I am literally stunned by this post.
What if the ten-year-old boy getting anally penetrated in the shower had been your son?
I think Paterno is a yellow-bellied coward who put a stupid football program before the safety of children.
I agree. The amount of rationalization that seems to be occurring among those with PSU ties is disturbing. What's even more sickening is the portrayal of Paterno as a sympathetic figure carrying this immense emotional burden as he helplessly watched his "superiors" fail to act. If the guy gave two shits about the long term well-being of the school he would have resigned immediately on his own volition and kept this from becoming a three ring circus. I'm sure the trustees offered him the opportunity to resign and save some face, but instead he refused and attempted to usurp the trustees' authority when he launched a public relations power grab by announcing that Joe Paterno is still the one calling the shots from here on out. To an outsider, he has at best shown himself to be a selfish and emotionally ignorant codger. At worst, he covered and enabled a child predator.
Only if your uncle was accused of covering up the anal rape of a 10 year kid.
I don't see how it's destructive at all. The Media mob seems satisfied with Paterno getting the axe. They pretty much turned this story into Paterno, and now that he's gone the heat will be off Penn State for awhile. They will be playing in their bowl game. Unless some new revelation comes up of course. It's going to take some time for the the trustees and the DoE to do their investigation, and I'd assume the trials won't be for awhile.
So let's see ...
I don't think "the media" is satisfied (though I disagree with the possible implication in that term that this is a manufactured crisis). The calls for McQueary to be drawn and quartered are getting louder (as IMHO they should be). PSU seems to be losing recruits, and sponsors are going to be weary about money going anywhere near the school for quite some time.
Please pass along a citation for this or the contention that these death threats were based on his whistle blowing, and were not from irate parents furious he didn't stop the rape. Thanks in advance.
ESPN just reported his father said the same thing. Why are you trolling Penn State message boards, if you don't mind me asking?
Yeah, sounds like kind of a creepy thing to do I guess. I'm on another board (more football-centric) that has a similar thread and there are some guys on there who copied and pasted some of the more delusional posts from one of those boards. It was hard to fathom so I went to see for myself. Some weird stuff there.
I have not joined this conversation until now, but for crying out loud, if this were the case, why isn't Paterno's life being threatened as well? At least McQ reported it to Paterno, a man with a whole hell of a lot more power to get things done than himself. In no way am I putting forth the proposition that McQ is an innocent in all of this, but if the death threats were a result of inaction, would McQ's head really be the first one on the chopping block?
This is very interesting because it's so revealing on the one hand, and so self-unaware on the other. I'm sure it elicits a strong emotional reaction, but that doesn't make that emotion right.
Are you serious? I do not know a single person who hasn't had a visceral reaction to reading or hearing that a 28 year old, 250 pound man saw a ten year old being anally raped, made eye contact with both the kid and the rapist and just skulked away without doing anything to stop it.
Of course visceral reactions are normal, I have an 11 year old son and have had such reactions to this disgusting situation myself. And as I said I absolve McQ of nothing, but my point is simply that if the death threats against McQ are to be be believed to be related to his inaction, why is he the only one receiving them? If what happened after the initial reporting of the rape(s)Sandusky (for legal reasons I'll add allegedly here) committed would lead to death threats, why would the guy who actually told someone in authority what he saw be the only one whose life is threatened? Why would those above him, who had the power to blow this thing wide open years ago, be held less culpable by idiots who would threaten murder in response?
Are you trying to apply logic to the question of why someone would make a death threat? It's precisely because of the visceral reaction. When we think logically about it, we all recognize that those who cover up or fail to take steps to prevent are morally culpable. We recognize that those who are in a position of power hold most of the cards. But most of us aren't ADs or Head Coaches at BCS schools. But we do think we know what we would do if we saw a little boy being raped. And it's not what mcquery did.
I really hope this was a genuine expression for the victims and not some grandstanding effort to play to the national media to try and repair the school's image in the wake of this scandal, or worse yet, a vigil "for the kids" in name only but in reality, about losing Paterno. The amount of self pity and myopia I've seen on display from that school campus this week has left me highly skeptical that the only concern for abused kids they feel is for themselves.
My only point is that it seems to me much more likely that any death threats McQueary has received are a result of visceral reaction to his testimony that has brought down a legend and a legendary program than as result of his inaction. If it were simply case of inaction to the horrific circumstance he encountered, he wouldn't be the only one in the line of fire, and the timing of the threats would be quite different. Look, I don't know why you want to read more into what I'm saying than the words that I've typed, but you seem to be missing my whole point, which is that I just really don't buy that if someone is willing to threaten to kill someone over inaction, that McQueary would be the only one facing the threats. The guy fucked up in a ridiculously huge way, but he shares culpability with people who were much more poweful, some of whom are being defended in ways that I just can not comprehend.
