe Paterno wasn’t the only person that could have possibly stopped Sandusky. You know who else could have?
Jerry Sandusky
Sandusky’s Wife and Children
Mike McQueery
Spanier
Shultz
Curley
Gricar
The UP police
The SC police
Those in charge at the Second Mile
CYS that evidentally was contacted
Corbett could have put more effort into the investigation much earlier
etc, etc
And really thats the crux of the issue. Joe Paterno is villified, yet not the only person that could have done something more. In fact, there were many other people that should have done much more, which would have negated this debate to begin with
psuphysicist - January 24, 2012
Yes.
Absolutely true.
Still doesn’t address the tone-deafness of saying “SCOREBOARD, BITCH” and expecting to win with that.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
I'll try one more time
1) Paterno didn’t molest anyone and his role in allowing Sandusky to molest anyone post 2002 is, at best, minimal. It is not at all clear that even if Joe had called up Schultz again and again and again that this would have made any difference. Schultz was in charge of the investigation at that point and had made up his mind what needed to be done or not done and Spanier signed off on that. Contrary to the “Paterno as King” canard, Paterno could not override Spanier. Joe knew even less about Sandusky’s activities than Schultz did because a) he didn’t know about 1998 and Schultz did b) McQuery gave Schultz a more complete version of events. So how was Joe going to convince Schultz to do anything different? And Joe knew he knew less than Schultz, so why should he try to tell him how to do his job?
2) Even if McQuery had talked to the real police and they’d done the proper paperwork, there’s no reason to assume the outcome would have been any different. What would they have done? They would have talked to McQuery and then talked to Sandusky. Curley and Schultz talked to McQuery and talked to Sandusky. Perhaps the real cops, with their superior knowledge of all the crimes they could charge Sandusky with short of rape (since the evidence there was shaky) could have made something stick, but it’s by no means a slam dunk.
3) Curley said he did talk to Paterno about it again. We don’t know what was in that conversation. Paterno also talked to McQuery about it. So he did follow-up, albeit indirectly. Sure, in hindsight we see that wasn’t good enough, but at the time, it would have appeared to be reliable information. McQuery was really the only one who knew whether or not the actions taken were adequate and he didn’t complain. You can make up stuff about him being “scared” (even though he wasn’t scared to bring down the Second Mile or speak out against a pillar of the community.) Quit making stuff up.
3) The absolute most important point I was trying to make is that Paterno’s actual accomplishments stand and fall on their own merits because of their lasting impact. Likewise, his failures stand and fall on their own merits. Same for all of us. One doesn’t negate the other. That’s why I used Thomas Jefferson as an example. He was kind of a weird dude and held some opinions that we’d now find abhorrent and he did some things that even at the time were pretty abhorrent to the people that knew about them. He was, really, kind of a dick. (So was Ben Franklin, BTW) But that doesn’t make the good things that he did are any less good.
It may change your opinion of whether or not he was a “good man,” but who gives a shit? He’s dead. He’s not trying to make friends. Our judgement on that is pointless. It’s up to God, if there is one.
I can try another one. Hitler was nice to dogs. Really, that was his only redeeming feature. Just because he was a monster doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t teach our children to be nice to dogs.
Likewise, Joe built some things here that are very good and we, as intelligent decent people can recognize their goodness. Their goodness stands independent of him.
Joe could be a mass-murderer and it wouldn’t change the fact that graduating one’s players and not cheating (etc, etc,) are the right way to run a football program. In those areas he is a model. But we know he’s a model because we see the results, not because of some magic “Well, if JoePa did it that way, it must be the right way.” Nobody is saying that.
Likewise, Joe’s other accomplishments don’t change the fact that the way he handled the situation with McQuery and Sandusky is not the way we would want those things should be handled in the future.
I don’t know how else to try to get through.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
Hi!
I posted some links for you in the wrestling thread.
jtothep - January 24, 2012
thanks
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
Most...
people that history deems “great” had “moral” failings. It is interesting what time does to those failures.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
truth
I think marital fidelity is people #1 moral issue. Now look at how many people history deems as great were faithful. In fact, just look at the NBA.
swiggy04 - January 24, 2012
This is what made JoePa so special.
He wasn’t just a great coach, he didn’t just win a lot of games. He was every bit a moral and character leader as he was a winning one. You remember most people for what they accomplished on the football or battlefields, but very rarely does their character define just as much of their legacy. Paterno had 409 wins on the football field and millions off of it. Every student or alumni at Penn State that has been affected by him in a moral or character regard is a piece of his legacy. It’s why he should have a statue at the library that bares his name in addition to the football field.
