Penn State Officials Acted To Protect Sandusky Amid Child Abuse Allegations
Jerry Sandusky is in jail, but the evidence of the crimes that were committed to protect him continues to mount.
A new set of email messages among top level Penn State officials shows quite blatantly the extent to which they went out of their way to protect Jerry Sandusky when they first became aware of sexual abuse allegations against him:
(CNN) – With convicted serial child sex abuser Jerry Sanduskybehind bars, new questions are surfacing about what Penn State officials knew about a 2001 incident involving the former assistant football coach’s encounter with a boy in the shower — and whether they covered up the incident.
Sandusky sexually abused other boys in the years after the 2001 incident and before his arrest.
CNN does not have the purported e-mails. However, the alleged contents were read to CNN.
The messages indicate former Penn State President Graham Spanier and two other former university officials knew they had a problem with Sandusky after a 2001 shower incident, but apparently first decided to handle it using a “humane” approach before contacting outside authorities whose job it is to investigate suspected abuse.
“This is a more humane and upfront way to handle this,’ Gary Schultz, who was a university vice president at the time, allegedly wrote.
Paul Campos summarizes the email exchange in the immediate aftermath of McQuerry bringing the incident he witnessed in the Penn State football team’s showers to the attention of Head Coach Joe Paterno:
*On February 9, 2001, former PSU quarterback and current graduate assistant coach Mike McQueary meets with Paterno and tells him that on the previous evening he saw Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy in the showers of the PSU football facility.
*At some point between February 9 and on or about February 19th, Paterno informs Curley of what McQueary has told him.
*On or about February 19th, Curley and Schultz contact McQueary about the incident.
*On February 26th, Schultz writes to Curley to confirm that Curley is aware/approves of a three-part plan to deal with the potential institutional difficulties raised by having Joe Paterno’s former defensive coordinator continue to rape little boys on campus. This plan consists of talking to Sandusky “regarding the future appropriate use of the University facility,” … “contacting the chair of the charitable organization” [this is Sandusky’s Second Mile foundation, which he used to procure victims] and “contacting the Department of Welfare.” [The latter step was the minimum legal obligation placed on Penn State officials by Pennsylvania law].
This, of course, is exactly what they should have done and, had they gone forward with this plan then there’s a good chance that Sandusky would have come under investigation far earlier than he did and that the boys he abused in the years that followed would have been spared being victimized by a monster. So what happened? Why wasn’t there a report made to the Department of Welfare as Schultz and Curley had planned? Well, that’s when things get very interesting and very disturbing:
The next evening, February 27, Curley allegedly writes to Spanier; Schultz, who’s out of the office for two weeks, is copied.
Curley refers to a meeting scheduled that day with Spanier and indicates they apparently discussed the Sandusky incident two days earlier.
Curley indicates he no longer wants to contact child welfare authorities just yet. He refers to a conversation the day before with Paterno. It’s not known what Paterno may have said to Curley.
Curley allegedly writes: “After giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday, I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps.”
The athletic director apparently preferred to keep the situation an internal affair and talk things over with Sandusky instead of notifying the state’s child welfare agency.
“I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved,” Curley allegedly continues.
Curley writes he’d be “more comfortable” meeting with Sandusky himself and telling him they know about the 2001 incident and, according to a source with knowledge of the case, he refers to another shower incident with a boy in 1998 that was investigated by police but never resulted in charges against Sandusky.
Curley purportedly writes to Spanier, saying he wants to meet with Sandusky, tell him there’s “a problem,” and that “we want to assist the individual to get professional help.”
In the same purported e-mail provided to CNN, Curley goes on to suggest that if Sandusky “is cooperative,” Penn State “would work with him” to tell Second Mile. If not, Curley states, the university will inform both Second Mile and outside authorities.
Curley adds that he intends to inform Sandusky that his “guests” won’t be allowed to use Penn State facilities anymore.
“What do you think of this approach?” Curley allegedly writes to Spanier.
About two hours later, the Penn State president responds to Curley in another e-mail and copies Schultz. Spanier allegedly calls the plan “acceptable,” but worries whether it’s the right thing to do, according to two sources.
“The only downside for us is if the message (to Sandusky) isn’t ‘heard’ and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it,” Spanier purportedly writes.
“But that can be assessed down the road. The approach you outline is humane and a reasonable way to proceed,” he adds.
There are apparently no email records in which Paterno himself either responded or was copied on, because Paterno never used email during his entire time at Penn State. Nonetheless, it seems clear that he was involved in the discussions with Curley, Schultz, Spanier, and others regarding how to handle the allegations that McQuerry made against Sandusky. From Curley’s own email it appears that the decision to report the matter was reversed after he had spoken with Paterno, and we’ve seen other allegations that Paterno and others were concerned about being “humane” toward Sandusky notwithstanding the allegations against him and the fact that the were all aware of the fact that there had been similar allegations had been made just three years earlier.
Curley and Schultz, of course, are facing trial on charges of perjury before the Grand Jury and failing to report child abuse as required by law. These emails would seem to be fairly damming with regard to that second charge because they seem to show quite clearly that they had initially decided to do exactly what the law required them to do and then, for some reason, decide to take what they called a more “human and reasonable” approach of approaching Sandusky, bringing the charge to his attention, and only report the matter if Sandusky isn’t “cooperative.” (One has to wonder what they considered “cooperative” because Sandusky clearly didn’t stop abusing children after 2001.) Aside from the criminal charges, this would also seem to be very compelling evidence in the civil lawsuits that are already being filed against Penn State, as well as personally against Curley, Schultz, and the state of Joe Paterno, not to mention the investigations of the NCAA, the Department of Education, and former FBI Director Louis Freeh.
When this story first broke, it seemed inconceivable that something like this could go on for so long without anyone doing anything about it. Now, not only doesn’t it appear that Penn State did anything about Sandusky, they actually tried to protect him from embarrassment and shame. That is a stain that it will take a long, long time, for the university to live down.
I once helped a family whose child who got tangled in California’s system. From my experience there I’m pretty sure that health care professionals do and must report child endangerment.
If in their “humane” approach they’d really gotten Sandusky into a program, I’d think the reporting would have fallen out of that.
Sadly, they seem to have charted a path in their minds, and then not followed through.
I’m less forgiving of this conduct than you are, Doug. When management learns that a staff member may be raping children on the premises on February 9, things don’t wait until February 27 to become “very interesting and very disturbing.” My personal take on this whole incident is that it is marked by a sort of passive cowardice — these people knew that if they acted boldly their careers were going to take a hit, even if they were right. If they acted boldly and turned out to be wrong, then they were really in the dumper. If they shuffled it along, and nothing else happened, they’d be alright. And about that their judgment turned out to be correct, for about a decade.
@EMRVentures:
I agree, and that’s why if we are the immediate witness, we should call 911 right away, and not let it get tangled in anything other than law-enforcement.
The people “called in” on this probably wish that had happened, much earlier than now.
@EMRVentures:
I’m not sure where you get the impression that I am forgiving these people
Fry him and those who protected him. I have no problems with this at all, in fact I’d have problems if they didn’t.
But I wonder; Does protecting one from the consequences of criminal actions, end up being viewed differently, because of the political implications?
