OT: Thursday at 9 a.m., the Freeh Report is available. . .

[Carl Spackler]

I was referred here by subbabub, I'm not actually sure where "here" is, besides the link I clicked.

Anyway, I read Icebear's post.

I believe the only way to create the change that Icebear wants, is to inflict all that damage to the culture. To damage all those "innocents", in social, economic ways. This is no different than entire countries initiating trade embargo's, and things like that on other countries because of transgressions deemed punishable by external sources from the culture itself.

It's the only way to ensure that the people in that culture seize the opportunity a tragedy of this magnitude provides - in icebear's words"

......There is, also, an opportunity in all of this. There is an opportunity to learn how to put together a quality system of checks and balances that insures that no one has the power to be above the system ever again.......


When all those people are forced to pick up pieces of their lives and move forward, they will demand up the chain of democracy to the top, that that system of checks in balances that is put in place, prevents anyone from every having th absolute power again, to make a decision that can give external forces the ability to change their quality of life again. THat nothing like this every happens again.

This is the difficulty that people in position of power and authority over vast ranges of people and society face. There are quite literrally tens of thousands of peole that may be adverseily affected by shutting down PSU football home games for a season. (and that's what I advocate). This is not the decision to incendiary bomb the town square, in the city of Dresden in world war 2 that killed approx 25,000 Germans that had nothing to do with the Nazi holocaust - or the Nazi war machine, but happened to live in a capital city of a province of the country. It was as calculated decision to create change in the culture of German from within - and it worked.

The difficulty, that people face, as subba mentioned in the palce I came here from, was the concept of free will.

The concept of free will, I believe, is an illusion. The concept of free will, is why absolute power corrupts, and when it comes to decision making, a dictatorship may be the most efficient form of government, but a committee, majority vote, representation model of leadership will always be morally and ethically superior.

The real choice, decision to be made at this point in time, philosophically, is whether or not the culture of the community at PSU contributed to the way Jerry Sandusky was handled and therefore is deserving of punishment. I believe the culture is at fault, and deserving of punishment.

And when you enter in the realm of entire cultures being in need of change through punishment, the concept of collateral damage to innocents is reality, and that is why it is the most difficult decision there can be by people in position of power over others.

it's why the NCAA ducked up royally in 1987 with SMU, and has never been able to really recover from that.

The NCAA can recover from that mistake, in choosing to inflict damage on entire culture that wasn't warranted, by doing it now, when it most surely is warranted.

I think that the NCAA mandates that PSU does not play any home football games in 2012, and then let the damage run it's course to correction in the society.

This isn't fire bombing the town square in Dresden to create change. People will not die becuase there is no football in State College played in the fall of 2012.

But the culture will change because of it. I believe that.

 

[Kibitzer]

IceBear has defined with precision why (locally) the "death penalty" would be devastating to thousands of innocent people. This does not take into account the dozen teams on PSU's schedule, none of whom deserve to lose the income they can expect from their PSU game. There is also the effect of loss of football income that supports other sports teams, at PSU and for their opponents.

And those are among the reasons that the death penalty for 2012 is out of the question.

So what can/should be done?

I have advocated that the NCAA vacate many PSU football victories and championships, for starters.

A ban on bowl games for four or five years is a no-brainer.

The Paterno statue has got to go. Somehow.

How hard would it be for the NCAA, Big Ten, and the State of Pennsylvania to ask for the resignations of the entire board of trustees (excepting only recent appointments)?

A new BOT, new president, new AD, new coach, probation (with a schedule of required reforms), plus the removal of the statue and the cancellation of several seasons' victories and championships should get the message across, WITHOUT punishing many thousands of innocent fans, students, workers (vendors, restarauteurs, suppliers, stadium staff, etc.).

And, by the way, when talking about vacating past victories, that would mean no trophies on display, no banners, no mention in any publication, including media guides, etc. A total cleansing of the record books. (Part of the terms of probation.)