And I refuse to let the latest situation take away 50% of his legacy. He will always be a great man, but he was just that, a man. That is the thing that made him so great. He accomplished more in mortality than most Greek gods accomplished with immortality. That’s really not an overstatement since Greek gods were seldom acting in the best interest of men.
Succss With Honor Always - January 24, 2012
Just be a man
Stan: You know, somebody once said, "Don’t try to be a great man, just be a man."
Jesus: Who said that?
Stan: You did, Jesus.
Jesus: You’re right, Stan. Thank you, boys!
Kyle: Wow, did he say that in the Bible?
Stan: Nah, I saw it on Star Trek.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
Interesting.
I’ve always found Picard to be the more morally righteous of the captains. But Kirk more inclusive of banging Green chicks.
Obviously, I’m a Kirk fan.
jesse. - January 24, 2012
The ethics of Star Trek
a class I took at Penn State. It related the three main characters of Star Trek (Kirk, Spock, and Bones) to the Super Ego, Ego, and Id of Freudian thinking. TNG probably focuses things on a bit of a different framework.
skarocksoi - January 24, 2012
Why...
Did I always get boring classes? What the hell was I doing when selecting courses?! Econ…nuts.
iamkatemcg - January 25, 2012
I think it is unfair..
to make Joe Paterno own Jerry Sandusky’s sins. His own sins are enough.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
There are two kinds of people in the world.
The people who overlook Joe’s mistakes and the people who overlook Joe’s accomplishments
and everybody else.
WorldBFat - January 24, 2012
one set isn't worth anyone's time
WorldBFat - January 24, 2012
Oooh, a logic puzzle
‘Two kinds of people’ and three groups named after that. Then only one ‘set’ is worth time, but what does a set refer to in a group of three or two?
WorldB, keepin it deep.
jtothep - January 24, 2012
"WorldBDeep," a little lie I tell the ladies.
WorldBFat - January 24, 2012
Based on what happened in the MGoBlog discussion,
I thought the mods were going to put this shit to bed for the rest of the week? I can only ignore so much stupidity, repetition and insistance.
kijana's acl - January 24, 2012
There was an MGoBlog discussion?
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
Not much of one.
Kevin Powers - January 24, 2012
I just.
read through it. Seems to be the same discussion we have here every day over and over. Slightly lessed informed on the nuances of it all, but generally the same one.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
A good chunk was removed.
And I’m using the term "good" in reference to quantity, certainly not in describing the quality.
06Lion - January 24, 2012
Oh really?
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
agreed. Is the day of Joe's viewing really the time and place for this discussion?
Can his family bury him in peace before we get into this tireless debate again.
mleepsu08 - January 24, 2012
and if we all care so much about Joe's mistake and our take on it.
maybe we can back away from our keyboards and go out in the world and volunteer for victims of child abuse and maybe better ourselves by understanding the complex issue without debating someone else’s legacy non-stop.
mleepsu08 - January 24, 2012
Agreed and with all due respect....
NOW is not the time to be discussing what Joe could or should have done…we’re in the process of paying our final respect to JoePa…I don’t know about others, but my emotions are still raw thinking about what the last 3 months must have been like for Joe and his family. Can’t we give them some respect by not dredging up the most controversial chapter of his life?
ssd - January 24, 2012
Sure.
Go tell the 20 other people on your side who have posted aggressively since the last time I wrote anything, while I’m sitting on my hands trying not to respond, and who will view my lack of response as somehow ignoring their points. Please, please, please.
M1EK - January 24, 2012
You know...
the seventy-something virgins your apparently hoping for later…that’s not the quantity of them, rather an attribute of them.
bconway6 - January 24, 2012
I just want to make sure we’re all aware that the mods handling this proactively will result in no one being happy about the outcome. I’m hopeful we can all button it up a little, because to be honest this is getting well beyond bearable.
By now you’ve all seen very clearly the people whom you disagree with about passionate topics and fail to come to a resolution with. I’m asking everyone, again, to just not engage in threads involving those personal counter-parts.
Kevin Powers - January 24, 2012
And I want to point out how sad it is that I was the second person to have to post that image in this thread, and that I was unaware of it to boot.
Kevin Powers - January 24, 2012
Guys, Kevin wrote an interesting and thought-provoking piece
Can we avoid the bullshit that would get this post locked down? Maybe just come together at least until Thursday night?
