Billy Crystal will be hosting the Oscars, and it seems all the young folks are upset that a more ‘edgy’ person isn’t hosting. I guess this is a sign of aging because I was happy to hear he was hosting again.
I’ve been watching a lot of news about the debacle at Penn State and even took the time to read the 23-page grand jury report. I’m still not convinced that Paterno knew anything more other than what that grad assistant told him, and if he did know more, then my opinion will definitely change, but for now, it seems he’s just a scapegoat. I think he did the right thing in contacting his superiors who were also in charge of overseeing the campus police. I don’t think it would have been right for Paterno to contact the police if he was just going by an eye-witness account of a grad student. What if the grad student’s claim was false and he was just trying to set Sandusky up with that heinous charge? For now, I don’t feel there’s enough for me judge Paterno, although more facts will be coming out, but I certainly don’t have a favorable view of Sandusky and that grad student that did nothing to intervene as that heinous act was taking place.
Last night was the start of NFL Thursday Night Football, which I think is pretty stupid. Once commercial that kept airing was for a show called ‘All American Muslim’. It’s a show on TLC (I think) about how American Muslims are fighting negative stereotypes. I just found it interesting the audience they were trying to reach.
I just discovered that in some people, when you make a fist with your left hand and hold your left thumb inside that fist, it will disable your gag reflex.
Your response appears to indicate that Paterno knew what was going on was absolutely true, and that he had knowledge of those other incidents. After reading the 23-page grand jury report and watching all the coverage, I'm still not convinced he knew about all the other incidents, just what the grad assistance told him. As things continue to develop, I may have to change my stance on that. He also reported the incident to the person that oversees campus police, so he did deal with the situation. But like I said, as things continue to come out, I may have to change my mind. And yes, if all this is true, remember Sandusky hasn't been convicted, my heart goes out to those poor kids and their families.
So Paterno didn't know that there were investigations of his Assistant Coach in 1999? He didn't know that the grad assistant came and told him he saw something suspicious in the shower? He didn't know that Sandusky was under grand jury investigation last month, and still allowed him into the weight rooms as recently as last week?
My take is: If Paterno "didn't know", it's because he refused to be a responsible adult and ask the necessary questions. That might give him a legal out, but it doesn't give him a moral out. Who cares if he's a football coach, as a human being he has a moral responsibility to protect those that are innocent. This isn't a Christian statement, this is what we all should govern ourselves by.
So Paterno didn't know that there were investigations of his Assistant Coach in 1999?
I can't find any evidence that Paterno knew of the investigations and if it was being hid from him. If Paterno did know about this going back to 1999, then my opinion would change entirely.
He didn't know that the grad assistant came and told him he saw something suspicious in the shower?
The grad assistant did indeed tell Paterno, but we don't know exactly what he said to Paterno from what I read in the grand jury report. I know when I speak of sensitive things to a father or grandfather figure I describe things differently than those around my own age, but my point is we don't know exactly what Paterno was told. Paterno did tell the man in charge of campus police, and I understand that isn't the same as actually going to the police, but what if that charge was false because the grad assistant had it out for him? Not to mention, once you report that kind of info in the workplace, at least for the organizations I've worked for, you are told just to report and leave it alone.
In terms or morals, the protection of children has to be at the top of the list, but I'm also wanting to believe in our justice system, that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Thanks for helping me expand my thoughts on this, Jonathan. I just want to understand what I'm missing that everyone else is picking up on.
Can I point out something to you that inaccurate in your reply?
"You want to believe in our justice system, that one is innocent until proven guilty." I agree. Where I disagree with you, is that Paterno didn't do this. He didn't give the "justice system" an opportunity to do what they do; which is prove that people are innocent or guilty.
I love you bro, but as a man I believe that it is my responsibility as a man to protect the innocent (and I'm sure you do too.) What I believe your missing (and I say that graciously, not with a smirk and a pointed finger), is that Paterno did not do what he needed to do to protect the innocent in this situation. He did not contact local "justice system" authorities, he did not investigate this man further and instead let it be someone else's problem, and he did not use his own influence to step up and see what was true and not true in this situation.
I'm in a position to witness these things at times play out in society and families, and the #2 sick thing after the sexual abuse; is the distancing that people in authority regularly have towards the abuse itself. Paterno isn't alone in passing judgement up the food-chain in his organization, refusing to investigate further out of fear of what might be, or ignoring the obvious signs of sexual abuse. We all need to assume responsibility for protecting the innocent, even if it means we make those accused of predatory behavour prove their own in the court of law.
And I love you, and only respond because you asked what you might be missing what everyone else was picking up on.
Can I weigh in here? Yes? good. At my job if someone claimed they were being harassed or reported to me someone else was being harassed my obligation is to report it to HR. If someone came to me and said, "I saw some goings on with Mr. Jim and our underage stockroom boy." I would report that up the chain and get HR involved immediately. That's because it's the HR staff who is equipped and whose roll it is to engage our company with law enforcement. After HR was involved for legal purposes and to protect the privacy of the accuser and/or victim I would not be given access to information about what happened to the victim or Mr. Jim. If I saw Mr. Jim around the office in the coming months I would be forced to assume that the HR department did their job correctly and contacted law enforcement if a crime had taken place.
Can the same be said for Joe Pa? I think maybe. He received a concern from an employee about another employee and he immediately reported his concerns to all superiors to whom he was obligated. If then Joe Pa sees Sandusky around wouldn't he be forced to assume that the matters were being handled?
Oblivious, as facts are uncovered we'll learn to what extent the people involved were negligent. Some of them were obviously criminally negligent, some might just be ethically negligent and some might have done the right thing.
Also, Jonathan, just a note. When you said stuff like "I love you bro, but…" it doesn't come off as loving. It comes off more like, "I'm about to tell you why you're an idiot."
I think your response further clarifies our difference of opinion. I believe that reporting crimes are different than reporting misconduct at work. We simply disagree, and I'm good with that.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, Jonathan, and I feel like you've done so with grace and respect. Thankfully we have met and have a relationship so I know how to take your comments. And trust me, I don't think you are calling me an idiot.
So far my thoughts align with George's and a lot of what Peter King has said In his MMQB column on SportsIllustrated.com. One, there is so much we still don't know, and the other, every company I've worked for tells us the first thing we need to do other than an emergency (like a fire, or shooting) is to contact either your manager or the HR department. In the workplace, we are even encouraged that after reporting such a thing, not to comment any further about it to any other party. So in Paterno's case, he may have thought the authorities have been contacted. I hate to think how a person's life would be ruined if the cops were called for such an act and the act actually didn't happen, that it was only founded upon an eye-witness that didn't actually call the cops.
But as things continue to unravel, and we find out Paterno absolutely knew things from way back when, I'll have a different view. Right now I'm not convinced he knew as much as
Paterno was Sandusky's boss, he hires, he fires him…he deals with him. He didn't deal with this abhorrent situation.
Your response appears to indicate that Paterno knew what was going on was absolutely true, and that he had knowledge of those other incidents. After reading the 23-page grand jury report and watching all the coverage, I'm still not convinced he knew about all the other incidents, just what the grad assistance told him. As things continue to develop, I may have to change my stance on that. He also reported the incident to the person that oversees campus police, so he did deal with the situation. But like I said, as things continue to come out, I may have to change my mind. And yes, if all this is true, remember Sandusky hasn't been convicted, my heart goes out to those poor kids and their families.
So Paterno didn't know that there were investigations of his Assistant Coach in 1999? He didn't know that the grad assistant came and told him he saw something suspicious in the shower? He didn't know that Sandusky was under grand jury investigation last month, and still allowed him into the weight rooms as recently as last week?
My take is: If Paterno "didn't know", it's because he refused to be a responsible adult and ask the necessary questions. That might give him a legal out, but it doesn't give him a moral out. Who cares if he's a football coach, as a human being he has a moral responsibility to protect those that are innocent. This isn't a Christian statement, this is what we all should govern ourselves by.
Again, it's just my take.
Thanks for replying, Jonathan. I wanted to throw my thoughts out there to see what I'm missing that everyone else is picking up on, and you are helping. I'm basing my opinions of the matter from the Penn AG website <a href="http://(http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6270)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6270) and the grand jury report <a href="http://(http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/uploadedFiles/Press/Sandusky-Grand-Jury-Presentment.pdf). I don't know if I trust the 'lame stream media.' 😉
So Paterno didn't know that there were investigations of his Assistant Coach in 1999?
I can't find any evidence that Paterno knew of the investigations and if it was being hid from him. If Paterno did know about this going back to 1999, then my opinion would change entirely.
He didn't know that the grad assistant came and told him he saw something suspicious in the shower?
The grad assistant did indeed tell Paterno, but we don't know exactly what he said to Paterno from what I read in the grand jury report. I know when I speak of sensitive things to a father or grandfather figure I describe things differently than those around my own age, but my point is we don't know exactly what Paterno was told. Paterno did tell the man in charge of campus police, and I understand that isn't the same as actually going to the police, but what if that charge was false because the grad assistant had it out for him? Not to mention, once you report that kind of info in the workplace, at least for the organizations I've worked for, you are told just to report and leave it alone.
He didn't know that Sandusky was under grand jury investigation last month, and still allowed him into the weight rooms as recently as last week?
I think Paterno did know about the grand jury invstigation, I think that has been going on for three years, but Sandusky's keys were taken away in back in March of 2002, not last week. I did get that last piece from the lame-stream media <a href="http://(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/penn-state-scandal-timeline-jerry-sandusky_n_1084204.html?ref=mostpopular)” target=”_blank”>(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/09/penn-state-scandal-timeline-jerry-sandusky_n_1084204.html?ref=mostpopular)
In terms or morals, the protection of children has to be at the top of the list, but I'm also wanting to believe in our justice system, that one is innocent until proven guilty.
Thanks for helping me expand my thoughts on this, Jonathan. I just want to understand what I'm missing that everyone else is picking up on.
Can I point out something to you that inaccurate in your reply?
"You want to believe in our justice system, that one is innocent until proven guilty." I agree. Where I disagree with you, is that Paterno didn't do this. He didn't give the "justice system" an opportunity to do what they do; which is prove that people are innocent or guilty.
I love you bro, but as a man I believe that it is my responsibility as a man to protect the innocent (and I'm sure you do too.) What I believe your missing (and I say that graciously, not with a smirk and a pointed finger), is that Paterno did not do what he needed to do to protect the innocent in this situation. He did not contact local "justice system" authorities, he did not investigate this man further and instead let it be someone else's problem, and he did not use his own influence to step up and see what was true and not true in this situation.
I'm in a position to witness these things at times play out in society and families, and the #2 sick thing after the sexual abuse; is the distancing that people in authority regularly have towards the abuse itself. Paterno isn't alone in passing judgement up the food-chain in his organization, refusing to investigate further out of fear of what might be, or ignoring the obvious signs of sexual abuse. We all need to assume responsibility for protecting the innocent, even if it means we make those accused of predatory behavour prove their own in the court of law.
And I love you, and only respond because you asked what you might be missing what everyone else was picking up on.
Can I weigh in here? Yes? good. At my job if someone claimed they were being harassed or reported to me someone else was being harassed my obligation is to report it to HR. If someone came to me and said, "I saw some goings on with Mr. Jim and our underage stockroom boy." I would report that up the chain and get HR involved immediately. That's because it's the HR staff who is equipped and whose roll it is to engage our company with law enforcement. After HR was involved for legal purposes and to protect the privacy of the accuser and/or victim I would not be given access to information about what happened to the victim or Mr. Jim. If I saw Mr. Jim around the office in the coming months I would be forced to assume that the HR department did their job correctly and contacted law enforcement if a crime had taken place.
Can the same be said for Joe Pa? I think maybe. He received a concern from an employee about another employee and he immediately reported his concerns to all superiors to whom he was obligated. If then Joe Pa sees Sandusky around wouldn't he be forced to assume that the matters were being handled?
Oblivious, as facts are uncovered we'll learn to what extent the people involved were negligent. Some of them were obviously criminally negligent, some might just be ethically negligent and some might have done the right thing.
Also, Jonathan, just a note. When you said stuff like "I love you bro, but…" it doesn't come off as loving. It comes off more like, "I'm about to tell you why you're an idiot."
I love you George.
I think your response further clarifies our difference of opinion. I believe that reporting crimes are different than reporting misconduct at work. We simply disagree, and I'm good with that.
And I love you again.
When Joe Pa's employee came to him with a report of misconduct he was at work.
Love you too.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, Jonathan, and I feel like you've done so with grace and respect. Thankfully we have met and have a relationship so I know how to take your comments. And trust me, I don't think you are calling me an idiot.
So far my thoughts align with George's and a lot of what Peter King has said In his MMQB column on SportsIllustrated.com. One, there is so much we still don't know, and the other, every company I've worked for tells us the first thing we need to do other than an emergency (like a fire, or shooting) is to contact either your manager or the HR department. In the workplace, we are even encouraged that after reporting such a thing, not to comment any further about it to any other party. So in Paterno's case, he may have thought the authorities have been contacted. I hate to think how a person's life would be ruined if the cops were called for such an act and the act actually didn't happen, that it was only founded upon an eye-witness that didn't actually call the cops.
But as things continue to unravel, and we find out Paterno absolutely knew things from way back when, I'll have a different view. Right now I'm not convinced he knew as much as