PSU won't do these things unless pressured to do so. If the NCAA offered an "or else" choice between something as I have described and the death penalty, I think that would work.

Do the NCAA, the State Government, the Governor, the Big Ten collectively have the will to do it?

Sad to say, probably not.

 

[cardfan]

the OP-ED in NY Times illustrates how absurd the NCAA can be
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/a-just-penalty-for-penn-state.html?_r=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/17/opinion/a-just-penalty-for-penn-state.html?_r=1

 

[Carl Spackler]

IceBear has defined with precision why (locally) the "death penalty" would be devastating to thousands of innocent people. This does not take into account the dozen teams on PSU's schedule, none of whom deserve to lose the income they can expect from their PSU game. There is also the effect of loss of football income that supports other sports teams, at PSU and for their opponents.

And those are among the reasons that the death penalty for 2012 is out of the question.

So what can/should be done?

I have advocated that the NCAA vacate many PSU football victories and championships, for starters.

A ban on bowl games for four or five years is a no-brainer.

The Paterno statue has got to go. Somehow.

How hard would it be for the NCAA, Big Ten, and the State of Pennsylvania to ask for the resignations of the entire board of trustees (excepting only recent appointments)?

A new BOT, new president, new AD, new coach, probation (with a schedule of required reforms), plus the removal of the statue and the cancellation of several seasons' victories and championships should get the message across, WITHOUT many thousands of innocent fans, students, workers (vendors, restarauteurs, suppliers, stadium staff, etc.).

And, by the way, when talking about vacating past victories, that would mean no trophies on display, no banners, no mention in any publication, including media guides, etc. A total cleansing of the record books. (Part of the terms of probation.)

PSU won't do these things unless pressured to do so. If the NCAA offered an "or else" choice between something as I have described and the death penalty, I think that would work.

Do the NCAA, the State Government, the Governor, the Big Ten collectively have the will to do it?

Sad to say, probably not.

I'm getting older, but I'm a football guy, I've discovered I'm on the women's b-ball board. GO HUSKIES!!!

I do remember vividly SMU in 1987. I remember going to Dallas in 1989 to play SMU in their first game back.

I'm not advocating what SMU got. What SMU got, was the worst decision made by a person in charge of others, in athletics, that has ever been made. SMU's entire 1987 season was cancelled, and they were not allowed any home games in 1988. THey were allowed to play a full schedule in 1988, but all the games had to be away. SMU chose to stop palying in 1988 altogether because of the expense it would entail, after having lost the entire 1987 season.

I'm advocating that PSU get no home games in 2012. They play a full schedule, but every game that was supposed to be home, is played away. There is no penalty whatsoever to PSU opponents.

 

[Kibitzer]

A thoughtful poster compared possible infliction of the death penalty on PUS with the cruel bombing of Dresden in WW II.

WW II in Europe did not end with the bombing of Dresden. It ended when German forces were overwhelmed by Allied forces from the west and the Russians from the east.

A more reasonable comparison would be the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, which most certainly compelled Japan's capitulation.

I posted earlier in this thread that one reason the NCAA would be loath to impose the death penalty on PSU because the effect would likely be like dropping the atomic bomb -- it was so horrible that we haven't repeated its use since 1945.

I contend that there is a complete menu of alternate punishments available that will stimulate -- and assure -- essential reforms at PSU and set an example for others.

 

[Carl Spackler]

A thoughtful poster compared possible infliction of the death penalty on PUS with the cruel bombing of Dresden in WW II.

WW II in Europe did not end with the bombing of Dresden. It ended when German forces were overwhelmed by Allied forces from the west and the Russians from the east.

A more reasonable comparison would be the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, which most certainly compelled Japan's capitulation.

I posted earlier in this thread that one reason the NCAA would be loath to impose the death penalty on PSU because the effect would likely be like dropping the atomic bomb -- it was so horrible that we haven't repeated its use since 1945.

I contend that there is a complete menu of alternate punishments available that will stimulate -- and assure -- essential reforms at PSU and set an example for others.

Respectfully disagree. I don't believe I wrote that WWII ended with Dresden? If i did, yup I'm wrong about that. If not for the success that Dresden had, as evidenced by the reporting and activity of the OSS both prior and after, the incendiary bombing of Tokyo isn't considered by Lemay in the pacific theater, and the targets identified for the Manhattan project aren't installations with large surrounding civilian population.

I've been in days of discussion elsewhere around here about this. I've been clear elsewhere, that when you're into the realm of dealing with creating change in a culture from an external position of influence, you need to be very, very diligent about the choice to inflict damage, over a peaceful route.

Even with peaceful intentions, there are always unintended consequences. The military examples above, show instances where collateral damage to innocent people, which is a fact that can't be avoided, when change from external source of power is coming,......those examples show instances where collateral damage to innocent people is a calculated risk to motivate positive change toward the goal. In the case of battle - it's to win the battle.

In the case of creating social change, collateral damage, anticipated consequences (intended and unintended) needs to be evaluated as to achieving the social change.

Just curious, what's your ideal dinner choice from that menu you mention?

I think that sanctioning the football program, such that they're playing away games, all 12 away, in 2012, and a post season ban for two years, once they get back home next year, still banned from post season, is appropriate, and proportional action as punishment to that culture, and will be a huge kick in the ass to get the gears rolling to create all the postive change we want to see.

 

[HuskyNan]

I'm getting older, but I'm a football guy, I've discovered I'm on the women's b-ball board. GO HUSKIES!!!

And you lived to tell the tale. lol

 

[Carl Spackler]

By the way, Kibitz, if you are of the opinion that the community/culture of PSU is not deserving of punishment, we've really to nothing to discuss, because it all starts there.

But I am curious as to what solutions you've got on that menu.

Also before I forget and move on, the examples of military exercises of force in attacking civilian populations, is most definitely not a good example to compare NCAA punishment of PSU by banning football at home.

My intent in going that route was to show how different, that punishment of "innocents" in reality is, with regards what will happen to the PSU community.

I mentioned trade embargo's, things like that.

Restricting an economy of its fuel sources - for example? That's a so called "peaceful" route of creating change that happens all the time, and most definitely has adverse affect on "innocents'.

That's a better example I think, of what shutting down PSU football in State College, PA would be like.

 

[Carl Spackler]

And you lived to tell the tale. lol

You can never trust the opposite sex, that's why you should always keep one close, to study.

 

[HuskyNan]

You can never trust the opposite sex, that's why you should always keep one close, to study.

Why do you think I read the football and men's hoops boards so often?

 

[Icebear]

Exactly, Carl, there is nothing to discuss if one thinks punishing a whole community that was ignorant of this mess is a viable option or any form of justice.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Exactly, Carl, there is nothing to discuss if one thinks punishing a whole community that was ignorant of this mess is a viable option or any form of justice.

Agreed.

You have to first be able to make the decision that an entire culture can be responsible for the behavior of individuals in that culture, before you can determine if punishment to an entire culture is warranted.

Punshiment of individuals? that's grade school.

It's my position, as stated elsewhere, that it is the luxury of educated people living in the most prosperous, secure, and free thinking society in the history of this planet, to be able to even ponder whether or not entire cultures can and should be punished for the actions of individuals.

THe unintended consequence of such free thinking, and thought, is that the very security that provided for it, becomes threatened.

Which, is somethign we are also witnessing in real time with this country in general. IMO.

Nice post though!

 

[Icebear]

I was referred here by subbabub, I'm not actually sure where "here" is, besides the link I clicked.

Anyway, I read Icebear's post.

I believe the only way to create the change that Icebear wants, is to inflict all that damage to the culture. To damage all those "innocents", in social, economic ways. This is no different than entire countries initiating trade embargo's, and things like that on other countries because of transgressions deemed punishable by external sources from the culture itself.