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
Let's either shut it down or fast forward to the point where someone compares Joe to a prominent Nazi.
I’m fucking done.
kijana's acl - January 24, 2012
I dropped in a hitler for you above
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
LOOK EVERYONE
PUPPIES!!!!!
psuwxman - January 24, 2012
Only me and two other people don't hate puppies?
I challenge you all to demonstrate that you hate puppy-haters more than I do.
Go ahead – just try…
leeharvey418 - January 24, 2012
As usual, this guy says it best.
(“I made a lot of mistakes in my life,” he said. “But I thought people could see that I tried my best to do the right things. I tried to do the right thing with Sandusky too.”) He was hurt that the program he had spent his life building was in trouble.
Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/joe_posnanski/01/24/joe.paterno/index.html#ixzz1kPIwxipV
FB6244 - January 24, 2012
Loved that
His final words of advice are also very good:
Don’t read Conrad in the Hospital.
MASH is a good show.
Again, I could have told him both of those, but it’s good to remember we can always learn new wisdom, even in our dying days.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012
These are all valid questions
and quite thought provoking. Its a shame that SOME of our fellow posters have to resort to their usual, knee-JERK reaction that Joe was, somehow, standing next to JS, cheering him on. Unfortunately, the moderators have not sought to ban their ignorant asses yet, but I can hope as I did that, one day, Bin Laden would get shot in the face.
As to the issue of what Joe knew, did, etc., it almost doesn’t matter. The evidence indicates that Joe did follow up with McQuerey and Schultz, at least once with each. But, the evidence shows that he did nothing more. I’m not exactly sure what more a 76 year old football coach was supposed to do beyond donning his red cape and tights and swooping down, picking JS up and hanging him from the top of the Beaver Stadium flagpole. Yet, some on these threads seem to insinuate that Joe should have went vigilante like Charles Bronson in Death Wish 1-11,000,000.
Nevertheless, I personally believe that Joe did the appropriate thing in reporting the possible abuse of children he was not responsible for, allegedly perpetrated by a former employee over whom he had no authority, to the guy who was, at the very least, the administrative head of the campus police department, which had full investigative and arresting powers. However, some think he should have done more…that’s fine.
However, the man, Joe Paterno, a husband, father, teacher and mentor has passed away and there are thousands how mourn his loss. What he did and didn’t do relative to JS is irrelevant at this point as any potential vindication won’t do him any good. All those of us who still believe in the goodness of the man can do is hold on to our beliefs.
For those who, for some reason, still feel the need to villify a man who has passed, a man who has done more for society than you could ever hope to accomplish, might I suggest that you dine this evening on the business end of a Glock 9mm. Short of that, I’m sure the hateful scum at ESPN.com would welcome you with open arms. Either way, STFU and leave us to greive as a community which you are NOT a part of.
Keith Platt - January 24, 2012
^ This deserves many, many more recs.
PSU_Lions_84 - January 24, 2012
Rec'd for all of it
But especially for the last sentence. Having once lived in State College does NOT make you a member of a community. There is more to it than geography.
kijana's acl - January 25, 2012
Gave the mods a day to handle this
and they did not.
I apparently know more about Joe Paterno than you, and the 10 or so people who recommended this do, because I know that he would not tolerate this:
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
M1EK - January 26, 2012
There is no effect without a cause
and everything is for the good in this best of all possible worlds.
SubLime - January 24, 2012
got a message from a friend of mine from Houston, a UT alum
He wanted to let me know he unfriended someone on Facebook because they were hateful about Joe. I love him for that.
letsgopsu - January 24, 2012
funny, I got unfriended on facebook because I WASN'T hateful about Joe.
If only I was still friends with that person so I could thank them for preventing me having to deal with their asinine comments in the future.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
I got some nice response from a long statement I posted
Mostly from UGA fans from my years in Atlanta.
I said in the statement they could unfriend me if they want, but I don’t know if anyone did. I don’t really care.
letsgopsu - January 25, 2012
Joe Pa's legacy
is suffering from the “JoePa Runs Penn State” caricature that has built up over the years. If this exact same set of circumstances played out at some Division III school, no one would even attempt to pin this kind of blame on the head football coach.
Joe 96alum - January 24, 2012
Which just goes to prove..
…who, exactly, it is among us who are the ones elevating Joe to God-like status. The dimwits who try to pin the “You worship Joe Paterno…so SHAME” tag on us are actually the ones ascribing to him omniscience. I don’t know anyone who reveres, respects and covets Joe’s life and accomplishments as “worshiping” him.
The cheap caricature of an ego-driven football coach pulling all the strings in town and twisting his mustache behind the scenes is out of some B-movie. Then again, facts and reality never got in the way of forming an opinion about Joe’s role in this.
Jitterbug - January 24, 2012
With respect...
to your last paragraph, people do it because it is easy and safer. It’s much more unsettling and scary when bad things happen, not because of some grand conspiracy, but simply because people think they do the right thing and isn’t enough.
Esteban d' Amur - January 24, 2012
I love that sentence.
The characterizations I’ve seen, on both sides, have all tried to form some sort of cohesive narrative. No narrative in real life is ever cohesive.
OctaShields - January 24, 2012
Paterno was in league with Kristofferson and Boxcar Willie.
WorldBFat - January 24, 2012
I started to get into an argument with my dental hygienist a few weeks ago...
I eventually had to say, with a mouthful of gauze and suction tube, “it’s just an incredibly complicated situation”. Even if I had been able to speak articulately, I literally could have gone on for hours discussing the nuances of each player’s role in this case. That’s the biggest reason why I haven’t gotten into any deep discussions on the matter outside BSD – there’s far too much to cover in a five minute conversation that is required to fully understand our perspective. You just can’t convey in a matter of minutes what it’s taken years to form in each of us.
leeharvey418 - January 24, 2012
complicated
That word seems to be the new buzz word for this discussion outside our PSU Family. Those of us who ‘get it, get the real JOE’, we have no complications realizing that he is a man with profound intentions that made an IMPACT, yet a human.
ComfortHePuHuTh - January 25, 2012
Oh, I agree - Joe had just about the simplest involvement of anyone.
He did what he was supposed to do and tried to step back out of the way. With the benefit of hindsight, that wasn’t the best course of action. …but it should have been.
leeharvey418 - January 25, 2012
Well said
I think that’s what is driving a lot of the insanity. People don’t want to believe that stopping child abuse is difficult.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012 via mobile
People don't want to believe that it's difficult to even believe child abuse is occurring.
…especially when the alleged perpetrator is a pillar of the community who works with kids on a regular basis, under the (supposedly) close supervision of qualified professionals who (we wish would) know how to spot child abusers a mile away.
leeharvey418 - January 24, 2012
I still think
For those who have been (or are being) sexually abused, they are particularly angry at someone like Joe for not stopping this. They sooo want there to be that kind of supercoach who can spot child abusers a mile away. Their profound frustration manifests itself in a fury that cripples their logic.
Jitterbug - January 24, 2012
I don't think Paterno is perfect
I just think he’s a lot closer than pretty much anyone else.
The JuggerNitt - January 24, 2012
There's no good way to spot molesters
As far as I’ve gathered, the only way to stop it, in addition to general awareness and vigilance, is for youth organizations to create and enforce blanket polices that prevent a kid from ever being alone with an adult (other than their parent). That protects the adult from misunderstandings as well as the kid. By making it an all-times/no-exceptions rule, nobody is picked out as untrustworthy. The youth group I work with does that. A guy I know who coached women’s rugby (not girls, grown women) said they had the same rule. It just simplifies and clarifies things.
reedjohnmiller - January 24, 2012 via mobile
it simplifies and clarifies things
but also makes certain opportunities available to fewer kids. By all accounts a worthwhile tradeoff, but a tradeoff none the less.
The JuggerNitt - January 25, 2012
No, there isn't any good way...
but you’d think that if anyone had any aptitude, it would be the people who advise the legislature on what it takes to write a ‘tough’ child protection law – and half of those people in Pennsylvania had some level of involvement in Second Mile.
leeharvey418 - January 25, 2012
Matt Millen said it best:
“Was he perfect? No. But he’s as good as there ever has been”.
And to anyone who believes that they are a better person than he was… good luck with that.
The Heel - January 25, 2012
Well, Sue Paterno, maybe.
I never personally met either Joe or Sue. But I want to honor Joe’s way of life by being better than I am and knowing what Sue is going through today, over the past few weeks, and in the wake of November 2011, I just want to drive to State College and give her a hug.
Tezcatlipoca - January 25, 2012
THIS.
+100000000
iamkatemcg - January 25, 2012
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Black Shoe Diaries to post a comment.