And mind you, please, I’ve not thought this totally through…. but was Sandusky protected by PSU brass because they didn’t want to be seen as persecuting a a politically-protected sub-group? IE; a homosexual?
This is somewhat less visious on my part than it sounds.
It seems to me that when one is a Member of a politically protected group, the politically favored group if you will, that the burden of proof in so far and least as public opinion goes, is unequal to that apply to those who are not members of that group.
I’m wondering if the protection provided wasn’t because of a perception on the part of the PSU brass that public opinion (and the court thereof)would it be running strongly against them should charges be brought. PSU brass would have been seen as going after the member of the favored “minority” group.
As such, such a case would have been harder to get to the real court system intact, much less through it.
I wonder also, if this isn’t a direct result of our offer reliance on legal system for every situation that pops up. Just a few short years ago, somebody stumbling into the scene of Sandusky with a twelve year old in the shower, (Ala Mike McQueary) would have resulted in Sandusky having a baseball bat taken to him by the person observing the scene. These days, we rely on the government to take care of such matters, but we hold back, afraid we’ll be seen as the problem. This is particularly true of those who have what I will call “Star power”.
I wrote some months ago about that;
At the same time, I wonder if now that the dam has burst, and his star power is gone, the consequences on Sandusky won’t be heavier than they would be otherwise.
@Doug Mataconis: I didn’t mean to imply you are “forgiving” anyone, not at all. I’m surprised you took it that way. Only, that my judgment on the behavior of the senior management involved begins on February 10, not February 27. We’ve all worked in offices — some things can wait, some things can be shuffled along, some things need to be dealt with today. This was one of those things that needs to be dealt with today, was my point.
@Eric Florack:
Sandusky wasn’t a homosexual, he was a pedophile.
@Stormy Dragon: Let’s for once and all remove this fantasy that those two terms are absolutely exclusionary of each other, shall we?
@Eric Florack:
Which basically shows you know nothing about the situation. Penn State football is tied up in politics, but it’s not on the Democrat side.
@Eric Florack:
Why? So bigots like you can go on pretending they’re completely interchangable?
With the release of these e-mails, the NCAA has no choice but to get involved and penalize the university in very harsh terms. Quite frankly, anything short of the “death penalty” would be far to little. If schools are going to be held accountable for paying student athletes who bring in billions, they should be giving far worse penalties for allowing the rape of children by their coaches.
I@Stormy Dragon: It’s called “the truth”, and your reax tend to point to exactly the trend I’m talking about.
Clearly, there are homosexual tendencies at work, here, else we’d be talking about him molesting small girls, no? Are you so bent on ducking the what’s staring us all in the face, along with the political consequences of those facts, that you ignore something so very obvious? Your reaction, Stormy, is a fine example of the problem I’m writing to, here.
@EMRVentures:
Okay, I understand your point. Yes, one can criticize PSU officials for not acting more quickly in the wake of McQuerry’s allegations but these emails at least show that they were seemingly moving in the right direction and then, inexplicably, decided to cover this up. Legally, those emails are going to be damning for Curley and Schultz in their failure to report case and it’s going to be a huge, huge weapon in the hands of the civil litigants lining up to sue PSU and the officials.
We are at the point now where the University needs to consider very carefully whether it wants to try to fight those civil lawsuits, by the way, because the smarter move may be to explore settlement of these claims before the bleeding gets any worse.
@Eric Florack: That was an incredibly stupid and bigoted idea even for your standards. Instead of considering the by far more immediate and obvious issue: football politics, you begin a process of jumping through hoops in service of your own personal predjucides against homosexuals and liberals.
The most obvious reason that Penn State officials engaged in a cover up was to protect the image of Football program, it’s coach Joe Paterno, and the scads of money that it brought into the school.
We need look no further than what happened when the scandal actually broke to understand why this was covered up.
But given your bigoted and partisan nature, it’s impossible apparently for you to parse this situation in anything other than homophobic and partisan ways — even though that requires ignoring all the evidence that sits in front of you.
As for the rest of your contributions to the thread (from your strange violence/gay bashing fantasy to the usual crap in service of building a hard linkage between homosexuality and pedophilia) all I can say is:
Welcome to Bigotsville. Population: You.
@Eric Florack:
Would that have made the situation any better?
Or ask yourself the far more honest question… if this had involved molesting of small girls, would you have made the point of linking heterosexuality to pedophilia.
That’s the issue. That’s why what you are writing is inherently bigoted — your entire twisted-eff’ed up logic isn’t built on this problems of Mr. Sandusky’s pedophilia, it’s built around the issue of his homosexuality (or rather bisexuality if his wife is to be believed).
And to some how legitimize that bigotry you then have to tie it to liberalism.
Sorry Eric, your logic is crap, and your entire stream of bigoted thought deserves only on other response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
@Eric Florack:
No, it’s an example of me being offended by your suggestion that because I’m attracted to other adult men that I must secretly sympathize with people like Sandusky.
College football is big business and top teams such as Penn State’s bring in colossal sums. In the world of academia nothing speaks louder than the almighty dollar.
@mattb:
ANd yet you seem bent on ignoring the most obvious conclusion.
This has nothing to do with bigotry, but rather with favored versus unfavored groups… whoever they are. Your knee-jery charges of bigtry, are understandable and quite predictable, and are in fact part of my point.
It would likely have made such matters far easier to prosecute… hetros are not a protected group..
Eric, to find something productive in what you posted, there is some aspect of the “star power” thing that might be on the right track. But again, because you need to twist the facts to fit the particular axe you have to grind in a given moment, you went to the notion that it all boils down to one persons word over the other, without any real consideration of the larger environment on a campus where football is not only King in terms of the eye of the student body, alumni, administrators and the community, but in terms of the University’s coffers.
You are correct that McQueary was probably fearful of losing his position. But you fail to seriously account for the reasons behind it. And now, at best, all you can seem to trot out is “the gayz.”
Strong start, but weak tea in the end. The product of a thought process that’s been polluted.
At what point did I say that?
Remember, we’re talking about the court of public opinion, here… and such people are not always informed of the differences you lean so heavily on, here. True?
@Eric Florack:
Perhaps you could restate your “most obvious conclusion” since I’ve just written out mine pretty clearly (i.e. this was about protecting the football program, not a supposed “protected class”) and I think just about everyone here will agree that my read is probably more obvious than your bigoted shit.
Again, the focus is on the protected group(s), not it’s (their) particular makeup.
@mattb: But what was he protecting the football program from ?
From the impression that the program was going after a member of the protected group.
@Eric Florack:
You and I actually agree on the point that there is a favored versus unfavored group involved.
Where you are flat out wrong, blinded by bigotry, is that the “favored group” is somehow homosexuals. That’s a polluted reading of this case.
The favored group in question is “Penn State Football”. Everything that happened was about protecting the program, not homosexuals. This btw is the same mistake that people have made with the Catholic church cases — it isn’t so much about gay priests or pedophilia, as it is the church conspiring to protect the church.
Further, we should note that even if Mr. Sandusky was homosexual, it wasn’t that he was an “out” homosexual. So in that respect, he actually would get less benefit of the doubt in discrimination cases.
@mattb:
That would be one of the terrible explanations. If McQueary was clear about what he saw, and clear in what he reported, then the actors shielding Sandusky were clearly evil.