If you mean the culture of the University I can understand believing that destroying the internal culture is the shortest path that but I believe the real goal is transformation of culture and, also, believe that transformation and change can be achieved by other means even if it takes longer. If you mean the broader State College and central PA culture and the economic culture then I do not believe that destruction is in anyway warranted or helpful. So you understand, Carl, I live and minister in the midst of the central valleys of PA about 50 minutes from the PSU campus. I guess a definition of destroying the culture and defining the specific community would be a necessary step to conversation.

It's the only way to ensure that the people in that culture seize the opportunity a tragedy of this magnitude provides - in icebear's words"

I firmly disagree that destruction is a necessary antecedent to the ability for transformation. I would say that a sense of guilt and/or shame can be helpful, sense of conscience. The measure is in some degree whether one values pace over the short term health of most individuals. The choice is a tension between the two.

......There is, also, an opportunity in all of this. There is an opportunity to learn how to put together a quality system of checks and balances that insures that no one has the power to be above the system ever again.......


When all those people are forced to pick up pieces of their lives and move forward, they will demand up the chain of democracy to the top, that that system of checks in balances that is put in place, prevents anyone from every having th absolute power again, to make a decision that can give external forces the ability to change their quality of life again. THat nothing like this every happens again.

You are not clear in your reference to "all those people."

This is the difficulty that people in position of power and authority over vast ranges of people and society face. There are quite literrally tens of thousands of peole that may be adverseily affected by shutting down PSU football home games for a season. (and that's what I advocate). This is not the decision to incendiary bomb the town square, in the city of Dresden in world war 2 that killed approx 25,000 Germans that had nothing to do with the Nazi holocaust - or the Nazi war machine, but happened to live in a capital city of a province of the country. It was as calculated decision to create change in the culture of German from within - and it worked.

There are people without any connection to the program and who would be the first to step in and stop these horrendous acts who will never recover if they lose their businesses because of the sins of a handful or two of men and the blindness of others who should have known. That is a price I consider unacceptable. I believe firmly the responsible have is to provide safety and security while doing minimal harm to ALL the innocent.


The difficulty, that people face, as subba mentioned in the palce I came here from, was the concept of free will.

The concept of free will, I believe, is an illusion. The concept of free will, is why absolute power corrupts, and when it comes to decision making, a dictatorship may be the most efficient form of government, but a committee, majority vote, representation model of leadership will always be morally and ethically superior.

The theological and philosophical concept of free will, good or bad, has little to do with the present situation. Within the present there is only penultimate freedom nothing more. Each agent is not captive to determinism in any sense. There is only action and inaction. There is "sin" by what I have done and what I have left undone as is said each week in the confession of the church tradition (Lutheran) in which I minister. Sandusky's actions were those of things done and Curley and Schultz are examples of the sin of things left undone.

The real choice, decision to be made at this point in time, philosophically, is whether or not the culture of the community at PSU contributed to the way Jerry Sandusky was handled and therefore is deserving of punishment. I believe the culture is at fault, and deserving of punishment.

I think there is little doubt that the culture within the university structure and even the immediate community at PSU played a significant part in the way in which the events involving Sandusky have played out.

And when you enter in the realm of entire cultures (define the limits of "entire cultures") being in need of change through punishment, the concept of collateral damage to innocents is reality, and that is why it is the most difficult decision there can be by people in position of power over others.

Collateral damage will occur without a doubt the question is how does one act to minimize that. It must be no less offensive to harm other innocents in the present drive and movement towards wholeness than it was offensive to fail to protect the innocents abused by Sandusky. The very nature of the present crisis is that no effort was made to protect the innocents, same as in the RCA. Failure to take consideration of innocents in the present cannot and will not ever make the boys abused whole.

it's why the NCAA ducked up royally in 1987 with SMU, and has never been able to really recover from that.

The NCAA can recover from that mistake, in choosing to inflict damage on entire culture that wasn't warranted, by doing it now, when it most surely is warranted.

I think that the NCAA mandates that PSU does not play any home football games in 2012, and then let the damage run it's course to correction in the society. Such action is exactly what will harm those without any connection to the university or its culture.

This isn't fire bombing the town square in Dresden to create change. People will not die becuase there is no football in State College played in the fall of 2012.

You are wrong. Their may well be those who will suffer death in varying forms exactly because of that type of action. Loss of businesses, jobs, homes are all a real possibility.

But the culture will change because of it. I believe that.

Yes, and quite possibly it will not change for the better because nothing in your suggestions forwards any path towards installing a healthy culture and that is the real issue, with or without destruction.

 

[Icebear]

Agreed.

You have to first be able to make the decision that an entire culture can be responsible for the behavior of individuals in that culture, before you can determine if punishment to an entire culture is warranted.

Punshiment of individuals? that's grade school.

It's my position, as stated elsewhere, that it is the luxury of educated people living in the most prosperous, secure, and free thinking society in the history of this planet, to be able to even ponder whether or not entire cultures can and should be punished for the actions of individuals.

THe unintended consequence of such free thinking, and thought, is that the very security that provided for it, becomes threatened.

Which, is somethign we are also witnessing in real time with this country in general. IMO.

Nice post though!

As and the very argument you are making is one that was used in Germany and in Stalinist Russia to argue for the extermination of the Jews. The essential core argument was that it was better that the Jewish population be exterminated to "free" the people from the various manners in which they were "supposed" to have been dragging down and undermining the larger societies than to value individuals independently.

 

[Carl Spackler]

Don't have time to respond now, will later, if I can in one post - there's a lot you asked for definition in there. Thanks. Very interesting. For now, quick change of direction.

There's a real concept in the world called threat deterrance. When Obama became president, and assumed the role of commander in chief, he immediately began a call for a world without nuclear weapons. It caused major ripples in the defense community.

THe atomic bombs in Japan were mentioned were brought up here (not by me ironically - I talked about conventional incendiary fire bombs - old world ugliness)

In 1945, Admiral Arleigh Burke, chief naval operations officer, after having gone through submarine warfare with the Germans in the atlantic, and then seeing the effect of the nuclear weapons in Japan, came up with the concept of finite threat deterrence and the Polaris program of nuclear armed submarines patrolling the worlds oceans was born, and a majority of those subs were built right here in CT and based right here in CT, not far from where I live. That's when the United States effectively becaem the world cop. It was out of the desire to protect, not influence change elsewhere.

I think that if we do manage to find some middle ground here, it will be with the concept of threat deterrence, and how you achieve that. It was discussed in the men's forum LOL - the cost analysis of risk/benefit. The standard for penalties for transgressions in the future, I believe need to be so severe, that when anyone, at any institution in the future is faced with the choice that individuals at PSU made regarding Jerry Sandusky, that they do the right thing, immediately. I think.

But I will take the time to go through your message and respond directly to your questions when I can.

 

[Icebear]

Don't have time to respond now, will later, if I can in one post - there's a lot you asked for definition in there. Thanks. Very interesting. For now, quick change of direction.

There's a real concept in the world called threat deterrance. When Obama became president, and assumed the role of commander in chief, he immediately began a call for a world without nuclear weapons. It caused major ripples in the defense community.

THe atomic bombs in Japan were mentioned were brought up here (not by me ironically - I talked about conventional incendiary fire bombs - old world ugliness)

In 1945, Admiral Arleigh Burke, chief naval operations officer, after having gone through submarine warfare with the Germans in the atlantic, and then seeing the effect of the nuclear weapons in Japan, came up with the concept of finite threat deterrence and the Polaris program of nuclear armed submarines patrolling the worlds oceans was born, and a majority of those subs were built right here in CT and based right here in CT, not far from where I live. That's when the United States effectively becaem the world cop. It was out of the desire to protect, not influence change elsewhere.

