All I can say is...wow.

In any case, what EXACTLY is it that Paterno should have done? Fire him again?
Um... CALL THE POLICE! Call child welfare. Let everyone in town know to keep their kids away from Sandusky. Take away his keys to the locker room. Tell the people at Second Mile that their charity was becoming a victim farm.

Or at the very least, on January 26, 2001, don't have a conversation with your supposed boss where you use your influence to stop him from reporting Sandusky to the authorities.

Fire him again?

He didn't fire him.

Shut up, Bill James. You're embarrassing yourself.

And with that, I'm going to go look at the league leaders in RBIs, batting average, and pitcher wins.

From the Posnanski thread:

92. Jim Furtado Posted: July 12, 2012 at 02:27 PM (#4181134)

I understand the feeling the Sandusky actions generate. With some of the recent stuff that's in the news, I will cut some slack to the posters about turning the current thread into another Joe Paterno/Sandusky rehash. In the future, though, if people continue to turn every Posnanski thread into a Paterno/Sandusky thread, the offenders will have their accounts suspened.

Again, I understand the feelings. I too am sickened by all the pro-Paterno rationalizations. In the future, if you want to talk about the Paterno/Sandusky matter please submit a post of an article marked as OT-Football: <Article title> and you can discuss the topic there.

Jim

And with that, I'm going to go look at the league leaders in RBIs, batting average, and pitcher wins.

made me chuckle at my desk

What is it with Bill James and official reports?

I really enjoy Bill James and Pos and with that I think I'm going to have to recuse myself from all the Sandusky threads as I just can't go through every day on the verge of vomiting and losing respect for writers' who I think are usually very excellent. The scandal at Penn State is just incredibly depressing and I hope one day sports and universities will go their separate ways so the schools can focus on curing stuff and discovering stuff and writing stuff and teaching.

Shut up, Bill James. You're embarrassing yourself.

This.

Shut up, Bill James. You're embarrassing yourself.

This.

Ayup.

It's surprising that James doesn't post here -- he's got the stubbornness of opinion and an odd blind spot to reason in niche areas to make for a fine primate...

James has always displayed a strong contrarian streak against large crowd outrage situations, sometimes to his detriment. He did so in regards to the Pete Rose gambling scandal (where he trashed the Dowd report), the PED scandal, and now the PSU/Paterno/Sandusky scandal. I think he's letting his distaste for moral outrage cloud his judgment in this instance.

From the Posnanski thread

Don't be an idiot. At least don't be an idiot on purpose. Furtado's post there is concerned with hijacking threads UNRELATED to the matter to turn them into debates about JoePa/Posnanski/etc. This thread is explicitly about the subject, and it's not OT because it's a well-respected baseball writer and Primate (Calcaterra) writing about the musings of the most important baseball analyst of our lifetime.

To be honest, I'm a little weirded out by your concerted effort to defend the people who are defending Paterno and Penn State.

To be honest, I'm a little weirded out by your concerted effort to defend the people who are defending Paterno and Penn State.

I'm doing no such thing.

And I assure you that I am giving your personal weirded-outness every drop of deep thought and self-reflection that it merits.

Deadspin commenter: "James has awarded Paterno 0 Sin Shares"

please submit a post of an article marked as OT-Football

Shouldn't that be OT-Serial Child Rape? It's not like there's going to be a lot of talk about actual football...

It's surprising that James doesn't post here

Pass.

I think he's letting his distaste for moral outrage cloud his judgment in this instance.

yes, but if so then he fails to see that his reaction is itself a moral outrage. Which would be consistent with zonk's profile of Jamesian thought.

To be honest, I'm a little weirded out by your concerted effort to defend the people who are defending Paterno and Penn State.

yes, but if so then he fails to see that his reaction is itself a moral outrage.

Be careful. This view of those who don't respond like you wish them to is scary.

We see this all over the place, but prominently when it comes to discussing sex involving minors. First, you must earn your right to comment. You do that by following social dictate. Bend the knee to the taboo in no uncertain acquiescent terms, and make it clear you fully accept the conventional wisdom about that taboo and are not at all questioning its value or the way it is inflicted on both perpetrators and bystanders and commentators and other no good sympathizers. If you don't, you just might be hung as an unindicted co-conspirator in spirit. You pay your dues by talking the talk and walking that line.