My initial thought was that McQueary wasn’t clear in his own mind about what he saw, talked it over with his dad for that reason, and when he reported it within the athletic department he wasn’t that forceful.
If he saw a clear crime, and didn’t report it in the next 10 minutes, there is the failure to the rest of it.
Look, if you like (and since I know this will appeal to your politics), another such protected group would be the priesthood. Understand, now?
@Eric Florack:
Ok… and you wonder why we call you a bigot…
ALL CAPS TO GET THROUGH ERIC’S STUPID FIELD:
HE WAS PROTECTING THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM FROM THE WORD GETTING OUT THAT ONE OF ITS HIGHER RANKING PEOPLE WAS HAVING SEX WITH YOUNG BOYS PULLED FROM HIS OWN FOOTBALL CHARITY THAT WAS RUN ON THE PENN STATE CAMPUS! AND FURTHER THE ALLOGATIONS THAT THIS BEHAVIOR WAS GOING ON UNDER THE WATCHFUL OF THE THEN LIVING SAINT COACH JOE PATERNO.”
You get that right?
You get that this would have been equally bad if he had been caught with young girls that he had recruited through his charity? Right?
You get that these individuals within the University hierarchy probably would have taken the same action if it had been “small girls.” Or if Sandusky had been dealing drugs to players. Or engaged in an on-campus dog fighting ring. Or conducting Midnight Satanic Drug Sex Orgies on the 50 yard line.
You are honestly not this dumb. But you might actually be that bigoted.
Bigot is another fuzzy word…
@mattb:
So any inclusion of homosexuality in this case… is bigoted?
As knee jerk a reax as I’ve ever seen, but fairly typical… and in fact exactly what I’m talking about, here.
No, I dismiss it.
And, you, since you’re clearly unable to discuss such matters rationally if they at all tarnish YOUR favored group.
If you think that most gay pedofiles are not gay or are not selecting young boys for victims because they are gay you might be a bigot…..or an idiot or both.
I will chalk it up to ignorant and or militant/by way of indoctrination and call it a day.
@john personna: I’m a little less sympathetic.
I think McQueary probably went into shock over what he saw. In terms of “fight or flight” he chose flight. Perfectly human. Not the most respectable thing, but we will judge not, lest we ourselves be judged and instead hope that if, God forbid, we are ever in that situation, we might act in a way that would look better in the bright light of day.
I agree that afterwards, he probably wasn’t sure. And so, rather than cause a scandal, he decided to be a good solider (in the same way that many priests were good soldiers) and leave it to the bureaucracy to resolve.
My issue is that apparently once this issue was out of sight, it appeared to be out of mind. And that McQueary never did the necessary follow up (and must have known that Sandusky was still continuing some of the questionable activities, such as sharing rooms with young boys).
That’s where it all falls apart and McQueary’s real moral culpability (as with many priests and church officials) really comes into play.
@mattb:
I say “clearly evil” and you are “less sympathetic” 😉
@Eric Florack:
And you dismiss it not out of logic, but out of bias.
And I’m comfortable that my writings in this thread demonstrate why my argument is far more logical and fact based than yours.
This cover up has nothing to do with Homosexuality. This has everything to do with Big Football.
That you seem entirely incapable of accepting the possibility, let alone the probability of that, tells us far more about your own deep seeded bigotry, than it reveals any secret pro-homosexual agenda at play.
@Eric Florack: Do you consider yourself to be an expert on the subject of homosexuality, like George Rekers?
In Florak’s imagination, he is a heroic dude who pummels perverts with baseball bats.
Here is the real world, he is an utter coward who exploits a tragedy to push his sick agenda while hiding safely behind a computer.
@mattb:
This is clearly the case. This is all about protecting the football program and is why I thought when this broke, and even moreso now, that the program itself deserves sanctions. This is a cover up of crimes (and horrible ones at that) for the sake of protecting football.
@mattb
It’s doubtful that Florack ever played football at any level, clearly he has no clue about the extent to which the wagons will be circled to protect a high profile player/coach/program.
@G.A.:
Ugg…
God, one last time. The issue here is PEDOPHILIA not SEXUALITY.
It’s not bigoted to acknowledge that there are gay pedophiles. It IS bigoted to separate them out as somehow unique. Or to use the term, in conjunction with “pedophile” to somehow suggest that there is something wrong with being gay or that being gay makes one inherently more likely to be a pedophile or that there are only gay pedophiles.
AGAIN CAPS LOCK FOR THE THINKINGLY CHALLENGED:
1. YES, THERE ARE HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILES. THERE ARE ALSO HETEROSEXUAL PEDOPHILES. ONE IS NOT WORSE THAN THE OTHER. BOTH ARE EQUALLY BAD.
2. HOMOSEXUALITY DOES NOT CAUSE PEDOPHILIA. FOR THAT MATTER HETEROSEXUALITY DOES NOT CAUSE PEDOPHILIA. MENTAL ILLNESS CAUSES PEDOPHILIA.
3. ORGANIZATIONS TEND TO COVER UP PEDOPHILIA. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING HETEROSEXUALS OR HOMOSEXUALS OR PEDOPHILES. THIS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH PROTECTING THE ORGANIZATIONS. WHY? BECAUSE NO ONE WANTS TO BE REMEMBERED FOR ALLOWING PEDOPHILIA (EITHER HOMOSEXUAL OR HETEROSEXUAL) TO HAPPEN UNDER ITS WATCH.
4. WHY IS IT BAD TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH PEDOPHILIA? BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER THINGS, IF YOU ARE A NON-PROFIT, PEOPLE DON’T LIKE DONATING MONEY OR TIME TO AN ORGANIZATION THAT ALLOWS PEDOPHILIA TO HAPPEN. AND AGAIN, IT DOESN’T MATTER IF IT’S HETEROSEXUAL OR HOMOSEXUAL PEDOPHILIA.
FINALLY: THE REASON THAT ERIC’S ARGUMENT IS CRAP IS THAT IT ASSUMES THAT THE REASON THAT PENN STATE (OR FOR THAT MATTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH) ENGAGED IN A COVER UP WAS TO SOMEHOW PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF HOMOSEXUALS OR NOT BE SEEN AS BEING ANTI-HOMOSEXUAL.
THIS SOMEONE IMAGINES THAT SOMEONE ACTUALLY THOUGHT THAT PENN STATE *FOOTBALL* WOULD GET INTO MORE TROUBLE FOR ENGAGING IN A HOMOSEXUAL WITCH HUNT THAN IT WOULD FOR ALLOWING PEDOPHILIA TO TAKE PLACE UNDER ITS WATCH.
Ok. caps lock off. This argument is bull shit. Pure and unadulterated.
It’s intellectually dishonest thinking. It’s logically false because it jumps right over any immediately more obvious explanation (and the evidence of what happened to the program after the allogations came out) to get to “its all the gayz and gayzloverz faults). And those jumps, coupled with Eric’s utter lack of a substantial retort (other than “your saying that because you love the gayz”), point to the fact that this is an argument rooted in bigotry versus logic or fact.
And for extra points, just so we’re all clear:
@anjin-san:
That shouldn’t matter. I didn’t play football. But looking at what happened after the allegations came out (riots! marches by the entire campus to protest that Coach P had any involvement) — anyone with a pair of eyes, who considers themselves a observer of the human condition — should have come to understand this.
But beyond that, history has shown over and over again that the same thing has happened when high profile college sports programs have been involved in scandals that have absolutely nothing to do with pedophilia or homosexual activities.
And that’s why I keep calling Eric’s thought process bigoted. He ignores all of that obvious evidence and elevates his own belief that somehow, despite all of this, this is really about the homosexual agenda and liberals.
Its pathetic.
@Steven L. Taylor: You would say that you homosexual loving academic. 🙂
@anjin-san: That would be an incorrect assumption.
As usual.
@mattb:
Another protected class, and exactly the reax I’m talking about. A good example, Matt. And I’ll bet you still don’t understand, do you?
@Scott O.:
Hardly. But I know a politically/socially favored group when I see one.
And by what logic do you come to that conclusion, I wonder? Laughable.
@mattb
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Have you ever checked out his blog? And he has made it quite clear he is proud of his bigoted ranting.
@Eric Florack:
Clearly I don’t. And perhaps I have your argument all wrong. So please explain what I’m missing.
And note, that’s a serious request Eric, please explain what you mean. Because your clearly don’t think I understand your larger point. And, who knows, I might have incorrectly read your argument. And if I have unfairly do so, then I will apologize.
I look forward to you elucidating what I’ve missed.
@mattb:
.
I know. And you refuse to, because it involves YOUR favored group.
I say again…. Look, if you like (and since I know this will appeal to your politics), another such protected group would be the priesthood. Understand, now?
@Eric Florack:
This isn’t even pretending to make an argument.
BTW: the church didn’t protect priests because they were worried about appearing anti-homosexual, they were protesting their institutions from the fallout of having persons of trust violating boys in their charge. This is exactly what happened at Penn State: they protected their institution. They would have done the same had the sexual activity had been heterosexual in nature.
sigh…
Dude I don’t believe that Homosexuality is normal or natural, sorry.I do believe in mental illness and SIN. And what I said is born out by the evidence of the diatribe I see written here daily..
In more ways then one if you can follow my meaning….
lol, anyone ever figure out why I keep saying “Hot Jolt for every one” a couple years back?
@Eric Florack:
So, just so I can say I understand your argument, you are saying that this is all about protecting homosexuals.
Correct?
You argument is that this is all about protecting homosexuals?
Because, if that is your argument. You have it wrong. I did understand what you were writing from the beginning. And I did my best to logically demonstrate why this is a fundamentally flawed argument made out of petty minded bigotness.
@Eric Florack: BTW, you argument appears to be that because Sandusky’s activities were same-sex in nature, that the motivator for the behavior of the institution was to avoid appearing anti-homosexual. How is mattb not understanding your position?
Further, a foundation of your position is that a pedophile who engages in homosexual activities with his victims is not, first and foremost, a pedophile, but rather is first and foremost a homosexual. However, you do not appear to have the same view of pedophiles who engage in heterosexual activities with their victims. No, those are just pedophiles.
@G.A.:
That’s fine G.A. You are of course, entitled to believe that. But you are also, based on that belief and the way you seem to connect it to pedophilia, entitled to be called a bigot.
And the reason that I say that bigot part is that you need to ignore the increasing body of evidence that homosexual/same-sex behavior occurs not just in humans, but in a wide range of God’s creatures. So either God is turning out a lot of defective critters (including humans) or, maybe, just maybe, it’s more “natural” than you care to believe.
No.
Rather, the problem as they saw it was the social and financial consequences of calling one out on his misdeeds…. For the reasons you so emotionally provided us.
@Eric Florack: BTW, you’ve claimed from the beginning that my position is solely colored by the fact I consider homosexuals “a protected group.” First, I’d like to see any evidence, beyond the fact that I contest you theory, for that accusation.
Beyond that, I have yet to see you provide a lick of evidence or logic to suggest why my explanation for the situation is somehow less logical than yours. As far as I can tell, I have provided a far simplier and far more fact based argument than yours.
So, if you are right, you should be able to actually disarm my argument and logic, rather than the tautalogical claim that my argument must be false because I like homosexuals as people.
I wait with baited breath.
@Doug Mataconis: Yes, agreed. PSU is going to have themselves a very serious civil suit problem if CNN’s reporting is accurate.
@Eric Florack:
Which were the reasons? I’m serious here. I’m really lost in your argument…
So homosexuality had nothing to do with it? Then why do you continue to bring it up?
@Steven L. Taylor:
That’s totally what I read as well, btw.
@Eric Florack: If this has all been about the issue of “protecting football elites” then, you and I are in full agreement.
That said, I totally do not understand why you had to keep bringing up “homosexual pedophiles” to make your case. Perhaps you could explain that linkage — especially since, by this line of reasoning, other than due to the crime involved, Sandusky’s pedophilia had nothing to do with the cover-up. And his homosexuality only mattered in so much as it was tied to the specifics of his act of pedophilia.
@Eric Florack:
You just can’t help yourself, right?
Sandusky, as pedophile, was not and is not a member of a protected class.
@mattb: :
Your own reaction seems proof enough.
@Steven L. Taylor:
Because of the political and financial consequences of that appearance, as driven by the court of public opinion.. Indeed, you could actually insert any favored group in there. I suggested priests, a bit ago. You can insert just about any group except straight white males and have it work about as well.
@Eric Florack:
So, wait, it really is about homosexuals? Or I’m missing something.
Because, I would argue, in acting to cover this up — to hide the pedophilia and protect the program — they were in fact acting to “protect the straight white males” that made up and benefited from the football program.
Ummm #logicfail.
Where am I acting to protect homosexuals in what I wrote (other than to say that your continued use of linking homosexuals and pedophilia is problematic). Or is simply trying to, you know, deal unemotionally with the facts and a bigoted argument, enough?
Is it because I called you a bigot? That wasn’t emotional Eric. That was ACCURATE. I pasted that definition, in fact, to demonstrate that I was being accurate based on the substance of your posts.
I try to be pretty careful when throwing around words like that.
Need to run to do things. Hopefully by the time I get back Eric will have pulled together a coherent argument.
@Eric Florack:
That is not an argument nor an attempt at argumentation.
This is not a direct answer. Either you have decided your argument has no merit, and have decided to dance instead of offer reasons and logic, or you don’t want to admit that we well understood your position from the beginning.
It seems to me that the only protected “class” was the Penn State University Football Program, a prolific money making operation.
And here you have the core of bithead. He is a victim. Every group (except his, which in the real world, sits at the top of the heap) gets special advantages.
I’m sorry, but I have no patience for this guy. He is an embittered crank who is desperately flailing for an answer to the shortcomings of his own life other than the one he sees in the mirror. In other words, a typical modern conservative (of the sheep, not wolf variety, though he fancies himself to be one of the latter).
@anjin-san:
White guys are, according to coservatives like Eric, the single most victimized group of people in America today. It is yet another sign that America is in decline. Instead of “can do” it’s “whah, gays want equal rights” or “everyone given a job ahead of me was an affirmative action choice.”
It is pathetic.
@Eric Florack: I have good news for you Eric, you too can become a member of the favored group and enjoy all the benefits. Just declare yourself to be a homosexual. No one will ever know that you are actually a closeted heterosexual.