I think that if we do manage to find some middle ground here, it will be with the concept of threat deterrence, and how you achieve that. It was discussed in the men's forum LOL - the cost analysis of risk/benefit. The standard for penalties for transgressions in the future, I believe need to be so severe, that when anyone, at any institution in the future is faced with the choice that individuals at PSU made regarding Jerry Sandusky, that they do the right thing, immediately. I think.

But I will take the time to go through your message and respond directly to your questions when I can.

Quick note. I do not think that the NCAA's history using a concept of threat deterrence has been very successful. Consider how effective it has been in controlling the modern era of recruiting and player violations. USC, OSU, LSU, etc.

 

[Carl Spackler]

As and the very argument you are making is one that was used in Germany and in Stalinist Russia to argue for the extermination of the Jews. The essential core argument was that it was better that the Jewish population be exterminated to "free" the people from the various manners in which they were "supposed" to have been dragging down and undermining the larger societies than to value individuals independently.

Well, in turn to that, the entire concept of "crimes against humanity" and war crimes for which individuals could be prosecuted, was created by the United States led victorious allies in 1945.

In the years since, external sources of power to entire cultures, have made the choice to inflict damage, and innocent people most certainly suffered and died, to stop things like genocide initiated by few people in those cultures.

THerefore, in the exercise of warfare, and aggressive battle tactics betwee cultures (not defensive) the question becomes, what stratum of "crimes against humanity" warrants sacrificing the lives of innocents to bring justice to the crimes committed?

Are crimes against humanity real? Or did the Nuremberg trials happen to make the allies feel good?

 

[msf22b]

The standard for penalties for transgressions in the future, I believe need to be so severe, that when anyone, at any institution in the future is faced with the choice that individuals at PSU made regarding Jerry Sandusky, that they do the right thing, immediately. I think.

Carl, that theory doesn't work so well in capital punishment states; seems to have little effect on the murder rate. Of course, there's always suspending habeas corpus and putting miscreants up on the rack, stoning, whatever.

 

[Carl Spackler]

The standard for penalties for transgressions in the future, I believe need to be so severe, that when anyone, at any institution in the future is faced with the choice that individuals at PSU made regarding Jerry Sandusky, that they do the right thing, immediately. I think.

Carl, that theory doesn't work so well in capital punishment states; seems to have little effect on the murder rate. Of course, there's always suspending habeas corpus and putting miscreants up on the rack, stoning, whatever.

True, but I'm not talking aobut Sandusky, and generating fear of retribution in a piece of evil like that, or anyone who's capable of crimes deemed appropriate for the real death penalty. I'm talking about changing a culture that allows a person ike Joe Paterno, having no fear whatsoever to the community/ culture he created by choosing to handle Jerry Sandusky the way he did.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

True, but I'm not talking aobut Sandusky, and generating fear of retribution in a piece of evil like that, or anyone who's capable of crimes deemed appropriate for the real death penalty. I'm talking about changing a culture that allows a person ike Joe Paterno, having no fear whatsoever to the community/ culture he created by choosing to handle Jerry Sandusky the way he did.

My biggest concern with some of your thoughts is the definition of community. Much of the "community", as Icebear has spoken about, while fans of Joe Paterno and Penn State, are not part of the culture, if you will, that was silent and enabling. They were ignorant and are suitably indignant now.

Within the school was a culture of the "Penn State way", according to the report - certainly a way that existed within the Football Program there, and probably in other athletic programs elsewhere - but that permeated the entire university of keeping things within the family, promoting from within, believing that they were arbiters of judgement, etc. But again, even to the extent that it permiated the university does not mean that every employee or student was complicit in that culture. That it existed on the highest levels - trustees, president, other VIP's - is unquestioned, and that some folks fell in line because they did not feel they could stand up to it - is also unquestioned. It is there, within the university structure that the culture needs to change.