Anyone attempting to engage in discussion outside the box better first understand that there is an implicit threat to them personally for doing so. Daniel Dennett refers to this as second order punishing. It's not enough that the wrongdoer be punished, but those that don't adequately express outrage at the wrongdoing, or are otherwise viewed as Laodicean in their response, must also be punished in some fashion. They must be made to pay for not sufficiently being outraged. The parallels in politics are, I'm sure, fairly obvious.

A while back, someone around here made the interesting point that Bill James is a sort of parallel to Noam Chomsky. They both became well-known for making very important -- you could really say paradigm-shifting -- contributions to a particular field. In Chomsky's case, he made massive and important advances in linguistics. Bill James' influence does not need to be stated here.

At the same time, they both said a lot of other stuff about a lot of unrelated topics. The world might very well be better off if they'd just shut up and stuck to what they knew.

Dunno who that's directed at, Morty, but it's irrelevant to the point about James's outrage. He's not thinking an outside the box of man/boy love, he's mounting a legalistic defense of Paterno. If he wants to object to public displays of shock and outrage, fine, but this, like the Pete Rose defense, lack any foundation beyond his own moral outrage at moral outrage.

At the same time, they both said a lot of other stuff about a lot of unrelated topics. The world might very well be better off if they'd just shut up and stuck to what they knew.

I would say it differently. I would say the world would be better off if people ignored what uninformed parties said about a subject. I don't give a damn what James says about Sandusky/Paterno anymore than I care what Clarence Thomas says about the Designated Hitter rule.

Other than the fact that he's famous, is there anything that makes James' comments any more meaningful than the boneheads who comment on Yahoo articles? He's just another person commenting on a topic.

It's not irrelevant to what I see being done. If you don't know who my post is directed to, it can only be because you didn't read it.

Dunno who that's directed at, Morty, but it's irrelevant to the point about James's outrage. He's not thinking an outside the box of man/boy love, he's mounting a legalistic defense of Paterno. If he wants to object to public displays of shock and outrage, fine, but this, like the Pete Rose defense, lack any foundation beyond his own moral outrage at moral outrage.

Precisely.

I don't know of anyone that is seriously suggesting we dig up Paterno's corpse, tar/feather it, and then salt the earth around his grave... but the guy's dead. Based on what we know, I think it's entirely fair that his reputation be tarnished over this. Setting aside civil suits; legal culpability is now pretty much moot. Paterno isn't going to face any 'real' consequences, but I think there is at least some good that can come from the black eye his reputation is getting... namely - call the ####### cops if you have good reason to believe someone you know is molesting children.

Be careful. This view of those who don't respond like you wish them to is scary.

We see this all over the place, but prominently when it comes to discussing sex involving minors. First, you must earn your right to comment. You do that by following social dictate. Bend the knee to the taboo in no uncertain acquiescent terms, and make it clear you fully accept the conventional wisdom about that taboo and are not at all questioning its value or the way it is inflicted on both perpetrators and bystanders and commentators and other no good sympathizers. If you don't, you just might be hung as an unindicted co-conspirator in spirit. You pay your dues by talking the talk and walking that line.

Morty is concerned we might be mean to people who attempt to defend or justify the rape of children.

To be honest, I'm a little weirded out by your concerted effort to defend the people who are defending Paterno and Penn State.

I would say this was the most uncalled for sentence of the thread so far and in general I am more on Esoteric's side in this whole debate. Nevertheless, I think it's really unfair to Benji Gil Gamesh to imply a certain weirdness on his part, especially when such a horrendous crime is the backdrop of the discussion.

Yeah, BGG was just thread-policing. I think this thread actually is within the bounds of Jim's dictates, but I don't think Eso's response was anywhere close to justified. (Well, it should be tagged "OT-football", I guess. Should that be in the thread title or just in the tags?)

Not when we have Morty here to actually do the thing that Eso wrongly thought BGG was hinting at.

Um... CALL THE POLICE! Call child welfare. Let everyone in town know to keep their kids away from Sandusky. Take away his keys to the locker room. Tell the people at Second Mile that their charity was becoming a victim farm.

I'm defending Paterno here, but I can understand why, if you consider yourself a good, long-time friend of someone, your first reaction (and your fifth, and 30th, and whatever) probably isn't going to be to turn the guy in. I'm sure there's a fair amount of cognitive dissonance involved. But what I still simply can't understand is why someone didn't have some sort of intervention and say "Jerry, you're a sick person. You need help. You need to talk to someone about this". It appears that mostly people just didn't want to think about it and hoped it would go away. I'd like to think that if I had a friend in this position, I might threaten to call the authorities, and maybe I'd finally get there, but my first inclination would be to make sure the abuse was put to a stop and that my friend was going to get some serious psychological help.

