Joe Paterno was a football coach. You may think that is an obvious statement, bt it actually is a lprofound indictment of the MEDIA SMEAR CAMPAIGN against Joe Paterno. (including ESPN, which I told you to boycott many years ago).
Hard-ass football coach ot his hapless tema: "Youguys are hopeless. You don't know anything about football. We are gong to have to go back to the basics. This (holdin gup a football) is a football."
What does it mean that Joe Paterno is a football coach, beginni g way back around when I was BORN? Well, for one thing it means he is NOT Penn State University, or responsible for the whole university. AGain, you may think this is obvious, but I actually heard a woman on the unfair and unbalanced network say--in response to the idea that Joe Paterno was being unreasonably expected to have been both omnipotent and omniscient: "Joe Paterno was KING." She was in essensce saying that Joe Paterno was repsonsbile for everything that happened at Penn State. What is it about being a FOOTBALL COACH that this woman, and the entire media, seems not to understand?
This is a foot ball, or--in this case--a football coach. A football coach coaches a FOOTBALL TEAM. Sure, this is big business for the university,m and the man is important to the university, but that is ALL the coach does. He is NOT reponsible for university pociy. He is NOT responsbiel for investigating charges against university connected peoiple not under his direct supervision. There is this cliche' about football coaches in high school who had to teach high school classes (which, of course, they did not really have any intereste in doing). The old story is that usch a "teacher"--football coach teaching a class--would SHOW A MOVIE every class to avoid doing any real "teaching".
Did Ijust call Joe Paterno DUMB? Not exactly--in fact, not at all. What I am suggesting--accurately--is that football coaches are LIMITED. They lieve and breathe football (the succedssful ones). The FOOTBALL TEAM is their reponsitility. Joe Paterno had NO more "responsibility " for addressing the hearsay alleagtion of a graduate assistant (involving a RETIRED COACH) than a regular college professor would as to a graduate assistant who came to him and said that he had seen another professor "emeritous" (retired) lassaulting a university student. In fact, it is likely Joe Paterno knew LESS about what to do in that situation than, say, social studies professors. This is NOT because Joe Paterno is DUMB. It is because Joe Paterno's world was the world of FOOTBALL. That does nto absolve him from the responsibility of an ordinary university employee, but ti does not really impose any EXTRA responsibtility on him either. Yet, form the very beginning of the Penn State "scandal", the MEDIA (includng the despicable people at ESPN) have treated this as a chance to "get" Joe Paterno. I find that unconscionable. Agia (these people are much DUMBER than any football coach who ever lieved, and I have to keep pounding it into them), Joe Paterno was a FOOTBALL COACH.
Jerry Sandusky was NOT wroking for Joe Paterno. He was no longer part of the Penn Stae football program. He had an office, and was still obviously connected to Penn State, but he was NOT the "responsibility" of Joe Paterno. From all information that has come out so far, Joe Paterno did NOT SEE anything. Hoe Paterno was not "responsbile" for this "charity" in which Jerry Sandusky was involved. Joe Patterno was merely a FOOTBALL COACH. Yes, as a FOOTBALL COACh he was a legend, and i ahve no doubt that he "tuaght' his players a certain amount of charactger traits that helped them in later life. Still, he wsa only a FOOTBALL COACH. What is Joe Paterno supposed ot do when a graduate assistant comes to him and says that he saw Jerry Sandusky doing inappropriate things to a young boy in a Penn State locker romom? Is Joe Paterno--a FOOTBALL COACH--supposed to "investigate" this allegation? Is Joe Paterno supposed to call lthe police, when Joe Paterno did not SEE anything? How is Joe Paterno even supposed to know what to do? What about the RIGHTS of Jerry Sandusky? Again, Joe Paterno is a FOOTBALL COACH. He is not a human resources expert. What Joe Paterno supposedly did was REPORT this to the people who are SUPPOSED to either know what to do, or are in a positoin to get advice from people (like lawyers) who do know what to do: SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIORS> Why is that not the right thing to do? As Joe Paterno himself said, lyu can argue that Paterno "should have done more", especailly in terms of follow-up. Still, he is a FOOTBALL COACH. His job is FOOTBALL. His direct "protective" responsibilty is the PLAYERS under his direct supervision. If he is faced with something outside of his direct responsibility, and he does not knwo what to d (as most football coaches would not know what to do), what is wrong with referring the matter to people who are SUPPOSED to know what to do (or be able to find out)?