I will add that my personal belief is against any "death" penalties to the FB program - the problem being so much more than just football, and I strongly believe that Icebear has the right of it regarding constructive things that could be done to accomplish what is needed.

 

[Carl Spackler]

THe culture that you identify at fault....the members of the BOT, the President. These are people that get their positions as elected officials, elected by PSU alumni, and appointed by the elected governor of the state.

(i'm not sure exactly who elects who, and appoints who, so please don't crucify me on that)

My point is that the culture you identify to be at fault, is a leadership culture that is elected/appointed.

How do you ensure that the culture that appointed that leadership changes? It is my understnading, that the corruption that is present in the relationship between PSU leadership, the local government, and the state government is dug in deeper than an Old Lyme, CT tick.

Please go to the lengthy discussion on the football board b/w myself and a fellow called 'upstater' for the details on that.

A detailed assessment of the potential collateral damage is warranted in choosing to inflict damage to a culture, and the culture here to inflict damage to, is most definitely the leadership structure at PSU, and to me, the way to do that, is to go through voters.

THe voters are going to want the heads of anyone that had anything to do with the shutdown of their football at State College in the fall. They're not going to care what else their involved in.

FWIW - when this initially came to light, how the football program was tied to this serial child sexual predator, and was actually enabling him, I was NOT in favor of a death penalty.

THe thing is - when a culture of leadership is capable of handling an individual liek Sandusky, the way it's described it was handled in the Freeh report, it's only logical that culture of leadership is corrupt in any number of other ways, and as layers of the onion peel away, this indeed appears to be the case.

The quickest, surest, way to ensure positive change, is to inflict damage in that culture, where it hurts the most and will cause the must activism for positive change from the ground up.

In Pennsylvania, shutting down PSU football, is the way that happens.

That's my opinion.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I get that shutting down Penn State football could affect elected positions, and yes, Icebear - who knows and hears far more than we outsiders - has indicated that the Governor (current / past / both??) has some involvement.

That said, the governorship of the state is likely to turn on a lot more than Penn State or athletics - lots of Pitt fans and otherwise in the state too, FWIW.

I don't think the trustees are selected in the way you imply - there does need to be pressure that some of them need to go, but I think penalties short of the death penalty for football should be sufficient.

I don't have an answer for this nasty mess, I assure you. I don't think the trustees are quite "getting it". Ultimately, getting the proper controls "in place" can prevent an opportunity for another Sandusky, but doesn't necessarily change the culture. [I do also think the current students - for the most part - now get it. Those who don't won't take a football ending the right way.]

 

[Icebear]

Now having read the Freeh report through three times I will say that I think it does a decent job laying out a way forward for PSU. The recommendations per restructuring, OHR, and accountability are clear, as definable as is reasonable at this point, and address the central issues of oversight and control. They sometimes have the feel of industrial or professional boiler plate but that is somewhat to be expected given the pace at which things have moved since November 11th. The report, also, notes numerous changes that have already taken place to address the shortcomings of the past, including the events involving Sandusky and other responsibilities like those required by the Clery Act.

I completely disagree with Carl Spackler that destruction of all things present is the only way to move the culture forward. Rereading the Freeh report overnight I believe that such destruction would even inhibit the process of reformation.

Some other observations.

For all the anger being laid at the doorstep of JoePA it is amazing how little he is identified or involved in any of the events, meetings, etc. involved over the timeline. If one is to take William Rhoden piece for the NYT and similar stories and columns as an accurate description of JoePA's involvement one would have expected far more presense on the pages of this material. Most often the infrequent references are simply ones of informing Joe of the status what was happening. There are NO reports that JoePA made specific recommendations as to what should or must be done nor do we know how fully Curley informed JoePA. What Curley says in the most central note is that after talking with Joe he had questions about what he and Schultz had intended to do. No clear reason for that doubt is expressed. Some folks seem to be assuming far more knowledge of how things "were" or "must have been" than is present in any of the records gathered after 400+ interviews and review of over 3.5 million emails. There may be more there but Freeh and his professional researchers did not find it. Most of the anger aimed towards JoePA is parallel to that of Sandusky's spouse. It is based in a belief of he should have known or how could he not know.