@Eric Florack:
Ok… was on the way out to the car and I just had to walk back and comment on the entire “striaght white male” thing…
Eric, you realize that at the time that the allegations were covered-up, everyone believed Coach Sandusky to be a straight white male?
Right?
In fact, the entire idea that “Sandusky would never do that” was based on the fact everyone – INCLUDING HIS WIFE – believed him to be a straight white male.
As I said above, in fact, we could argue that the entire cover-up was in part based in Sandusky’s straight white male privilege. In fact, I don’t believe that, to this day, Sandusky has ever come “out.” He’s kinda taken the Larry Craig — “I’m not gay, I never have been gay, I love my wife — and just happen to have a wide toe tapping stance” defense.
Further, is your argument that, if he had been a gay black man, then people wouldn’t have cared about his pedophilia? Or if Joe Paterino was a transgendered, multi ethnic lesbian, he wouldn’t have been fired for having a pedophile operating on his… er her… staff?
And where does the priesthood even come into this. And am I supposed to be for them or against them? As I really can’t tell from your argument.
Seriously, I’m really lost in your logic… so look, consider me an imbecile and spell it out for me point by point. Because I really don’t think my ideology is the thing preventing me from understanding your argument.
Eric,
To seriously spell things out,
On the one hand, we seem to be in some agreement that at this core this is about an institution engaged in a cover-up in order to protect itself. Good so far. Or at least so we thought…
Then, out of no where, the entire “special groups of everyone but white straight males (or SGOEBWSM for short)” enters into your argument. And that’s were I think we’re all lost.
Is the organization, in fact, acting not to protect itself, but actually acting to protect the SGOEBWSMs?
Or is the organization engaging in cover ups to prevent attacks from SGOEBWSMs?
Or are SGOEBWSMs intentionally conspiring to commit these acts to bring down once great institutions?
Our question, is how do these SGOEBWSMs tie into your argument?
A highly successful straight white male. People will do triple backflips to enable/protect this group…
Actually no. I’m suggesting that society has become so conditioned to consider them as such…. to the point that anyone saying anything against one … or leveling legal proceedings…. is “bigoted”… and you provided a very clear example of that phenom for us.
Actually, no. I suppose many did. But everyone seems a more than a little bit overkill. . His behavior was in fact fairly widely known, particularly in football circles.
Consider “The Sandusky”.. an ice cream cone upside down with two scoops to portray male genitalia. Yeah, that was the Sandusky. This was a fairly popular item, YEARS before JoPa got canned.
Second source from Bob at WTAM.
Bottom line, so to speak,, is that the reason this stuff wasn’t going anywhere was, aside from the political and social repercussions of spreading such info, was that it was old news. Everyone on campus, knew, as did many off campus.
All because to call him out on such things invariably brings out charges of bigotry, ad nauseum.
Eric,
Your position leaves out the fact that there is a fundamental distinction between people who are attracted to members of the same sex and people with a pathology that compels them to molest children. You seem to assume, by implication, that all homosexual men want to rape little boys. By that logic, all heterosexual men want to rape little girls.
]
Certainly, societally speaking, Preists are a highly thought of, and socially protected group, insofar as charges of misconduct… which is precisely why such abuse as occurred there lasted as long as it did. Society considered it unheard of to charge a priest with such things.
Again, we’re talking about social pressures and the court of public opinion.
Again, Doug, we’re talking about emotional reax, and the social/societal; and ultimately the financial costs thereof. Such are usually driven more by perception than anything else.
Certainly that’s the rather emotional argument presented me. But, and note this well, not by me.
Ask yourself the question; I don’t even expect an answer from you. …. If Sandusky been raping little girls instead of little boys, does anyone suppose it would have gone on for nearly as long?
Eric,
Yes I think it would have gone on just as long, because he was preying on children from broken homes who were emotionally vulnerable and unlikely to report anything and because the PSU cover-up was motivated by the insane devotion to the school’s football program and their desire to protect the institution.
@Doug Mataconis:
Agreed.
@Eric: this is whole point: the thing being protected was the football program and not because there was a special concern about protecting homosexual activity.
@Doug Mataconis:
Your answer would seem to ignore the amount of public knowledge of the abuse, that I’ve already pointed out.
Protected from what? You’re sliding into my argument, you know…. the repercussions of leveling charges about such matters would bring howls from the social left, particularly, homosexuals… as this thread shows rather nicely…. to say nothing of the legal matters.
If Sandusky had been raping little girls, the answer is no, it would have eneded years before, because the social repercussions are not nearly as great… no protected groups to worry about. No “hate crime” advocates trying to charge PSU with a hate crime for even suggesting Sandusky would do such… etc.
@Steven L. Taylor:
I found one sign of who was really in charge at Penn State in the story that Paterno refused to ever use email. How many organizations are there where someone who is essentially an employee would be permitted to do something like that? The more that comes out about this, the less I think of Joe Pa, which is sad only because he had become an institution like Bear Bryant.
And, perhaps, that’s where the mistake in all of this lies.
@Eric Florack:
Ok.. first of all, kudos to you for making a Marxian argument about Ideological conditioning. It’s great to see you and Karl operating in the same way.
I would however counter that I’ve continually used “bigot” in a clinical sense, based on this thread. Again I return to the textbook definition:
As the thread shows, you have been the one to continually return to the issue of Homosexuality as being key to this argument. Further you have dismissed any argument out of hand that does not accept the possbility that homosexuality had nothing to do with the core cover-up. It’s you who have, with little to no actual logic, obstinately and intolerantly defending his own opinion which hinges on attacking a so called “special group” (your term not mine).
So you have been engaging in behavior that can only by clincially labeled as “bigoted” and when called on it, you double down on that behavior while at the same time trotting out the Marxian argument that anyone who disagrees with you has been blinded by ideological conditioning.
Consider the following:
So I was right the first time out…
You have been arguing that the reason that this happened (serial pedophilia) was that people were afraid of being branded bigots and not that the news that the Football program continued to protect and employ a serial pedophile would threaten the existence of the program, it’s funding, the reputation of the college as a whole, and create huge rifts within the community.
If I am correct, you believe that people actually thought that “in the court of public opinion” it would be worse to fire someone for gay pedophilia and not for it to come out that they continued to protect that individual for years?!
Eric, I’ve mischaracterized something above, please correct me. But you are in fact blaming this entire thing on people being afraid of being called bigots and NOT people being afraid of destroying a legacy football program and the cornerstone of the campus.
And somehow, this argument (which you say is the best and most logical conclusion) isn’t the ranting of a bigot with multiple axes to grind…
Again, clinical definition:
So, no, my calling you a bigot was never based on emotion (ok, thats a lie, a bit of emotion might have been in the decision to go ahead with it), but rather based on the contents of your numerous posts.
If you can explain why I’m wrong in saying that your laser focus on blaming this incident on “the gays and gay lovers and people who are afraid of the gays” is no bigoted, I’d love to hear it.
@Scott O
LOL… Well, I’ve said for years, I’m a male lesbian…. I like women.
😉
@Eric Florack:
I don’t know where you’re from but most of my family came from Pennsylvania, and even 30 years go, Joe Paterno and Penn State football were gods in that state. I don’t find it surprising at all that not just PSU officials, but members of the public in the Happy Valley area, would look the other way at Sandusky’s odd actions. Because, it’s all about the football.