Morty on youth sexuality is always a real winner.

Morty on youth sexuality is always a real winner.

Geez. Yeah. I'd forgotten about that. *shudder*

The part about being "a little weirded out" was definitely directed at the wrong poster.

I'm defending Paterno here, but I can understand why, if you consider yourself a good, long-time friend of someone, your first reaction (and your fifth, and 30th, and whatever) probably isn't going to be to turn the guy in. I'm sure there's a fair amount of cognitive dissonance involved.

Absolutely, and that's fair ... but Paterno stopped others from turning Sandusky in to child welfare. Spanier and Curley were both going to and Paterno stopped them.

You very rarely see a situation like this, where a powerful person has literally no dry ground to which his lackeys can retreat. Even the family's last gasp -- that Sandusky was a "great deceiver" -- isn't even close to true. Anyone who watched his response to Costas asking him whether he was sexually attracted to boys -- one simple, 15 second question -- would conclude that he was. Sandusky was the Neifi Perez of deceivers.

Sandusky was the Neifi Perez of deceivers.

I'd say the Joe Neikro.

Want to make clear in no uncertain terms that it was the farthest thing from my mind to accuse BGG of being okay w/the sort of stuff that, um, I can't believe Morty is trying to mount some sort of qualified defense of. I actually edited out a part where I asked whether he was a PSU alum...that was more along the lines of what I was thinking.

Regardless, it was still a low blow (even though I find the thread policing to be aggravating). Shouldn't have said it and I apologize.

I'm defending Paterno here, but I can understand why, if you consider yourself a good, long-time friend of someone, your first reaction (and your fifth, and 30th, and whatever) probably isn't going to be to turn the guy in. I'm sure there's a fair amount of cognitive dissonance involved. But what I still simply can't understand is why someone didn't have some sort of intervention and say "Jerry, you're a sick person. You need help. You need to talk to someone about this". It appears that mostly people just didn't want to think about it and hoped it would go away. I'd like to think that if I had a friend in this position, I might threaten to call the authorities, and maybe I'd finally get there, but my first inclination would be to make sure the abuse was put to a stop and that my friend was going to get some serious psychological help.

The one thing that I have gone back and forth on with respect to Paterno is based on my experience with others in his generation, including my grandparents. They just have never wanted to talk about these things (by that, I mean the really ugly side of people that looked normal), and certainly seemed willing to sweep things under the rug. Not something I condone or admire, but it certainly came across as a mind set from that generation. Perhaps the best way to put it is that Paterno's actions (and inaction), even though wrong, do not completely surprise me.

I can't believe Morty is trying to mount some sort of qualified defense of. I actually edited out a part where I asked whether he was a PSU alum...that was more along the lines of what I was thinking.

I'm about as far away from Penn State as you can get. But, what sort of qualified defense am I mounting?

The CNN investigation made it clear to me that Paterno didn't neglect to call child services, he used his power to stop the administration from calling child services. And not because of some friendship with Sandusky, but because he feared blowback to his program, including the likelihood of forced retirement. The administrators swept it under the rug to avoid scandal during their tenure and damage to the school's image.

Paterno deserves to be judged more harshly than Sandusky, IMO, for his active obstruction of justice. He facillitated further rape and abuse. If there's a hell below....

Morty, what do you think the age of consent should be? Or should there be one at all?

Absolutely, and that's fair ... but Paterno stopped others from turning Sandusky in to child welfare. Spanier and Curley were both going to and Paterno stopped them.

That's the devastating truth that many will continue to avoid.

Morty, what do you think the age of consent should be? Or should there be one at all?

What a weird question? Did you read my post? What's my post about? What does your question have to do with my post?

A while back, someone around here made the interesting point that Bill James is a sort of parallel to Noam Chomsky.

Everybody loves to hate on them some Chomsky. Nobody really has a good argument why. Chomsky's the Nickelback of political criticism. Everyone knows they're supposed to hate him, but can't articulate a good damned reason why to save their lives.

Everybody loves to hate on them some Chomsky. Nobody really has a good argument why. Chomsky's the Nickelback of political criticism. Everyone knows they're supposed to hate him, but can't articulate a good damned reason why to save their lives.

Wait a minute...are you trying to say that you like Nickelback?

Dude.

Wait a minute...are you trying to say that you like Nickelback?

