WTF Penn State?!?!?!

Off Topic
1041

I wonder how much of what Paterno did was because of the attitudes of his generation (and previous generations)? That is, I’ve known many, many people and families affected by sexual molestation of children, and one common feature of earlier generations is that the reaction was usually one of shock to the point of paralysis. The end result is that most sexual assaults on children went not just unreported and unpunished, but barely even consciously acknowledged, as if the brain put the information regarding such events into the “WTF?” category and never allowed them to be fully processed.

From stories I’ve heard from older people with this type of experience, their own parents/grandparents/older relatives would have some sort of sense that something was ‘wrong’ with (whomever, let’s say Creepy Uncle Edgar), and that children should avoid being alone with Creepy Uncle Edgar, but really not much would be done to keep Edgar away from the children…or similarly, nobody would really call the Creepy Uncle out for punishment or even censure if such an act were proven or suspected.

I’ve heard an occasional person say, “What’s wrong with people today, there seems to be so much more child molestation.” But I think the reality is that molestation is made public, and punished, more today than in any time in the past. Of course I don’t know the full story, but perhaps Paterno represents a man of that past, who really never learned how to deal with the Creepy Uncles of the world. Yeah, I know many people SAY what they would do, but so often, nothing is done.

Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, people freak out over suspicion and accusation so that lives are utterly, permanently ruined based on a buildup of accusation momentum with absolutely ZERO proof of guilt, and sometimes even eventual exonerating proof. In regards to accusations about child molestation (especially if the accusers are children), smoke can easily exist without fire.

I don’t have absolute statistics to back that up, just anecdotes and a lifetime of observation.

1042

[quote]LHT wrote:
I wonder how much of what Paterno did was because of the attitudes of his generation (and previous generations)? That is, I’ve known many, many people and families affected by sexual molestation of children, and one common feature of earlier generations is that the reaction was usually one of shock to the point of paralysis. The end result is that most sexual assaults on children went not just unreported and unpunished, but barely even consciously acknowledged, as if the brain put the information regarding such events into the “WTF?” category and never allowed them to be fully processed.

From stories I’ve heard from older people with this type of experience, their own parents/grandparents/older relatives would have some sort of sense that something was ‘wrong’ with (whomever, let’s say Creepy Uncle Edgar), and that children should avoid being alone with Creepy Uncle Edgar, but really not much would be done to keep Edgar away from the children…or similarly, nobody would really call the Creepy Uncle out for punishment or at even censure if such an act were proven or suspected.

I’ve heard an occasional person say, “What’s wrong with people today, there seems to be so much more child molestation.” But I think the reality is that molestation is made public, and punished, more today than in any time in the past. Of course I don’t know the full story, but perhaps Paterno represents a man of that past, who really never learned how to deal with the Creepy Uncles of the world. Yeah, I know many people SAY what they would do, but so often, nothing is done.

Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, people freak out over suspicion and accusation that lives are utterly, permanently ruined based on a buildup of accusation momentum with absolutely ZERO proof, and sometimes even eventual exonerating proof. In regards to accusations about child molestation (especially if the accusers are children), smoke can easily exist without fire.

I don’t have absolute statistics to back that up, just anecdotes and a lifetime of observation.[/quote]

Good post…I do think that previous generations were MUCH less able to confront these sorts of issues.

1043

Yes, good post by LHT in perhaps the most annoyingly repetitive thread ever…

1044

Excellent post LHT.

1045

so whats the deal? did penn state lose a big game or something?

1046

http://aol.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2011-12-16/mike-mcqueary-testimony-jerry-sandusky-sexual-abuse-penn-state-joe-paterno?ncid=webmail3

Joe Paterno, due to health issues, did not take the stand on Friday to testify in the preliminary hearing against his former Penn State superiors, then athletic director Tim Curley, and former university vice president Gary Schultz.

However, Paterno’s previously sealed grand jury testimony was read and provided more details about his conversation with Mike McQueary regarding Jerry Sandusky, the longtime PSU assistant coach accused of child molestation and facing 52 criminal charges.

Mike McQueary, pictured here entering the court on Friday, says he believes he saw former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky molesting a boy in a shower in 2002. (AP photo)
McQueary, a graduate assistant in 2002, says he witnessed Sandusky assaulting a young boy in the locker room showers. He called Paterno, and then went to his home the following day to tell the coach what he?d seen.

Paterno, McQueary said, “slumped back in his chair.” He said: “Well, I’m sorry you had to see that. It’s terrible. I need to think and tell some people about what you saw, and I’ll let you know what we’ll do next.”

COMMENTARY: Sandusky’s cowardly ploy in court to avoid alleged victims

Paterno said he took what he thought was the appropriate action when he told Curley, but not the police, that McQueary had seen Sandusky doing something of a sexual nature.

I figured Tim would handle it appropriately, Paterno told the grand jury. He added: “I didn?t push Mike because he was very upset. I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.”

[u]"I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends,[/u] (so) either Saturday or Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone, saying, ‘Hey we got a problem’ and I explained the problem to him," Paterno said.

McQueary testified on Friday that he did not go into graphic detail with Paterno about what he had witnessed out of respect for Paterno. Paterno, he said, seemed saddened by what he?d heard and slumped down in his chair while the two sat at the kitchen table.
Paterno said he took what he thought was the appropriate action when he told Curley, [u]but not the police, that McQueary had seen Sandusky doing something of a “sexual nature.”[/u]

I figured Tim would handle it appropriately, Paterno told the grand jury. He added: “I didn’t push Mike, because he was very upset. I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.”

1047

Seems Paterno was sorry and concerned that McQueary witnessed such a terrible act.
Seems Paterno was concerned about disturbing Curly’s weekend.
Seems Paterno was further concerned that McQuery was upset and didn’t want to push it.

It will be interesting to see exactly when one of these guys expresses concern about the 10-year old boy for the first time.

So far it looks like they were concerned ABOUT EACH OTHER (and the sacred image and money-machine of Penn State football).

Of course, there still is a lot more testimony and stone-turning…but it looks like COVER-UP is squarely back on the table for now.

1048

[quote]overstand wrote:
McQueary testified this morning, says he made it clear to Paterno that the acts were “sexual in nature” and “clearly crossed the line”, but didn’t describe what he saw in detail out of respect. He did give Curley/Schultz details. Either way, all 3 were aware it was Sandusky doing something sexual with a 10 year old kid.

Curley/Schultz also facing civil suits.

[/quote]

Nothing more than a restatement of his grand jury testimony and of course, he wasn’t subject to cross examination. I guess he was being respectful to his father too when he spared him the details of any alleged sexual assault?

1049

[quote]LHT wrote:
smoke can easily exist without fire.
[/quote]

especially when working with “troubled youth”.

I do not offer the above as a defense of Sandusky, but as it concerns PSU, this was very early in this saga and the whole thing might have been explained away at the time. The “victim” may have even denied any wrongdoing.

1050

[quote]UtahLama wrote:

[quote]LHT wrote:
I wonder how much of what Paterno did was because of the attitudes of his generation (and previous generations)? That is, I’ve known many, many people and families affected by sexual molestation of children, and one common feature of earlier generations is that the reaction was usually one of shock to the point of paralysis. The end result is that most sexual assaults on children went not just unreported and unpunished, but barely even consciously acknowledged, as if the brain put the information regarding such events into the “WTF?” category and never allowed them to be fully processed.

From stories I’ve heard from older people with this type of experience, their own parents/grandparents/older relatives would have some sort of sense that something was ‘wrong’ with (whomever, let’s say Creepy Uncle Edgar), and that children should avoid being alone with Creepy Uncle Edgar, but really not much would be done to keep Edgar away from the children…or similarly, nobody would really call the Creepy Uncle out for punishment or at even censure if such an act were proven or suspected.

I’ve heard an occasional person say, “What’s wrong with people today, there seems to be so much more child molestation.” But I think the reality is that molestation is made public, and punished, more today than in any time in the past. Of course I don’t know the full story, but perhaps Paterno represents a man of that past, who really never learned how to deal with the Creepy Uncles of the world. Yeah, I know many people SAY what they would do, but so often, nothing is done.

