Penn State Goings-On

[Malthus]

Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist?  The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police).  If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do you know, when no one else seems to?

Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist.  Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board claims motivated them to do so.  Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).

It is the reversal of the normal order of priorities here that is so very unpleasant. You can create all the semantic weasling you want, but fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much. Neither did anyone else. In this situation, heads rolling is to be expected.

You can say he's not "alleged" to have "covered up for a child rapist" (whatever you may mean by that) but surely the thing speaks for itself. He *knew* his friend was raping kids and for *years* he did *nothing*.  Sure, he wasn't charged. But surely to Christ the reasons for his firing are no mystery, and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy. 

[grumbler]

It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.

Just curious, Mal, but why do you have such a hard-on for this case, to the point where you will engage in naked fabrication in order to reinforce your point?  No one is expressing toleration of criminal behavior because the criminals are prominent; the criminal behavior (destruction of property) is being done by anonymous members of a mob.  No one has even alleged, as far as I know, that the prominent guy (JoPa) engaged in criminal behavior (much to your apparent irritation, to the point that you are now ignoring facts in favor of your preferred fabrications).

What happened to your self-respect?

[Barrister]

The morning paper was scathing on the reactions of the students & journalists. Much incomprehension was expressed as to how they could get so angry over the guy's firing (and how very important the game of football appears to be to them).

Think of it in terms of hockey, that's pretty popular in Canada right?

Imagine that the NHL was confined to Canada, and there was no minor league. All of the players are drafted out of college into the NHL. College hockey would be huge in Canada under those circumstances wouldn't it? In small towns without anything else going on they would be completely dominate. Now imagine one of the best college teams has been coached by the same man for 46 years, and he's been on the staff for 62. He's not only a great coach, but without a doubt has been the most morally upstanding coach during that time span. A paragon of everything good in collegiate athletics. He's built a ten million library for the campus and founded a classics program. The stadium has expanded from holding 30,000 people to 110,000. He would become a literal cult figure.
That's what Paterno was.

We don't have to imagine anything.

You are unfamiliar with the world of junior hockey in Canada.  16-20 year olds, and where about 80% of all NHL players are drafted from.  If you're in a junior hockey town, the team is the number one entertainment ticket in town.

We also had a sex abuse scandal in junior hockey.  Google Graham James, Sheldon Kennedy, or Theo Fleury.

Nobody rioted in favour of Graham James when the revelations came out.

I can understand the culture of machismo and secrecy, and can understand why people wouldn't talk about incidents.  But once those incidents become public knowledge, its inconceivable to me that anyone would defend the abuser, or those who helped hide that abuse.

[Barrister]

I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game. 

Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?

Hey - the Vancouver riots (and the Montreal riots, and the earlier Vancouver riots) are absolutely a black mark on Canada, and trying to compare which riot is more 'justified' is a fools errand.

[Berkut]

I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game. 

Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?

Hey - the Vancouver riots (and the Montreal riots, and the earlier Vancouver riots) are absolutely a black mark on Canada, and trying to compare which riot is more 'justified' is a fools errand.

So why the mystification?

People are stupid, and often have fucked up priorities. If you get enough of these stupid people together with their fucked up priorities, they engage in stupidity on a grand scale.

There is nothing mystifying about it.

[grumbler]

Are there allegations that Paterno covered up for a child rapist?  The Board of Regents said they fired him because they wanted the university to begin to move forward from the charges alleged against other officials, and Paterno was part of the situation they wanted to leave behind (because he clearly had the power and duty to report what he knew to the police).  If they were lying, and really fired him because someone was alleging that he engaged in a coverup, how do you know, when no one else seems to?

Mind you, I don't get the rioting myself, but I certainly don't think the rioters were aware (any more than I am) that there were actual allegations that Paterno covered up for a rapist.  Their anger appeared to be directed at the board that fired him and the reasons the board claims motivated them to do so.  Paterno was retiring after this season, the protestors argued, and to fire him three games from retirement seemed unjust to them (and motivated by some weird media conspiracy thingy, but that's another issue).

It is the reversal of the normal order of priorities here that is so very unpleasant. You can create all the semantic weasling you want, but fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much. Neither did anyone else. In this situation, heads rolling is to be expected. 

I have no idea what this means.  Are you saying that you don't know who has alleged that JoPa "covered up for a child rapist", or that you do?  So far, this sounds like a weasel to get out of a fabrication on your part.

You can say he's not "alleged" to have "covered up for a child rapist" (whatever you may mean by that) but surely the thing speaks for itself.