And to answer your question, the football program, and the university, were being protected from scandal and that scandal would have been the same if Sandusky had been raping little girls. This is the mentality that exists around big time College Football.
It is hardly surprising that some people are forced to jump through the most ridiculous hoops to come up with the silliest “logic” you’re ever likely to see…these people, who happen to be straight white males, just can’t stand that they are slowly losing their unspoken position of being part of the ultimate protected class, and now need to lash out at any other group that they think is responsible for this…people in this group need to realize that they are doing themselves no favors by acting like victims…on the contrary, they are simply showing themselves to be pathetic whiners…
@Eric Florack:
At best, the evidence you provided suggests that it was a public “secret” that Sandusky was gay. For example…
Suggests a juvanile joke, not a clear sign that everyone knew that Paterno was diddling boys.
Further, if this knowledge was so wide spread, are you actually claiming that everyone kept their mouths shut in order to prevent people from thinking that Penn State football was homophobic?
Again, my calling your argument bigoted is the HUGE leaps of logic, which make sense only to you, that you have made in order to put homosexual rights? allowances? protections at the center of this controversy.
Oh, please. There was always a grain of truth that the root of Marx’s arguments. I’ve never suggested otherwise. The conclusions he drew of course were another matter. As he himself later stated.
Oddly enough it’s the left that’s been providing us with this ideological conditioning,.
well, you’re fairly close. People have been afraid to come forward for fear of having the football program and the people in it being called bigots… Thereby destroying it.
As an aside, it doesn’t help much, I suppose, that the football program that Penn state is in fact an extension of a government program.
@Eric Florack:
This of course ignores all of the other big college sports scandals that continued for years with nary a homosexual or pedophile in sight.
Likewise, it also ignores the fact, that at least in the case of the Catholic Church, Priests who preyed on young girls were protected just as those who preyed on young boys.
Again, I submit this type of twisted thinking (in the face of other logic and facts) as further evidence of why you area making a bigoted argument.
Then diddling whom, I wonder?
Examples would be interesting. Remember, limit your answers to personal behavior. Doping scandals don’t count. Academic scandals don’t count.
Go.
But isn’t it interesting how those situations were hardly prevalent? I notice you fail to mention that point. Again we’re talking about the court of public opinion which works largely in generalities.
@Eric Florack:
No, there were not afraid of being called bigots. They were afraid of the scandal associated with having a major figure from the program being caught for pedophlia.
Can you give us an example, btw, of a case of a 50 or 60 year old man being exposed for raping young boys and having the public response be to call those who did the exposing “homophobes”?
@Eric Florack:
I dunno about that… seems like the Right has its fair share of ideological condition centers on the internet, radio dial, and cable.
BTW, I wasn’t suggesting you had ever said that Marx was wrong about everything. I was just point out that you were making a deeply Marxian argument.
And thank you for this condensation of your point into a simple sentence:
Right.
And as we saw, the Penn State program wasn’t destroyed and has been instead celebrated for it’s open mindedness and cultivating a gay friendly culture.
Wait.
No.
They have been savaged for protecting a serial pedophilist in their ranks. And not because he preyed on boys, but rather because he preyed on children he recruited through events on the Penn State Campus and abused them on the Penn State campus.
I guess that an overwhelming desire to be “gay friendly” (because being gay friendly in your bigoted mind means allowing young boys to be raped) could, if I squint, be a possibility. I guess. But is it in any way based in any logic beyond your own personal biases?
Or put a different way, is that the most likely possibility?
That this was all about political correctness? Or it was all about trying to pretend that they were not shielding a serial pedophile because they knew that when that fact became public the OUTRAGE would destroy the program?
@Eric Florack: BTW: your “evidence” is an ice cream cone. And, I would note, that said ice cream cone does not provide any evidence whatsoever as to the motivations of PSU administration.
@Eric Florack:
Why does diddling need to even come into this. It’s pretty well documented (heck Paterno’s legal team didn’t even deny it) that he had a long history of showering with boys and players.
Perhaps you grew up in different community or a different time, but simply doing that (and no diddling) would be enough to get someone labeled as “gay” where I’m from. And by that I mean the type of “gay” that’s publicly joked about and ribbed through “good fun” things like the entire ice cream cone thing.
Pedophilia on the other hand never inspired Ice Cream cones…
@Eric Florack:
In the US Church, perhaps, internationally though there have been a number of cases. For example:
In August 2006, Father Charles Henry Sylvestre, of Belle River Ontario pled guilty to 47 counts of sexual abuse on females, aged between nine and fourteen years old between 1952 and 1989.[34] Sylvestre was given a sentence in October 2006 of three years, and died January 22, 2007 after three months in prison.[35]
In August 2011, activist women’s group Gabriela assisted a 17-year old girl in filing sexual abuse allegations against a priest in Butuan province. The bishop of Butuan, Juan de Dios Pueblos, took the priest under his custody without handing him over to civil and church authorities.[81] This behaviour was also heavily criticized by retired Archbishop Oscar Cruz, who blamed Pueblos for showing his priests the “wrong way”.[82]
BTW, for a recent one from the US, check out: http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/05/24/i-team-priest-removed-from-ministry-due-to-sex-abuse-allegations-works-at-phl/
BTW, Eric, part of an example of clinical bigotry is immediately dismissing, out of hand, any evidence that contradicts your theory. Your continued response to any of the points were making has consistently been “there’s no evidence of X” and when we produce evidence of X, you never seem to alter your position or acknowledge that evidence.
Just so I’m being clear as to why I’m calling your position bigoted.
@Eric Florack: Ultimately, this is your position:
1. If a pedophile engages in homosexual sex with their victims, this is because they are homosexual and. hence, pedophilia is just an extension of homosexuality. Therefore, the two should be treated as synonymous terms. You do not, btw, seem to think the same is true of heterosexual pedophiles.
2. The reason that you think PSU covered up the situation was because they didn’t want to be charged with anti-homosexual bigotry.
3. All of this is therefore about the fact the homosexuals are a protected class to the point that the public would actually be more upset with PSU for exposing a pedophile engaging in homosexual activity than it would for simply having a former coach raping little boys in the locker room.
4. You think that PSU protected Sandusky because he was homosexual, not because they were trying to protect the football program.
Eric, here’s another oral account of a priest molesting young girls and not having anything happen.
http://www.priestabusetrial.com/2012/03/pedophile-priest-fondles-13-year-old.html
@Steven L. Taylor:
Ok… so can anyone else than Eric defend his position as fundamentally *not* bigoted as per the following definition:
Eric:
One more follow up, do you honestly believe that the vast majority of people (all of those involved with the cover up, including the dudes at the ice cream shop) think that being “gay friendly” means being ok with men having sex with boys?
Is ultimately the crux of your argument that one of the “special privileges” of being part of the protected “gay” group is a broad societal acceptance of “homosexual pedophilia”?
@Eric Florack:
I’m calling bs on this one. Go check your links and find me any evidence that they actually served something that looks like that picture.
I have to ask, why is bithead so desperate for this to be a gay issue?
BTW, the ice cream in question is a flavor. See, for example here for details.
While I can find the photo that EF linked above, I can find no proof that that presentation was the “Sandusky Blitz’ but rather that was the name of a flavor.
@Eric Florack:
This is a lie Rush Limbaugh made up. There was a flavor of ice cream called “Sandusky Blitz”, but in his typical fashion the truth wasn’t quiet sensational enough for him so he just started making up fables of phallic ice cream cones to be more sensational. And of course gullible doofs like you believe anything you hear on talk radio.
Stormy,
Why am I not surprised (1) that the idiot Limbaugh would make a crude tasteless joke like that, and (2) that wingnuts would believe it was true?
@Doug Mataconis:
Dude, did you just call Eric F a wingnut?
Best.
Post.
Evah.
For what it’s worth, here’s the entire “Sandusky Blitz” transcript from Rush’s page:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2011/11/10/what_happy_valley_knew_about_sandusky
One question that’s worth asking is was every cone in dish served that way? At least around my neck of the woods (which I also believe is Eric’s) I can think of a couple ice cream places that serve their larger cones in a dish. Hopefully that’s not code that pedophilia is happening my back yard.
@mattb:
They would if you asked them for it, but the term was just “upside down”, and the number of scoops would depend on the size you got, so you could have one, two, or three balls of icecream.
I’m an older white heterosexual female.
Homosexuality was never a “term” I gave any thought to in describing Sandusky’s behavior.
Perhaps, however, not only was Paterno worried about his football program and.his own legendary status, but was originally more concerned at leveling these awful charges against a “sainted, ex coach family man” knowing it would bring Sandusky shame and recriminations and would certainly destroy his family and those around him? The terms “the more humane thing to do” was made in reference to Sandusky and never (as far as we know) to Sandusky’s victims. If that were true though, how did Paterno, Schultz, Spanier and Curly continue to rationalize Sandusky’s behavior over the years when it became apparent their talk with Sandusky didn’t “take.” Did they think the victims were expendable? Or had things gotten so out of hand by their inaction that the only feasible thing to do was a cover up to protect themselves from an armaggedom only dreamed could be their worst nightmare.
@mattb: What leads you to believe that any cone was ever served in any dish that way? I think someone made that picture for obvious shock value and crazy people went with it.
lol sure i’m a bigot…whatever makes you feel good or right bro.
Wrong I ignore narrative driven stuff that has but art and ones fancy behind it.I could tell you that all flesh was corrupted but you would not know how to counter it and start another argument.
We are not animals! we act like animals.God gives free will.Man gives lies and excuses.Animals are animals. You think when a male dog humps another male dog its because it was created that way? Is “gay”? or perhaps because its a stupid dog and it horny?
Heck you might as well call me a heretic to science while you’re at it:). I guess I qualify for the definition of bigot and heretic but so do you.
Dude I try not to be a perv every damned day, it is not easy with the world being here and all that but I do know and understand the difference now.
Jon Stewart’s no.1 fan and a guy that say stuff like “I would not even consider such a thing as creation” while coming across like MEG RYAN IN CITY OF ANGELS, says this…lol…..
@G.A.:
It never ceases to amuse me how when you start pushing supposedly fundamenalist Christians to talk about theology, they usually end up spewing a dog’s breakfast of various heresies from various points in history. In this case Manichaeism.
@Scott O:
That’s actually one of the funniest things I’ve read on the net for awhile – spewed my coffee on my keyboard laughing. I’ll admit is it curious to see if someone who claims that a group is protected or has special advantages would be willing to pretend to be part of that group to obtain those advantages …
It’s hard to read this case as anything other than football circling the wagons and protecting one of its own. Like someone said, it reads more or less exactly like what the Catholic church did with its pedophile priests.
And I can’t see how sexuality enters into it – both hetrosexuals and homosexuals are known to have have pedophiles among them, and it doesn’t seem to make any difference which flavour it is, its absolutely wrong in either case.
I have no difficulty believing that Paterno had outdated notions of the best way to deal with this kind of thing: namely, keep everything behind-the-scenes and make sure that innocent people like Sandusky’s family didn’t get hurt. I really wonder if he knew what actually happened, or just let the squick factor get in the way of seriously thinking about it.
What is clear is that Sandusky knew that he could safely play these guys like a piano and that if he said some of the right things and was plausiblely bewildered about the rest (“How could anyone accuse me of that? You guys know me!”), he could squeak past without too much trouble. Never underestimate the persuasive skills of a sociopath.
Good god, this is appalling. Eric, normally I ignore your comments, but this one is seriously stupid.
Now, had I gotten to the thread first, I’d have asked why so many people who are outraged over the coverup here (and, evidently, the suppression/retaliation against would-be whistleblowers on Sandusky’s deeds) NOT outraged about the coverup at the Holder Justice Department over Fast and Furious? Just this week it came out that there is documented proof that very high officials in that Department worked to retaliate like hell against those blowing the whistle on the scheme that didn’t involve raping underage boys, but murdering hundreds of people. (I’ll avoid saying which I think is worse, just noting that they’re roughly equally heinous.)
Now, that would have been a far more worthy question than your own nonsense.
Jenos takes Florack to task for dealing in “serious stupid”, then proceeds to say something equally stupid. You really can’t make this stuff up. At any rate, tweedledee and tweedledum have now weighed in.
In the final analysis, Jenos claim that F&F “murdered” people may belong in the Dumb as Dirt Hall of Fame.
@anjin-san: Here let me help you connect the dots.
1) Fast and Furious was carried out exactly as planned, with guns funneled into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.
2) Hundreds of people were killed with the guns from Fast & Furious.
Think you can connect the two dots? I’ll even loan you a pen.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
1. kids
2. crimes
The problem with looking for a really illegal act in Fast and Furious is that many or most “straw buyers” were US citizens exercising their rights. The purchase may only have become “illegal” when the gun was smuggled. That would be a Mexican crime, I think.
I’m not sure you are really connecting the dots. What the NRA and their wing of the GOP are worried about is that IT WAS SO LEGAL.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
So, if you legally buy a gun, and then legally sell it to a US citizen and non-felon, and that citizen sells it to a Mexican drug cartel … are you to blame?
I’d say morally yes, if you knew that there was a profit to be made in used assault rifles, but the problem here is that you can probably do it without breaking any laws.
Here you go, Jenos. This is how the dots connect:
but note the charge:
Buying those 2 guns was legal. They could only get him for buying many, and becoming a dealer.
Fast and Furious was a tracking operation, to find out who was out there buying many and dealing.
Ah, so people don’t kill people, guns kill people. Clearly then, you feel the NRA, the GOP, and the far right in general are kind of full of it on their gun control stance.
Let me try and explain it in a manner that is so simple that even you can understand. I own a couple of guns. If I get it in my head that I want to murder someone, the guns are simply a tool, and I have a choice of tools because I have access to guns. A gun is simply a piece of hardware, murder lies in the intent, will, and means to carry it out.
Mexican drug cartels also have access to guns. Lots and lots of them. So if they have it their head they want to shoot someone, they might use one gun, or they might use another, but they will certainly have one available from their ample supply, which would still be ample if F&F had never existed.
Of course this rather simple explaination is wasted on you. The reality is that the only thing that concerns you is the expedience of the moment, which is one, but only one of the reasons that the only person on OTB that takes Jenos seriously is Jenos. I guess the world needs clowns, but you are not even an amusing one.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Man, that was beautiful.