PH as much as I hate to say this, at this point I wonder if you're actually hoping the opposite so you can vent on them more.
The self-pity is what has locked me into the Burn It Down camp. It's clear a hefty percentage of PSU students, alumni, and fans feel like this is about Joe Paterno being taken away from them prematurely. It's as if the lodestone for their sense of self-worth and, frequently, self-righteousness has been stolen. That university won't be able to have an athletic program that answers to the president and trustees until they raze the program and start over with people with a sense of perspective. They they'll have to sell it to the PSU crowd. I don't envy the trustees, but this is a kind of weed that had to be dug up by the roots.
I'm not ascribing much to your words beyond trying to figure out how you've come to the conclusion you have, which couldn't be farther from what I think. Let's just agree to disagree, because to me it is entirely predictable that McQueary (and Sandusky) are the ones being threatened. And it's not because they "brought down Joe Paterno."
All I can tell you is that from all I've seen, there is a hell of a lot more outrage in Happy Valley about the loss of Paterno than what those kids had to go through, and are going to have deal with for the rest of their lives. As far as I know, no one rioted over the abuse, and the only people in State College who have been shouted down and villified are those who dare to hold JoePa, and the entire program, accountable.
You're dead wrong and grasping for some moral high ground to stand on. That you think I would need to "hope" that students are not really holding a vigil for abused kids is beyond pathetic and frankly, I'm embarrassed for you. What could I possibly "hope" for if I was right? I mean, do you actually think that if the vigil participants' intentions are legitimate that it makes one iota of difference in how this school is viewed or how this scandal will be remembered? It's window dressing at best. Where were the vigils on Saturday when the grand jury document came out and Sandusky was arrested? What about on Sunday? What about Monday? Tuesday?...Oh, that's right. It just so happens to occur after Paterno is abruptly fired and the night before the "big game."
I lived in Pittsburgh for 6 years and barely heard a peep about Penn State. That's an NFL city first and foremost, with UPitt as a very, very distant #2 but the clear college favorite, and Ohio State as the second most favorite college team. You even hear more about West Virginia (which is half the distance away that Penn State is, and shared a conference rivalry) than Penn State in the 'burgh.
I'm not grasping for a thing. I'm frustrated because it seems like anytime someone shows that heaven forbid something positive is actually being done after this absolutely awful tragedy, you're looking for something to vent about it. Of course the candlelight won't change a damn thing about how Penn State is viewed or how this scandal will be remembered. That's not what this is about. This isn't about window dressing anymore than the movement I had posted about earlier this week. Unfortunately there's nothing the students, etc., can do to turn back time to prevent what Sandusky did or how the powers that be didn't do jack shit to prevent it from getting worse, but they can at least let the victims and their families know that they have them in their thoughts. If doing so the night before the "big game" gets more of that message across, all the better.
Answer: When you are in a leadership role at a major university. Believe me, in the US every public elementary school P.E. coach knows the ins and out of their legal responsibilities. Avoiding lawsuits and write-ups just comes with the territory. These is no way someone in a position like Paterno didn't have a clear sense of the law. Or if he didn't, because he's been there so long that the law has changed or something, he's not actually fulfilling his contract. Knowing your legal responsibilities for reporting misconduct is not a fine-print footnote -- it is a fundamental part of modern day job descriptions.
Or that he was trying to protect himself.
Personally, if this was me I wouldn't even be able to sleep at night until I knew it was resolved. Not out of a sense of legal responsibility, but just that I can't stomach the idea that a kid is getting hurt and I did anything less than 200% to stop it. So I really have a hard time seeing anyone who just said "not my problem" as anything other than nefarious.
Have you read this yet? If you haven't, please refrain from showing your ignorance. If you have, please seek help for your antisocial personality disorder. This isn't stealing a laptop from a dorm. We're talking about a 10 year old kid getting fucked in the ass by a 50 year old man. There are no excuses or acceptable explanations to be had here.
Hey, man. Calm down. I know we are all just lowly lurkers here, but I don't see any call for name-calling in anything Apisith has said.
Ok, I'll remember that the next time I witness a child getting raped. Hey, not my problem.
This isn't like buying the wrong kind of toilet paper.
You're speculating about what is, in my opinion, the most interesting part of this story -- why did Paterno allow this to be swept under the rug?
I've been thinking about this a lot, because there is so much about the behavior here that simply doesn't make sense.
But even with this as an explanation for why they acted as they did, there's something missing. Because it's one thing to construct a flimsy legal defense in case you will need it one day. It's quite another to deliberate for days/weeks about how you should handle a serious allegation and decide that using this as a defense is the right move.
