That’s great, and I don’t think anyone disagrees that JoePa had serious moral and ethical lapses by letting things continue unchallenged after 2002. Everyone is allowed from here forward to excoriate and write scathing polemics ad infinitum with pious indignation, high pontification, and extreme prejudice till they feel all warm and fuzzy inside and can walk away on the righteous high road.
But that’s not good enough for me dude. JoePa is gone. Fired. Disgraced, his reputation destroyed to the grave as the dirtiest SOB from all of Satan’s spawn. He’s probably open to a lawsuit but his butt is criminally covered. There isn’t more flesh we can really take from him. I’m not interested in moral indignation, I want justice and ALL those involved in this cover up jailed.
Mike Madden said long before his broke that this is a sex ring for the rich and powerful. If that is true the JoePa is a bit player in all this, and if we keep putting the spotlight on him so that we can feel all righteous, then the true evildoers are going to scurry away into the darkness TO CONTINUE THEIR EVIL FILTH.
Everyone needs to quit feeding off their emotions and think about the kids and the fact that they deserve to get the crimes against them avenged, as well as stopping future ones.
Two posts on responding to your comments: Post 1 -
Let's see. Where have I heard that accusation of essential self-righteous commentators? Oh, yeah...Scott Ostler -- the very journalist who wrote column upon which this thread is based:
He wrote: To Paterno's supporters, those of us who called for and then praised his firing are a braying mob of self-righteous haters using vague information to ruin a good man. I can live with that.
Glad to know you've joined -- in a strange sort of way -- the chorus of Penn State Paterno defenders hurling invectives of self-righteousness upon critics of the Penn State program.
In fact, thinking about Ostler's column overall...
...May I invite you to re-read that 5th graph from the end...but all of the last 5 graphs?...or perhaps you only looked @ the headline & lead graph...?
Here's the final 4 Ostler graphs after the one cited above:
Several e-mailers demand, "Have you ever heard of due process?"
The due process I've heard of involves a justice system and a legal trial. Paterno faces no legal action or charge. Legally, his rear end is covered.
But there was no trial when Paterno was sainted, no jury declared him one of the noblest and finest college coaches of all time. The public decided.
It's the same deal on the flip side. We'll take the facts and form them into our personal legacy of Joe Paterno.
Now why is this all relevant to your post?
Why? Because this columnist pointed out how Penn Staters confused the legal verdict ("due process") with the public verdict on Paterno's character -- and lack of it.
You've kind of done of same thing with your own excoriation of FREEPER posters.
This week on threads, we've largely been addressing the public sentiment. Most of us aren't a bunch of attorneys or legal cheerleaders!
And perhaps you underestimate such public sentiment. Do you or do you NOT recognize that at 46 career-years strong, Paterno had the most solid lock on dictating retirement terms of ANY coach in this country. He was a State College "god." As late as Tuesday, he thought even in the midst of this crisis that he could dictate terms to the Board of Trustees.
Do you know how much pressure had to be brought to bear to remind Paterno that "No, you're not in charge here!??"
As for the legal realities, come on, FV. They roll on ever so slowly. It's taken 3 YEARS of investigation just to get to this point re: Sandusky, Curley & Schultz! And that was after 6 YEARS of uncracked silence just to give them a proper investigative jumpstart!
And you somehow think that your rah-rah post is going to somehow speed along justice & vengeance for these kid-victims?
Still...even with my previous critique to your last post...this part does make sense to some degree -- especially the highlighted part.
The Mark Madden route you mentioned provides a route where we hope to get to the bottom of all of this...I posted this thread on that this a.m.:
New Jerry Sandusky Rumor Threatens To Make Penn State Scandal Much Worse
And tried posting this one, too...only to realize someone else beat me to it: Jerry Sandusky Rumored to Have Been 'Pimping Out Young Boys to Rich Donors,' Says Mark Madden
Madden said on the radio Thursday a.m. that a few seasoned journalists were investigating that angle as he spoke. That's what it will take there: Investigative journalism coupled with criminal and civil investigators smoking all that out.
But legal cheerleaders and journalist cheerleaders isn't going to do much more good that what you critiqued us for in this post.
I suppose I could write something to the effect of using your almost-exact words below...changing only the underlined portions:
"Everyone is allowed from here forward to excoriate and write scathing polemics ad infinitum with pious indignation, high pontification, and extreme prejudice that they want 'justice and vengeance for the kids' till they feel all warm and fuzzy inside and can walk away on the righteous high road. But that’s not good enough for me dude...legal indignation about 'justice and veangeance isn't enough...if we keep putting the spotlight on Sandusky we might miss discerning a broader pedophile ring...plus we risk feel[ing] all street righteous once they're in jail and we're not..."
Anyway...my point is that I'm not sure how your posts really speed along the prosecutions -- just like you're not sure how our posts have sped along pressure upon the Board of Trustees to do what's "right" accountability-wise.