You say that he is alleged to have "covered up for a child rapist."  That has a specific meaning.  If you are going to weasel out ofthe accusation by claiming that you didn't mean "alleged' and didn't mean "covered up" but rather meant something else that doesn't have to be articulated because "it speaks for itself," then the weasel is noted and accepted.  You are obviously over-wrought for some reason when it comes to this topic, and seem to have lost all capacity for objective comment on the case, so I will ignore all you say from this point forward, for your sake.

He *knew* his friend was raping kids and for *years* he did *nothing*.  Sure, he wasn't charged. But surely to Christ the reasons for his firing are no mystery, and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.

Yeah.  Sure.  Whatever, Jesus.  As far as I know, the only controversy here regards the extent of Paterno's actually knowledge.  Your dogmatic insistence that you know the answer to this controversy is most extremely unpersuasive.

[grumbler]

I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game. 

Trying to tell a Canadian that injustice is a more valid reason to riot than hockey is pretty obviously doomed from the start, eh?

Hey - the Vancouver riots (and the Montreal riots, and the earlier Vancouver riots) are absolutely a black mark on Canada, and trying to compare which riot is more 'justified' is a fools errand.

  No one is seriously trying to make that comparison.  It is a series of tongue-in-cheek posts.

[FunkMonk]

and if he was pretty well anyone else in this situation, there wouldn't be any controversy.

This is true. I don't believe any of the protestors were carrying around cardboard cut-outs of the ousted University President or were crying in the streets outside his house.

[grumbler]

I can understand the culture of machismo and secrecy, and can understand why people wouldn't talk about incidents.  But once those incidents become public knowledge, its inconceivable to me that anyone would defend the abuser, or those who helped hide that abuse.

It is probably just as well that it is inconceivable to you, as I doubt that it will happen.  It certainly hasn't in this case.

[alfred russel]

I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.

That does not appear to be the tone of the complaints. So far, most of what is written isn't 'the Grand Jury was wrong' but 'our guy may have made a mistake but he's really a great guy'.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/joepa_love_fueled_riot_fires_vxT8UYmQ4yxPDyyiiO6SaJ?utm_campaign=Post10&utm_source=Post10Alpha

No one denies Paterno could have done more dealing with the horrible tragedy that occurred under his watch. But students were mostly annoyed with how the administration handled Paterno's firing.

It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.

What a curious example you chose regarding Shoeless Joe Jackson. In baseball circles a century later there is still extensive debate whether his treatment was just, even though most believe he had some type of knowledge.

Here, I think there is a sense that the administration could have done more, but who knew what, and when, hasn't been established, so the extent of any personal failures by Paterno haven't either. Hell, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Board of Trustees was willing to go so far as to even definitively say victims exist, qualifying the term with "alleged." 

[grumbler]

This is true. I don't believe any of the protestors were carrying around cardboard cut-outs of the ousted University President or were crying in the streets outside his house.

Spanier didn't win any national championships.

[The Brain]

I'm guessing that the sense of the "rioters" was that they don't believe the allegations, and an unjust termination of a respected figure certainly seems to be a better reason to riot than the outcome of a hockey game.

That does not appear to be the tone of the complaints. So far, most of what is written isn't 'the Grand Jury was wrong' but 'our guy may have made a mistake but he's really a great guy'.

http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/college/football/joepa_love_fueled_riot_fires_vxT8UYmQ4yxPDyyiiO6SaJ?utm_campaign=Post10&utm_source=Post10Alpha

No one denies Paterno could have done more dealing with the horrible tragedy that occurred under his watch. But students were mostly annoyed with how the administration handled Paterno's firing.

It's the equivalent of, instead of the little boy plaintively stating "say in ain't so, Joe" over the "Black Sox' scandal, he torched a cop car in anger over Joe being fired. It's an express toleration of criminal behaviour if someone is prominent enough.

What a curious example you chose regarding Shoeless Joe Jackson. In baseball circles a century later there is still extensive debate whether his treatment was just, even though most believe he had some type of knowledge.

Here, I think there is a sense that the administration could have done more, but who knew what, and when, hasn't been established, so the extent of any personal failures by Paterno haven't either. Hell, I could be wrong, but I don't think the Board of Trustees was willing to go so far as to even definitively say victims exist, qualifying the term with "alleged."

Fuck Joe, what about Swede?

[alfred russel]

fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

[alfred russel]

Fuck Joe, what about Swede?

Nobody cares about Swede. If he wanted to be cared about, he should have gotten a cool nickname, like Shoeless. And been better at baseball.

[Malthus]

fact remains that Paterno knew his buddy was raping kids and did ... well, not much.

That hasn't been established. Paterno has denied such knowledge.

McQ testified to the Grand Jury that he told P. that he saw S. anally raping a boy.

Either he's lying, or P. is ... and the Grand Jury has stated it found McQ's testimony "credible".