Ladies and gentlemen, take a deep breath and appreciate what Jenos just did:
#1 – He “dressed” down a conservative blogger — so calling Eric stupid (without any real explanation or hint at why Eric is stupid) helps provide Jenos with some indy cred.
#2 – He thread hijacks through a really bad analogy.
#3 – In thread hijacking he ends up “proving” that we’re all inconsistent hypocritical liberals… because clearly we’re not that concerned about the F&F cover up… because… umm… we’re commenting on a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with F&F.
Game. Set. Match. Jenos wins this thread for a level of trolling that’s pretty extraordinary.
@anjin-san: Oh, alas, I am undone. I should have said “killed WITH the guns,” not “killed BY the guns.”
Whoops… I did.
Seems that the boll weevils got to your straw man before you could properly deploy it…
So, it’s all right to give the cartels guns, since it ain’t too many? Kind of like giving a glass of beer to a guy who’s already falling-down drunk before he drives off? Or jacking up the debt ceiling another trillion, since it’s already more than we can ever pay off already?
@mattb: Eric focused on one point pretty much exclusively — linking pedophilia and homosexuality. I didn’t think it necessary to repeat the link, but if you need me to spell it out, I think that argument’s… well, somewhere between “sadly misguided” and “false almost to the point of being legally actionable.” And I put Eric’s position a lot closer to the latter.
As for the rest… (bow). Thanks. It’s a gift, really…
But I’m sticking to my point: in both cases, horrific misdeeds with incredibly tragic results were committed by a few, but covered up by a lot. It’s just that there really isn’t a political angle to Sandusky, so people are reacting honestly. In Fast & Furious, it has to filter through their political biases — since it’s Republicans exposing the misdeeds of Democrats, they can’t get past their prejudices and realize “you know, these guys really, really screwed the pooch, and I shouldn’t be protecting them just because they have the right letter after their name.”
@mattb: One more clarification: I’m not calling out anyone for not bringing up Fast & Furious in this thread. It has a few of its own. (t could use a few more, but this isn’t my site.) But on those threads, the downplaying and excuse-making and blame-shifting and outright denial of reality is… breathtaking.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Where is this documented proof of which you speak?
The May 3rd PDF says this:
“One confidential witness told Congress that he overheard Scot Thomasson, chief ATF
spokesman, say early on in the congressional inquiry into Fast and Furious: “We need to get
whatever dirt we can on these guys [the whistleblowers] and take them down.””
I believe this is know as hearsay. If the witness testifies in public I think it becomes known as testimony.This is not documentation.
The June 29th PDF repeats that and adds this:
“Thomasson also allegedly said that: “All these whistleblowers have axes to grind. ATF needs to f—k these guys.””
Presumably that is from the same unnamed person. This too is not documentation.
Wow, I come back to this thread to find out:
(1) that Jerry Sandusky was protected because, although he’s a heterosexual pedophile, gays are a “protected class,” and (2) Fast and Furious had something to do with the Penn State Football Program.
I wonder how many people the Egyptian military killed over the years with the generous support of the good ol’ USA. Or other people all over the world. Iran, back in the days of the Shah. El Salvador. Guatamala. Chile. The list goes on and on.
I don’t recall conservatives getting into a lather about our moral culpability. In fact, they were furious and furious when the US stopped supporting some of these brutal governments.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
You are dodging what actually happened in Fast and Furious and what it would have taken to stop it.
The NRA has run an amazing political campaign here, getting you angry at the government, with you thinking about how the gun sales really worked.
Do you know that the Obama administration, as part of Fast and Furious, wanted more reporting from gun stores on who bought guns, and how many? Do you know who fought them in the courts?
Judge Upholds Gun Sales Reporting Law Over NRA Protest
Seriously, you’ve been played.
(“without you thinking about how the gun sales really worked.”)
While I’m glad that most people simply ignore G.A.’s posts, I also tend to ignore Florack’s. I foolishly read through this whole thread (when I should have been working) and for the first time in a while read his posts. All I can say is that I have to wonder about someone who seems so outraged about the ‘free pass’ Sandusky’s pedophilia was given. Is it his hatred of homosexuality that motivates the outrage or the free pass he believes is given to pedophiles who molest young boys rather than young girls? Certainly it seems odd that in a case so obviously about protecting big football and St. Paterno he is obsessing over the favoritism shown to one class of pedophiles rather than another.
@john personna:
So because the ATF, when suspected straw purchasers were reported to them, ordered the gun owners to let the sales go ahead, this justifies a crackdown on those same dealers and increasing government tracking of what guns legitimate purchasers are buying?
You’re essentially endorsing the “F&F was an attempt to gin up support for more gun control” conspiracy theory here.
@Stormy Dragon:
You have to be careful. Do you know what a “straw buyer” is? Do you know that he can make a legal purchase?
There have been some rare accusations thrown around that the ATF turned a blind eye to what were actual illegal purchases, but I haven’t seen real evidence of that. There is only one Fox story about sales to felons.
Note above that when Avila was charged, one item was “making false statements in a gun purchase”
Seriously, I think the bulk of straw buyers were US citizens in good standing. That’s why they could be straw buyers. That’s why they were proxies, and why Mexican nationals did not walk directly into US stores to buy their own guns.
@Stormy Dragon:
BTW, on this:
That’s the NRA’s neat trick. They don’t want us to draw any real, factual, lessons from what we know about these purchases. Because if we acted on what we knew, that would be gun control.
Again, seriously.
The NRA would rather roll back our thinking to the 1990’s, when gun stores sold guns, and everyone just assumed they went to good US citizens, and that few if any ended up in the hands of criminals.
If you find out that’s wrong, starting with Bush’s “Wide Receiver” and then with Obama’s “Fast and Furious” you have to pretend you don’t know.
Because knowing is a gun-control conspiracy.
@john personna:
I get that. I also get the fourth ammendment. The government doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) have the right to start gathering huge databases on random citizens it has no reason to suspect of a crime in hopes that it can detect something in a large enough data set. Yes it makes their job harder, but that’s the cost of living in a free society.
It would be a lot easier for the FBI to investigate a lot of cases if they had the ability to track where everyone drives. Should we require everyone to install GPS tracking devices on their cars?
@Stormy Dragon:
I guess you are agreeing that the government may not have “allowed” some criminal activity that it saw, with its own eyes. Certainly not in the first purchase. The illegality, gun dealing, and selling second hand to bad parties, was hidden, until they looked. They probably had to follow and surveil suspicious buyers, right?
To me the news that straw buyers (with good records) become conduits to criminals does matter.
And I’d rather think how to deal with that than to say “we can’t”
BTW, the government has a record of all cars I’ve owned. And I have heard of the DMV going after people who buy and sell too many, to become a dealer.
That’s the more direct mapping, rather than “everywhere you drive.”
@john personna: FWIW, government agencies do go after people who buy and sell too many cars because they are de facto dealers. I don’t think it would be the DMV because I wouldn’t imagine they are the regulating body for auto dealers (although I could be wrong on that…) But if someone becomes a nuisance by having all kinds of cars parked on their neighborhood street and customers coming and going at all hours, then you can bet an annoyed neighbor will call the town, who in turn will try to shut them down because of zoning and tax issues.
@Jenos Idanian #13: Shorter Jenos: “Why aren’t you paying attention to MEEEEEEEE?????”