First the neck-stabbing, now this.

Intervention time.

People who are experts in one field aren't necessarily experts in another, that's true. (See Einstein on God.) But that doesn't mean they can't become expert. Chomsky problem isn't that he hasn't become knowledgeable in politics. It's that people disagree with him, and some disagree and find it easier to attack his credentials than his arguments.

Like Bill James maybe? We won't know if we only comment about his so-called effrontery in speaking to things outside his field and never try to actually understand what he's saying. But, of course, that won't slake your blood lust.

Paterno deserves to be judged more harshly than Sandusky

I wouldn't go that far.

Here is a sampling of Nickelback lyrics:

My best friend gave me the best advice
He said each day's a gift and not a given right
Leave no stone unturned, leave your fears behind
And try to take the path less traveled by
That first step you take is the longest stride

If today was your last day
And tomorrow was too late
Could you say goodbye to yesterday?
Would you live each moment like your last?
Leave old pictures in the past
Donate every dime you have?
If today was your last day

The music is even more breathtaking.

[32]
My Dad is 2 years or so older than Paterno would be. I'm not sure how he would have reacted.

When I was a kid long ago, people joked about child molestation. "Oh, that's just weird Uncle Harold. Don't get caught with him alone."

Penthouse used to run Chester the Molester cartoons in the 70s, iirc.. He molested women and young girls both.

Even when parents reacted, they only threatened people. "Stay away from our children, Mr. Conlin."

Paterno also lived in a personal time-warp in a time-warp town. If all the above are mitigating circumstances, there is no excuse for his cover-up behavior. He cocooned his mind and must suffer (posthumously) the consequences.

The mitigation is presented as perspective for learning. It is not a defense of Paterno. If he was simply befuddled as to what to do, I could cut him some slack. But befuddlement was not the case.

Disclaimer: PSU grad although not a FB or JoePa fanatic in the past. More or less followed the team, went to a dozen games in the 40+ years since I first attended. 4 of my 5 sisters are grads and 2 BILs (one a big contributor and 40 year season ticket holder, even when he moved to TN). Another BIL installed a significant amount of fiber optic cable on several of the campuses. My kids and nieces and nephews wanted no parts of PSU, even before the scandal.

Oh, and ever since I read "The Power Broker: Robert Moses and the Fall of New York " by Robert Caro 3 or 4 years ago, I saw the parallels with JoePa and PSU.

I think a big issue here is that he was in a position of authority, as a football coach, and had a ton of power due to his success as a coach. He was someone who is supposed to be building up kids, someone for kids to look up to. Instead he failed those kids by 1) ignoring a predator 2) actively preventing an investigation into that predator (according to what I've read).

If he was Joe Shmoe down the street and ignored his best friend doing this stuff and tried to discourage the cops from investigating his role might have been ignored. But he wasn't. He was in a position where he easily could've changed the end result - he could've got a predator off the streets quite easily with his influence, or at least made it impossible for him to find new victims easily. Instead that predator was allowed access to young children and allowed to keep a status that provided even more access.

Like Bill James maybe? We won't know if we only comment about his so-called effrontery in speaking to things outside his field and never try to actually understand what he's saying.

He's completely wrong when he says Paterno fired Sandusky; he in fact gave Sandusky the choice of coaching with him, and serving as his primary lieutenant, for as long as he wanted.

James's entire "argument" is based on a fundamental mischaracterization of the record. He sounds like a ####### (starts with fuc, ends with -ing) fool.

Paterno deserves to be judged more harshly than Sandusky

I wouldn't go that far.

Nor would I, but I can see the argument being made. Obviously, IMHO, something is badly wrong inside Sandusky's brain (though certainly nowhere near the degree to absolve him of any degree of culpability); presumably, we're talking about some sort of repulsive compulsion that he's apparently all too happy to act on.

With Paterno (along with his co-conspirators) ... I dunno. I guess something was sick & wrong inside his soul, to the point that "protecting the legacy/program/school" trumped all other considerations, including those of the most fundamental human decency. That's pretty damned horrendous, all the more so, to me, because it appears to have stemmed from cold (albeit horribly flawed) logic rather than sickness.

47:

Good, you're speaking to what James claimed in one instance, and not merely assassinating James's character for making claims and mooting argument.. That makes a total of one here on BBTF.

In any case, what EXACTLY is it that Paterno should have done? Fire him again?

He didn't fire him.

Before I hit post, I see SBB mentions this in post 47. So here's the link.