Posted on 11/19/2011 1:16:50 AM PST by Rummyfan
There is a famous if apocryphal tale of a Fleet Street theatre critic covering the first night of a new play in the West End of London. At the end of the evening, he went to a public telephone and dictated his review. The following morning, a furious editor called him and demanded to know why he had neglected to mention that, midway through the Third Act, the theater had caught fire and burned to the ground. The critic sniffily replied that it was not his business to report fires, but that, if the editor had read more carefully, he would have observed that the review included a passage noting discreetly that the critic had been unable to remain for the final scenes.
That, more or less, is the position of those Americans defending the behavior of the Penn State establishment: it would be unreasonable to expect the college football elite to show facility with an entirely separate discipline such as pedophilia reporting procedures, and, besides, many of those officials who were aware of Jerry Sandusky's child sex activities did mention it to other officials who promised to look into mentioning it to someone else.
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
Ping!
You sure wonder why McQueary didn’t personally call the cops, at the least, if he beheld Sandusky with a h-rd on about to penetrate a wee lad with said thing. It’s like he’s acting more like he saw someone nibbling from a chocolate bar in the grocery checkout line before paying for it. Could McQueary himself have been queery? (No pun intended)
I feel confident in saying that if my mother had been in that locker room it would have been all up with Sandusky right at that point. She’s 84 years old and all of 100 pounds, but she knows the difference between right and wrong.
Scathing! And true.
The ‘you can’t criticize because you don’t know how YOU would act in that situation’ response from Penn fans is astonishing.
If we’re at the point where we can debate the rights and wrongs of rape—of CHILD rape—then we’re done.
I wrote it after seeing overwhelming evidence first-hand!
Good study. I hadn’t known about him. Wish I had,...we probably crossed paths in the 80s and 90s.
My Lai, a very strange (and thankfully, uncharacteristic of US defense) incident, that got Dr. M. Scott Peck (the maverick psychoanalyst who brought the concept of evil back into the deliberations of the couch) wondering. The whole affair sounded like a divine pun, “my lie.” It took a superhuman person to protest it where the pressure to fit in was immense.
But what pressure was there on McQueary? Virtually none that we can see. Might be plenty that we can’t see.
I guess with Sandusky being so famous for his open philanthropy, it may have been doubly hard to buy the idea that here was some awfully foul sin going on in the middle of it. Most homosexual molesters aren’t this “noble,” they are more the quiet creepy kind.
You are all forgetting that the President of Penn State, Graham Spanier, was a homosexual advocate from his days at University of Nebraska Lincoln.
Spanier brought absolute acceptance of the homosexual agenda to Penn State and was instrumental in the firing of the women's basketball coach because she did not want open lesbians playing on the team.
If you embrace the full homosexual agenda, you must embrace the concept that minors can grant sexual consent.
I am confident that we will never be told that radical liberalism, that was also embracing the homosexual agenda, set the standards at Penn State for "tolerance".
McQueary was more worried that if he complained about homosexual activity at Penn State that his future career would be over.
Just as the liberal embrace of radical feminism has led to employers being frightened of reprimanding female employees, the liberal embrace of homosexuality has frightened many into ignoring homosexual activity.
That is the tone set by Spanier at Penn State.
Spanier's liberalism is the root of the Penn State evil.
I’ll almost bet even money that McQueary during the pre-trial discovery phase and deposition he could mention Spanier’s advocacy of homosexuality and why this may have contributed to why Sandusky could continue his abhorrent behavior with near-impunity. If that is the case, then we may be talking about a scandal that could result in a change of even the Board of Trustees there.
Huh, and it’s like almost nobody is talking about Spanier. Some underlings will get the boot out, or worse, while “Satan” walks scot free. Unless Spanier goes too, or at the least repents, the evil won’t have been purged.
Well said. Progressives (formerly, liberals) are pushing society in this direction. There is no real right or wrong, according to them. They then set about creating laws which define how we are to behave in every facet of our lives.
The media will avoid pinning this on Spanier and liberalism until the world ends. Liberalism is good intentions, regardless the consequences.
Spanier has been fired and our new governor, Tom Corbett (who started this investigation when he was Attorney General) was able to name multiple members to the Board of Trustees.
As the case was getting closer to an indictment, Corbett was "guiding" the Board of Trustees because he knew the depth of the crime.
There is a great NY Times (belive it or not) article about our great governor's role in bringing this crime to light. Here it is:
Good article, as usual.
I was just reading an article about progressivism (such as that espoused by everybody from Wilson to FDR and Barry Obama), one of the hallmarks of which is the substitution of adherence to the law of the state for obedience to personal moral standards. If it’s legal, it must be okay; morality is found in following the letter of the law (in this case, doing the minimum required by reporting the “incident” to a superior).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.