I have said from the beginning that Curley and Schultz were at the center of the actions and information that was or was not shared and that, too, is very clear in the Freeh report. At times they seem to leave both Spanier and JoePA in the dark.

Before one assumes that the governor who was AG was dragging his feet on the investigation for JoePA, one should know that there are reports of little love lost between the two because JoePA did not endorse the governor in his run for office. It is more likely that for reasons of the campaign that the governor slow boated the investigation.

More to follow. I am getting ready to head to the hospital with a parishioner.

 

[SubbaBub]

As and the very argument you are making is one that was used in Germany and in Stalinist Russia to argue for the extermination of the Jews. The essential core argument was that it was better that the Jewish population be exterminated to "free" the people from the various manners in which they were "supposed" to have been dragging down and undermining the larger societies than to value individuals independently.

My first thought when I read Carl's post was that kind of thinking is used to justify genocide.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Carl Spackler]

You got to be kidding right? you think I'm going down the road of a thought process that advocates genocide?

IN about 60 or 70 years, when another generation has passed, the truth about the U.S. bombing of the chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1999 will become declassified. What will probably be found, is what's suspected, that the U.S. strategically targeted a civilian institution, in a foreign country, that was neutral territory of a different country.

Innocent people died.

Two things happened after that. The CIA released a copy of at Chinese text, written by two highly respected chinese military theorists, that laid out a clear, and powerful plan to destroy the United States, through what translated to: Unrestricted Warfare. The discovery of that text, changed United States military thinking, and defense strategy. it's all about information security now, rather than exercise of force. Tthat text had been circulated among the military strategists of the enemies of the united states, and it was the blue print for the Al Quaida 9/11 attacks, which had been planned years in advance of september 2001. It had been acquired by covert operatives some years prior, but kept secret in the U.S. It was released to the public, after the backlash in China over the bombing, and soon after the release, the Chinese, basically shut up about the bombing.

The second thing that happened, is that a guy named Milosevic, and his military commanders, who had been under investigation, and looking to be punished for genocide, for years prior, but had been getting help in evading, and dodging from countries like China, and indeed Serbian military officers that were being hunted, were given shelter in that embassy... - that were opposed to NATO forces, were going to be brought to justice. That embassy was also being used to transmit signals across a network that was informing people about NATO military activity, that shouldn't have been knowing about NATO activity.

An order was given by peopel in charge, of other people, and charged with things like national security - charged with protecting millions of innocent people, charged with bringing the perpetrators of Genocide to justice....

that order was given, and a B2 bomber took off from an airfield in Missouri, refueled over the Atlantic ocean, penetrated European airspace, and detonated the most precise weapon in the U.S. arsenal, in the Chinese Embassy.

Innocent people died.

I suppose the people here, that I'm oppsosing, think that order, was wrong? THat the lives of the janitors, and clerks, in that embassy outweighed the rest of it?

THe reason that the U.S. spends so much money on precision technology in weapons, is to minimize collateral damage. Our enemies, have no such intentions.

That was 12 years ago. THe enemies of this country that would see the U.S.A. destroyed still exist, and are active.

Again, I go back to what I said before. It is the luxury, of educated people in this country, living in the largest, most free thinking, most prosperous, highest quality of life, and secure society in the history of humanity, to engage in the very discussion that exists here, regarding the absolute concept that no action should ever be taken that harms innocent people

It is this very fact, that also erodes teh mechanisms by which the security of that culture has been achieved.

The case of PSU is much different, collateral damage of social and economic punishment of innocent people, to achieve a goal of change is far different than condeming an innocent person to die, because of the actions of other people.