Or, on the opposite end of the spectrum, people freak out over suspicion and accusation that lives are utterly, permanently ruined based on a buildup of accusation momentum with absolutely ZERO proof, and sometimes even eventual exonerating proof. In regards to accusations about child molestation (especially if the accusers are children), smoke can easily exist without fire.

I don’t have absolute statistics to back that up, just anecdotes and a lifetime of observation.[/quote]

Good post…I do think that previous generations were MUCH less able to confront these sorts of issues.
[/quote]

I’m not criticizing the post by the following but in what generation has it not been natural to want to protect your children or any children? I’m not sure I buy the theory. Are we positing that our grandparents did not protect children? And are we denying that those “suspicious” uncles still exist and are tolerated on some level (lacking hard proof of their alleged deeds of course)?

1051

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’m not criticizing the post by the following but in what generation has it not been natural to want to protect your children or any children? I’m not sure I buy the theory. Are we positing that our grandparents did not protect children? And are we denying that those “suspicious” uncles still exist and are tolerated on some level (lacking hard proof of their alleged deeds of course)?
[/quote]

Well, I don’t know what we are doing, but I’m positing that the form protection took in past eras was extremely different than what we consider proper protection today. Absolutely. Without question. Just read a few biographies of personalities from the 19th and early 20th century, biographies that have a decent focus on childhood. There may be good and bad things about modern ideas of protecting children, but there’s no doubt that it is distinctly different – and I will straight-out say that modern north american standards of child protection are far more detailed and specific than the standards of 50-100-200 years ago. I would even go so far as to suggest that acceptable (in the sense of ‘good enough,’ at least) 50+ years ago could easily be portrayed as borderline negligent in the popular modern imagination. I don’t mean to say that this type of parenting was always ‘bad,’ for example, I think there are a lot of cases where kids should be allowed to explore the world on their own a little bit more than most modern parents would accept – not alone in a neglected way, but rather alone in an, “I’ll trust you to enjoy a few hours outside with your friends” sort of way. But at the same time, this old-school parenting did allow for plenty of opportunities for disaster.

As to the last question, the continued toleration of creepy uncles – I definitely think that it exists, and if anything it’s still tolerated more often than not, at least if it’s kept on a subtle level by the perpetrator. I suspect it’s just one of those things that we really don’t want to believe is true, at least not about someone we once believed we could trust – ESPECIALLY a family member because that would imply that one’s own family had something inherently wrong about it. But I also think that there isn’t any denying that there is more public consciousness, discourse on, and prosecution of child molestation now than in any other time on the historical record.

1052

raping kids=not ok

letting a kid get raped=no ok

putting your own interests over a kids=not ok

writing a novel on an internet forum=fucking retart. : )

1053

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]overstand wrote:
McQueary testified this morning, says he made it clear to Paterno that the acts were “sexual in nature” and “clearly crossed the line”, but didn’t describe what he saw in detail out of respect. He did give Curley/Schultz details. Either way, all 3 were aware it was Sandusky doing something sexual with a 10 year old kid.

Curley/Schultz also facing civil suits.

[/quote]

Nothing more than a restatement of his grand jury testimony and of course, he wasn’t subject to cross examination. I guess he was being respectful to his father too when he spared him the details of any alleged sexual assault?[/quote]

He was cross examined and stuck to his story. All the legal analysts are calling him a very credible witness.

1054

[quote]dshroy wrote:
raping kids=not ok

letting a kid get raped=no ok

putting your own interests over a kids=not ok

writing a novel on an internet forum=fucking retart. : )[/quote]

I apologize, I tend to forget that my thought processes are not embarrassingly inadequate.

1055

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
I’m not criticizing the post by the following but in what generation has it not been natural to want to protect your children or any children? I’m not sure I buy the theory. Are we positing that our grandparents did not protect children? And are we denying that those “suspicious” uncles still exist and are tolerated on some level (lacking hard proof of their alleged deeds of course)?[/quote]

This is a silly post.

Like anyone is positing that previous generations preferred to let kids fend for themselves. Go back and re-read LHT’s previous post, BG.

1056

Paterno testified that he knew of Sanduskys “sexual transgressions with a youth” in 2002…um wut?

1057

[quote]LHT wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

I’m not criticizing the post by the following but in what generation has it not been natural to want to protect your children or any children? I’m not sure I buy the theory. Are we positing that our grandparents did not protect children? And are we denying that those “suspicious” uncles still exist and are tolerated on some level (lacking hard proof of their alleged deeds of course)?
[/quote]

Well, I don’t know what we are doing, but I’m positing that the form protection took in past eras was extremely different than what we consider proper protection today. Absolutely. Without question. Just read a few biographies of personalities from the 19th and early 20th century, biographies that have a decent focus on childhood. There may be good and bad things about modern ideas of protecting children, but there’s no doubt that it is distinctly different – and I will straight-out say that modern north american standards of child protection are far more detailed and specific than the standards of 50-100-200 years ago. I would even go so far as to suggest that acceptable (in the sense of ‘good enough,’ at least) 50+ years ago could easily be portrayed as borderline negligent in the popular modern imagination. I don’t mean to say that this type of parenting was always ‘bad,’ for example, I think there are a lot of cases where kids should be allowed to explore the world on their own a little bit more than most modern parents would accept – not alone in a neglected way, but rather alone in an, “I’ll trust you to enjoy a few hours outside with your friends” sort of way. But at the same time, this old-school parenting did allow for plenty of opportunities for disaster.

As to the last question, the continued toleration of creepy uncles – I definitely think that it exists, and if anything it’s still tolerated more often than not, at least if it’s kept on a subtle level by the perpetrator. I suspect it’s just one of those things that we really don’t want to believe is true, at least not about someone we once believed we could trust – ESPECIALLY a family member because that would imply that one’s own family had something inherently wrong about it. But I also think that there isn’t any denying that there is more public consciousness, discourse on, and prosecution of child molestation now than in any other time on the historical record.
[/quote]

you sure edited the hell outta your earlier post.

anyway, the prior unedited version and this is nothing more than argument by anecdote and you’re really speaking to how times have changed in terms of childhood freedoms, not so much sexual abuse. We don’t have to go back further than my generation for freedom. We rode our bikes everywhere and disappeared for the entire day.

We live in an information age where information is transmitted instantly. We also live in an age where reporting of various crimes is more stringent, particularly sex crimes.

Bottom line; I don’t think parents protected their children from sexual predators any differently in previous generations. I think today there is a hyper-awareness and paranoia about it though.

1058

I’m finding it hard to believe that nothing was reduced to writing by PSU when this incident occurred. No report?

1059

Yup. On Friday, they released Paterno’s grand jury testimony that was not available to the public before. Not only that, but his boss, Curley, ‘didn’t think it was a crime’ so it wasn’t reported to police. Schultz even knew of prior complaints against Sandusky that never amounted to anything, so he didn’t bother reporting the 2002 incident to police.

These were the adults in charge. Perhaps it’s giving them too much credit to suggest a cover-up. These guys seem like nothing but a bunch of really stupid, dick-headed former-jocks walking around a nice campus in suits - oblivious to anything outside of their own egos. Or maybe they figure ‘playing dumb’ is their best defense.

1060

In new testimony released on December 16th…

Joe Paterno, in his own words, on why he waited until the following day to call anyone after hearing what McQueary had told him about seeing Sandusky with a boy in a campus shower in 2002: “I ordinarily would have called people right away, but it was a Saturday morning and I didn’t want to interfere with their weekends.”

Paterno also said he didn’t press McQueary for specifics during their initial conversation, because he could see he was upset. But Paterno knew it was inappropriate and also said of what he was told that “it was a sexual nature.”

RUH ROH RAGGIE

Anthony Sassano (State Attorney Generals office) testified simply that the 2002 incident was not reported to police or to Children and Youth Services, as required under Pennsylvania law.

Gary Schultz (the school’s former senior vice president for business and finance)also said he didn’t think it was criminal for a grown man to grab a child’s genitals.

Testimony in open court at the preliminary hearing.