Not a major crime. And yet is is JOE PATERNO who presently has been PUNISHED mroe than Jerry Sandusky for not going beyohnd his responsibility and competence. Joe Paterno, WITHOUT A HEARING OR WAITING FOR THE FACTGS TO BE DEVELOPED, was FIRED as coahc of the Penn Sttate football tgeam he had coached for more than 40 years. All Paterno had asked was the chance to finish out the season with dignity. That chance was denied him, for only one reason: COVER LYOUR ASS. The Penn Staet Board of Trustees was merely reactin, as COWARDS, to the media PRESSURE to rescue the "image" of Penn State by SACRIFICING Joe Paterno. It is POSSIBLE Joe Paterno was more involved in this than the above would suggest, but--if so--that information has NOT come out. So much for JUSTICE and the American way (innocent until proven guilty). Sorry . It is NOT obvious that Joe Paterno did anything but make an understandable mistake--if that--in failing to follow up on making sure that something was done by COMPETENT people (not football coaches), and that this matter was not swept under the rug. Is that enough for the media and university to hold Paterno up to DISGRACE and HUMILIATION? Not in my book. Not without more.
Some students were understandably upset--with more knowledge of WHY they were upset than Occupy Wall Street protesters (rioters, who have created a climate of rape and unhealthy conditions,k including involving children, that is more OBVIUOSLY dangerous than anny known conduct of either Paterno or the students). The students engaged in a "mirno riot"--again, no worse thn the Occupy Wall Street peole around the country and the world, where the media EXUCESED the "anger". The media take on THIS minor riot, however, was that it gave Penn State yet another BLCK EYE, because Peenn State is about much more than Joe Paterno. That was the "take' fo the truly despicable people at ESPN (almost gleefl in falling over one another to throw Joe Paterno under the bus, incluidn gformer players of Paterno SUCKING UP to the ESPN party line).
What HYPOCRITES (ESPN and the media). You set out to "get" Joe Paterno because he is KING, and the "face" of Penn State (even though he is jsut a FOOTBALL COACH--if a legend in that capacity). Then students support Paterno, and you say that Penn State is about much more than Paterno. Nope. You HYPOCIRTES can't have it both ways. You can't try to make Patero KING--omnipotent, omniscietn, and responsbile for everything at Penn State--and then say that Penn State is about "more than Paterno". This last is corret. Paterno was a FOOTBALL COACH. That is all he was. He had no SPECIAL expertise or responsibliltiy in handling allegations of child abuse.
Then there are those EXPLOITERS OF TRAGEDY calling for a FEDERAL LAW making it a FEDERAL CRIME to fail to "reprot" alleged sexual abuse. I can't stand it. First, exactly WHY is this a FEDERAL problem? This is what is WRONG with our country. The Federal Government cannot, and should not, TAKE CARE OF US ALL. Why not make gang shootings in Chicago a Federal Crime. They KILL more young boys than Jerry Sandusky whio indeeed, does not appear to hhave actually killed anyone, although this blog is the outlet which has CONDMENTED our society's apparent "tolerance" of statutory rape, meaining I think it is a very serious crime). Nottice that it is PLANNED PARENTHOOD which has been most often accused of COVERING UP statutory rape, in violation of the law. Planned Parenthood, of course, GETS FEDERAL MONEY. If you get Federal money, there is some excuse for making it a Federal crime not to report sexual abuse that comes to your knowledge. Hoever, it is all ABSURD> STATES and LOCALITIES should be RESPONSIBLE for "protecting chldren". It is NOT the job of the Federal Government. This is yet another example of the "magic wand theory of goernment", where it is assumed that all fthe Federal Government has to do is wave a magic wand to "solve' a problem (against, what aobut the GAnG KILLINGS of youn people in Chicago?). I can't tell you how much this "magic wand" approach bothers me. That is especailly true when I KNOW the real story of what is going on here. Politicians are attempting to USE this tragedy to get REELECTED, by suggesting that they "did something" abut this (or advocated doing somethign). I can't tell you how much CONTGEMPT I have for that kind of politician. Nope. I do NOT think it is the "responsibility" of the Federl Government to make sure (lol) that the Penn State events "do not happen again".
Bottom line. PROSECUTE Jerry Sandusky, giving him the protetins of our laws, and then throw the book at him i fthe allegations are proven. Don't set oout to "get" a "legend" like Joe Paterno jsut becazuse he is a legendd, and you want to be part of BRINGING DOWN A LEGEND. He deserves to be farily treated, and not sacrificed by people out to sue him as a SCAPEGOAT (or to advance their own agenda, which often is the idea that America is an evil place full of evil people, which is a "theory" I agree with ONLY as to the media).
Soubt me? Never do that. The desicable AP has a story tonight, featured on AT&T/Yahoo "News", which shoes jsut how UNFAIR Penn State and the media have been toward Joe Paterno. Remmebe that "graduate assistant" who supposedly reported this matter to Joe Paterno? Well, one of the interesting quesionns here is why HE did not DO MOE. He was the WITNESS. Why did he let the "rape" happne? Why did HE not report it to bhe police. All Joe Paterno had was HEARSAY. Joe Parerno had NO "personal knowledge" of what happened. in other words, Joe Paterno (remember, I was a LAWWYER in my former life) was in no position to "testify" against Jerry Sandusky, or even to conduct a criminal or school investiagation. Al Paterno could EVER do was "report: to someone (which he did), and perhaps suggest that the graduate assistant report to the police.
That brings us to the AP story tonight. Evidently, there is an email from the graduate assistant saying he STOOPED the "sexaul assault", AND reported it to the police. Look at what his means, if true. Paterno is being faulted for not making sure this was reported to the police. Yet, Paterno saw nothing. If the person who DID SEE THE ALLEGED ABUSE reported it to the police, what more could have been done? Is ESPHN eeally suggesting that Paterno should have acted as "judge, jury and executioner" for Jerry Sandusky? Peronsaly, I don't think ESPN cares. ESPN makes its money off of thigs like college football, but the people of ESPN want to GET people in order to advance themselve.s .I asure you that ESPN was IMMEDIATELY out to "get" Joe Paterno on this, no matter what.
YHep. I actually saw a supposed "expert" (I hink of CNN--HLN, but it could even have been on the equally bad unfair and unbalanced network) say (without challenge for the obvious LIE) that the information Paterno had was NOT HEARSAY. What can you say abuot a lperson whose statements are so unrealated to reality becaues of his or her AGENDA? Evil? I think so. Unreliable? Definitely? Unworty of being listened to, or being put on televisioni? Definitely.
Oh. You say you don't understand why what was "reported" to Joe Paterno was hearsay, jsut like this woman who showed her stupidity on TV? Let me explain it to you. "Hearsay" is when you reference what you have been TOLD, instead of what you SAW. The graduate assistant SAW thee alleged sexaul assault. That means, in law, that he had "personal knowledge" to which he can testify. The generla rule is that NO ONE else, including Joe Paterno, can validly testify to what the graduate assistant said, for the purpose of saying that what the graduate assistant said is the truth, because Joe Paterno HAD NO PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE of those facts. There is simply no doubt. Unless new facts emerge about knowledge by Joe Paterno, all Joe Paterno had was HEARSAY about a person and program not under his direct supervision. Don't get me wrong. The police can, and often do, INVESTIGATE based on hearsay . The job of the police is to FIND witnesses who CAN testify to their personal knowledge. But the generral rule is that hearsay is not competent evidence of the facts asserted in the hearsay statement. Gain, it is the graduate assistant, who had personal knowledge of those facts, and who SHOULD have reported the incident to the police (as maybe he says he did). The AP, by the way, says--in an understatment--that htis new "information" creates "confusion' about what really happened here. There is, of courrse, no confusion that Hoe Paterno was denied the right to coach his team for the rest of the season, WIHOUT A HEARING. The students wre right to be angry.
No. I don't have any ax to grind here (except, maybe, an ax as to the evil incompetence of the media). Like Joe Paterno himself, I believe he probably could have "done more". But Joe Paterno did not sexually assault anyone, and I have seen no evidence that he tried to "coverf up" what he had been told. Thuys, I would have to regard his "mistake" as an understandable human mistake, rather than a istake making him "responsible" for massive sexual abuse. Do I have to repeat: Thi is a football. Or, to apply the same principle here: This was a FOOTBALL COACH, and you really can't assign hiom responsibility based on him being some sort of godlike creature who was responsible for evefrything that Penn State did or did not do (or everything the POLICE did or did not do). Now if Joe Paterno told that graduate assistant NOT to go to the police,m I would have a problem. But if Joe Paterno thought that the graduate assistant WOULD go to the police, if he thought it apropriate, and that Paterno's SUPERIORS at Penn State were in a better position to invstigate and formulate the unviersity's respnse, ehn I am not sure Joe Paterno was very wrong about that . He COULD have done more. But it is hardly the "scandal of the centruy" that he (joe Paterno) idd not do more. He was merely a FOOTBALL COACH. Isn't he allowed to TRUST taht other people will do THEIR job?
P.S No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). I wonder if my eyesight disqualifies me from being a football coach, or maybe a referee or umpire?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment