The Pedophile File

[elephant]

This article is a reach.

I'm certainly no fan of Brook's political perspectives, but it's undeniable that our culture has a moral righteousness that betrays it's true impulses and conduct.

In no way do I think his observations run counter to the need for exposure and prosecution of sex crimes.

Perhaps if there were a handful of crimes against children each year, we could all feel good about ourselves pointing out the villains and calling for their heads. But as long as there are a multitude of victims with fates largely hidden or obscured, it's not inappropriate to consider whether something is deeply amiss in the culture itself.

[Simulist]

Hi Elephant. I like your point about the "moral righteousness" of our culture, which "betrays its true impulses and conduct." I also agree that there are "a multitude of victims with fates largely hidden or obscured" — and yes, there is definitely something deeply amiss in this culture. And at its deepest, most foundational roots.

[IanEye]

In centuries past, people built moral systems that acknowledged this weakness. These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside. These vocabularies made people aware of how their weaknesses manifested themselves and how to exercise discipline over them. These systems gave people categories with which to process savagery and scripts to follow when they confronted it. They helped people make moral judgments and hold people responsible amidst our frailties.

But we’re not Puritans anymore. We live in a society oriented around our inner wonderfulness. So when something atrocious happens, people look for some artificial, outside force that must have caused it — like the culture of college football, or some other favorite bogey. People look for laws that can be changed so it never happens again.

Commentators ruthlessly vilify all involved from the island of their own innocence. Everyone gets to proudly ask: “How could they have let this happen?”

No one works harder to maintain the patriarchal status quo than David Brooks.

In the above quote, Brooks strives to cast a community of outraged people as isolated individuals. When people feel outrage within themselves over the actions of Jerry Sandusky, Brooks paints this outrage as selfishness, as a feeling of "inner wonderfulness".

Brooks paints the community of outraged citizens as living on their own (isolated) "islands", posing the question "How could they have let this happen?"

When I witness a mob of Penn State students rioting over the firing of Joe Paterno, I don't need to ask that question. The answer is right in front of me.

When I witness students at other campuses peacefully demonstrating against a status quo that celebrates overwhelming income disparity, only to face police brutality, I know they are not islands unto themselves, celebrating their own "inner wonderfulness".

So, let Mr Brooks attempt to maintain a status quo of silence, while at the same time yearning for an even more patriarchal past.

David Brooks celebrates a society where Puritans can carry on with their Salem Witch Trials.


David Brooks can go fuck himself.

[compared2what?]

In centuries past, people built moral systems that acknowledged this weakness. These systems emphasized our sinfulness. They reminded people of the evil within themselves. Life was seen as an inner struggle against the selfish forces inside. These vocabularies made people aware of how their weaknesses manifested themselves and how to exercise discipline over them. These systems gave people categories with which to process savagery and scripts to follow when they confronted it. They helped people make moral judgments and hold people responsible amidst our frailties.

But we’re not Puritans anymore....Commentators ruthlessly vilify all involved from the island of their own innocence.

Right.

Whereas Puritans ruthlessly vilified men for kissing their wives on Sunday by putting them in stocks in the center of town so that passers-by could hurl abuse and rotten fruit and vegetables at them from the islands of their own innocence.

Honestly. I object to the editorial practice of allowing right-wing apparatchiks to pose as public intellectuals in the opinion pages on its own terms, of course. But do they gotta insult our intelligence, too? I mean, is that really necessary?

Oh, well. Maybe so.

[bks]

Brooks is there in order not to understand anything. He does it well.

When his lightweight treatment of human nature entitled "The Social Animal" came out earlier this year, the Times was in a tough spot: they had to find someone of some actual stature to politely trash the book [not that they guy they picked is without his philosophical flaws]. It would have looked bad if some nobody had done it.

This last piece of his was just a rewrite of a part of the argument in his book, as have been many of his worthless op-eds over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/13/books ... wanted=all

[Project Willow]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/confusing-sex-and-rape.html

Confusing Sex and Rape
By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE
Published: November 19, 2011
...

It is common for newspapers to use terms like “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse” and “have sex” when reporting on sex crimes. Perhaps, though, it’s time that The Times and other news organizations take another look at the language they use. Victims’ advocates echo what the readers told me in their e-mails: language in news media reports — and, for that matter, in the court system itself — consistently underplays the brutality of sex crimes and misapplies terms that imply consent.
...

[Simulist]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/confusing-sex-and-rape.html

Confusing Sex and Rape
By ARTHUR S. BRISBANE
Published: November 19, 2011
...

It is common for newspapers to use terms like “sexual assault” and “sexual abuse” and “have sex” when reporting on sex crimes. Perhaps, though, it’s time that The Times and other news organizations take another look at the language they use. Victims’ advocates echo what the readers told me in their e-mails: language in news media reports — and, for that matter, in the court system itself — consistently underplays the brutality of sex crimes and misapplies terms that imply consent.
...

Good.

Sex: Sexual activity where all partners are consenting and competent to consent (children and unconscious adults are just two of the many examples of persons who are not competent to consent).

Rape: Sexual activity where at least one partner doesn't consent, can't consent, is not competent to consent, or is otherwise forcibly coerced. Here's an important tip: consent can be withdrawn at any time!

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

[sunny]

This article is a reach.

I'm certainly no fan of Brook's political perspectives, but it's undeniable that our culture has a moral righteousness that betrays it's true impulses and conduct.

In no way do I think his observations run counter to the need for exposure and prosecution of sex crimes.

Perhaps if there were a handful of crimes against children each year, we could all feel good about ourselves pointing out the villains and calling for their heads. But as long as there are a multitude of victims with fates largely hidden or obscured, it's not inappropriate to consider whether something is deeply amiss in the culture itself.

Remember the mass demonstrations in Belgium over the Dutroux cover-up? Given that it's natural for parents, especially mothers, to react vehemently to threats against our children, the lack of sustained outrage in the US over the victimization of our children is unnatural and, I think, the result of an attitude of compliant victim-hood that is deliberately fostered in the populace by the corporate media.

[Allegro]

.
Not knowing RI's consensus wrt columnist William Bennett, I'm offering his contribution, which introduces NCAA's response to allegations of rape involving retired defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. Among other ideas, Bennett offers a prevailing view of corporate profits in the business of college football. Highlights mine, below.

Penn State, college football's biggest crisis

College football is in a real institutional identity crisis. The range of reactions to the Penn State scandal, from Penn State University itself to the NCAA to the American people, tells us that we don't know what college football is or what it should be.

Penn State University is confused. Mostly, it has reacted strongly and rightly, but it has not cleaned house. Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier and others are gone, but should Mike McQueary stay, and were there others on the Penn State coaching staff who were aware of Jerry Sandusky's alleged actions? And many other questions remain: Why weren't police immediately involved? How did this stay covered up for so long?

The NCAA's response has been little better. NCAA President Mark Emmert released a statement last week, saying, "The NCAA will defer in the immediate term to law enforcement officials since this situation involved alleged crimes. ... To be clear, civil and criminal law will always take precedence over Association rules." While perhaps technically correct, the victims, as well as the college football community, deserve more of a response than this.

The American people are outraged, and rightfully so. It looks like the work of a monster (who still says he is not guilty) destroyed the lives of innocent children. He has forever tarnished the reputation of former and future Penn State students, athletes and coaches. This is the worst scandal in the history of college football. For it not to receive the worst punishment would be unjust.

The college football "death penalty" (the NCAA's punishment that bans a school from participating in a sport for at least a year) has been given to only one football program, ever: Southern Methodist University in the 1987-88 season for numerous NCAA violations involving paying athletes under the table.

SMU's actions pale in comparison with what occurred at Penn State. But under NCAA rules, the criminal actions of a few men are not necessarily NCAA rules violations. The NCAA decides where criminal laws overlap with its rules. And so, from a legal standpoint, it's possible that the Penn State football program will escape with less of a punishment than SMU.

How the NCAA answers these questions may affect the future of college football. As is the case with so many recent college sports scandals, the events at Penn State call into question the effects of big money on the inside workings of college sports. Penn State football is a business -- an enormously profitable one, raking in more than $70 million a year. Joe Paterno's salary alone was about $1 million annually. Penn State profits immensely from the success of its football program on the backs of unpaid amateur athletes. In many of these scandals, the players, often innocent and unprotected, are hurt the most, while the insulated, tight-lipped higher-ups of college boards and athletic programs fall back on their salaries and pensions.

I say this as a longtime fan and admirer of college football, not an opportunistic critic. There are many big-money programs that are scandal free, like the University of Texas, the largest college football revenue generator in the country. Many big programs can navigate ethically because of their moral compasses. Similarly, many coaches and players never have ethical issues, and they should be applauded. But I'm concerned about where the sport is headed.

If college football is truly the amateur athletics wing of educational institutions, then these multimillion-dollar programs should be transparent and accountable. A student's athletic performance should be tied to his academic achievement; tighter age and eligibility restrictions should be implemented.

In another fitting example, Yale quarterback Patrick Witt recently chose to play this Saturday in the Harvard-Yale game rather than attend his Rhodes scholarship interview, which happens to fall on the same day. Witt is free to choose of his liking, but he will forfeit the chance to win a Rhodes scholarship this year. The NCAA has remained silent about this, a clear opportunity to support or help a real student-athlete.

Or college football can go the other way. If the NCAA manages college football like a professional, for-profit enterprise, the players should be treated likewise. While revenues to college football have skyrocketed, benefits to players have not. Players can't work jobs outside of football, but their school can sell their jersey for profits that they never see.

Should these players accept gifts or contributions, the penalties can be more severe than what the NCAA could level on Penn State. Perhaps it's time for an open and honest debate about giving stipends, living expenses and even salaries to college football players. Incentives could be in place that encourage players to follow NCAA guidelines while rewarding them for their performance.

The NCAA's shortcomings are not to blame for the alleged actions of Jerry Sandusky. However, the NCAA system sometimes fosters closed-door, insulated, big-money administrations whose best interest is at times to sweep scandals under the rug and protect its own. It's time for change.

College football should decide what it really is. Is it an amateur undertaking, subordinate to and supportive of education? Or is it a farm system for the professional leagues? Maybe it's time it made up its mind.

[compared2what?]

.
Not knowing RI's consensus wrt columnist William Bennett, I'm offering his contribution, which introduces NCAA's response to allegations of rape involving retired defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. Among other ideas, Bennett offers a prevailing view of corporate profits in the business of college football. Highlights mine, below.

Penn State, college football's biggest crisis

College football is in a real institutional identity crisis. The range of reactions to the Penn State scandal, from Penn State University itself to the NCAA to the American people, tells us that we don't know what college football is or what it should be.

Penn State University is confused. Mostly, it has reacted strongly and rightly, but it has not cleaned house. Joe Paterno, Graham Spanier and others are gone, but should Mike McQueary stay, and were there others on the Penn State coaching staff who were aware of Jerry Sandusky's alleged actions? And many other questions remain: Why weren't police immediately involved? How did this stay covered up for so long?

The NCAA's response has been little better. NCAA President Mark Emmert released a statement last week, saying, "The NCAA will defer in the immediate term to law enforcement officials since this situation involved alleged crimes. ... To be clear, civil and criminal law will always take precedence over Association rules." While perhaps technically correct, the victims, as well as the college football community, deserve more of a response than this.

The American people are outraged, and rightfully so. It looks like the work of a monster (who still says he is not guilty) destroyed the lives of innocent children. He has forever tarnished the reputation of former and future Penn State students, athletes and coaches. This is the worst scandal in the history of college football. For it not to receive the worst punishment would be unjust.

The college football "death penalty" (the NCAA's punishment that bans a school from participating in a sport for at least a year) has been given to only one football program, ever: Southern Methodist University in the 1987-88 season for numerous NCAA violations involving paying athletes under the table.

SMU's actions pale in comparison with what occurred at Penn State. But under NCAA rules, the criminal actions of a few men are not necessarily NCAA rules violations. The NCAA decides where criminal laws overlap with its rules. And so, from a legal standpoint, it's possible that the Penn State football program will escape with less of a punishment than SMU.

Bill Bennett is confused. SMU's actions do indeed pale in comparison with what occurred at Penn State. However: Apples/Oranges, from an NCAA rules perspective. Because SMU's actions were clearly SMU's actions (ie -- they were clearly actions taken as a matter of witting institutional policy by an NCAA member school). Whereas what occurred at Penn State might be more accurately described as...Oh, I don't know. Maybe "the criminal actions of a few men"?

Anyway. Since Bennett's apparently aware enough of that distinction to make it himself, I don't know what kind of justice he thinks would be served by having the NCAA punish Penn State for what occurred there. Personally, I very much hope that every single victim who can sue Penn State does sue Penn State. Into the ground. And you never know. But since I imagine that in reality, courts would accept suits from every single victim he molested subsequent to 2002, as well as every single victim he molested prior to 2002 who was damaged in some way by the knowledge that a predator who'd harmed them was roaming free, that effectively does amount to "every single victim."

Call me crazy, I guess. But I'd rather see people punished for what they actually did than just for the benefit of the general moral outrage of the community.

____________

If I were Reagan's high-stakes-gambling addicted ex-Drug Czar with a habit of saying things like that while it would, of course, be wrong to abort African-American babies, the crime rate would go down if you did, I'd probably be pretty confused too. I do have to admit.

[dbcooper41]

now i''m certain justice will be served.
http://www.wral.com/news/story/10408135/

PSU taps ex-FBI director Freeh for investigation :: WRAL.com

By PATRICK WALTERS, Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA — Former FBI director Louis Freeh, tapped to lead Penn State's
investigation into the child sex-abuse allegations against a former assistant
football coach, said his inquiry will go as far back as 1975, a much longer
period than a grand jury report issued earlier this month.
Freeh was named Monday to oversee the university board of trustees' internal
investigation into the abuse allegations that ultimately led to the ouster of
longtime football coach Joe Paterno and university President Graham Spanier.
Freeh said his goal was to conduct a comprehensive, fair and quick review.
Penn State has faced criticism since announcing that its internal investigation
would be led by two university trustees, Merck pharmaceutical company CEO
Kenneth Frazier and state Education Secretary Ronald Tomalis.
Faculty members on Friday called for an independent investigation of how the
university handled abuse allegations, and the faculty senate endorsed a
resolution asking for an investigation to be led by a committee whose chair has
no links to Penn State.
In announcing Freeh's appointment, Frazier stressed the former FBI director's
independence. Freeh will be empowered to investigate employees up to and
including the board of trustees itself, Frazier said.
"No one is above scrutiny," Frazier said.
Retired Air Force Col. and astronaut Guion Bluford also will be part of the
investigation, Frazier said. Bluford is a 1964 Penn State graduate.
Freeh's investigation firm, Group International Europe, was hired by soccer's
governing body this year to look into the bribery case involving FIFA's
presidential election. FIFA banned candidate Mohamed bin Hammam for life for
bribing voters. The ruling body also banned 11 Caribbean soccer leaders and
disciplined others in the corruption scandal.
Freeh founded Group International Europe after leading the FBI from 1993 to
2001. He previously served six years as a special agent.
Former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky is accused of molesting eight
boys over a 15-year period. Authorities say some assaults happened on campus and
were reported to administrators but not to police.
Amid the scandal, Penn State's trustees ousted Spanier and Paterno. The trustees
said Spanier and Paterno failed to act after a graduate assistant claimed he saw
Sandusky sexually abusing a young boy in a campus shower in 2002.
Paterno, who has the most wins of any major college football coach, has conceded
he should have done more. Spanier has said he would have reported a crime if he
had suspected one had been committed.
Sandusky has said he is innocent. He has acknowledged he showered with boys but
said he never molested them.
Former school administrators Tim Curley and Gary Schultz are charged with not
properly alerting authorities to suspected abuse and with perjury. They maintain
their innocence.

[sw]

Kathleen McChesney, a former FBI head for three decades, was put in charge of the Catholic Church's Office of Youth and Child Protection back when I was fighting the Houston Diocese.

She was supportive of me but she had no power to do much. She looked over my case and advised that she had no power to do anything when the Houston Bishop closed my case as "unable to substanciate." She advised me to appeal the decision to the Vatican. I did appeal twice and heard nothing back. She seemed a little shocked when I described some of the aspects of my panels.

Even if you happen to get a decent individual from the FBI, which is pretty remarkable, they have no power. Sheila Horan was Kathleen's assistant at the OYCP and was also from the FBI. She helped me as well but ultimately could do nothing about the corruption in the church.

[Allegro]

^^^ Thanks for that, sw.
_________________

…But since I imagine that in reality, courts would accept suits from every single victim he molested subsequent to 2002, as well as every single victim he molested prior to 2002 who was damaged in some way by the knowledge that a predator who'd harmed them was roaming free, that effectively does amount to "every single victim."

…But I'd rather see people punished for what they actually did than just for the benefit of the general moral outrage of the community. [REFER.]

YES, to both paragraphs.

After reading your thoughts, a free-minded search gleaned the following article. Every time I read or hear the words “sexual assault” or “scandal” or some such ambiguity, I instead think the words molest or rape, alleged or not within a given context. Thanks to RI, I've been alerted to those distinctions.

Penn State Scandal: Bullying of Alleged Victim Prompts Paterno to Speak Out

The boy who first came forward to accuse former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky of sexual assault has been harassed so intensely that he had to leave high school, prompting ousted coach Joe Paterno to speak out against bullying.

The mother of the alleged victim, who set off the investigation that has rocked the world of college sports and led to 40 counts of child sexual assault against Sandusky, told ABC News that students at her son's high school blame him for triggering the sex abuse scandal that led to the firing of Paterno, the beloved head coach who oversaw the university's Nittany Lions football team for 46 years.

Speaking exclusively with "Good Morning America," the attorney representing Paterno said that the former coach denounces bullying, and called for respect in the name of the school.

"Coach Paterno strongly condemns harassment or bullying of any kind, and he asks anyone who truly cares about Penn State to conduct themselves honorably and with respect for others," attorney J. Sedgwick Sollers told ABC News.

Paterno had previously called for a prayer for the victims of abuse in the wake of the scandal breaking. He hasn't spoken publically since his ouster from the school and is reportedly battling lung cancer.

Psychologist Mike Gillum has been counseling the unnamed young man, who is referred to as Victim 1 in the Sandusky case grand jury report, for the past three years while the case was being investigated. He said that scorn and bullying can be a major concern for victims of abuse.

"It's very scary," Gillum told "GMA" this morning when discussing the state of mind of someone who's come forward after being victimized for years.

"You wonder what kind of push-back or what kind of reaction and how far that reaction might go in terms of people in the community. Will people threaten you? How hostile will things become?" he said.

Victim 1, who according to his testimony was 11 or 12 years old when he was first sexually abused by the 67-year-old former defensive coach, has been accused of changing his story as the case evolved. Sandusky's defense attorney has already publically said he's going to go after the credibility of the boy's story based on the fact that his statements escalated.

But Gillum says that victims of abuse often take time to reveal the full details of what happened.

"The level of humiliation, the level of insight into how deviant what's occurred is, means that they're not going to reveal that until they really feel comfortable," he said. "And that may take months, that might take a year or two."

According to the grand jury report, Victim 1 suffered sexual abuse while he would stay overnight at Sandusky's home, in a bedroom in the coach's finished basement, and at least once in his school gymnasium, where Sandusky would volunteer. The boy originally met Sandusky through The Second Mile program for at-risk youth, which was founded by the coach.

Regardless of the bullying he has experienced at school and the intimidation of facing Sandusky and his defense attorney, the boy is ready to have his day in court.

"He knows what happened … he knows how he was treated," Gillum said. "And he's willing to say that in a court of law without hesitation.

[seemslikeadream]

Report: 2 new cases of child abuse alleged against Sandusky

Pennsylvania newspaper Harrisburg Patriot-News reports that two more child sexual abuse cases have been opened by Child and Youth Services against Jerry Sandusky within the last two months. NBC's Peter Alexander has more.

Officials with The Children and Youth Services in Pennsylvania are investigating two new cases of child abuse alleged against former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, The Patriot News reported Tuesday.

If the new allegations -- reported less than 60 days ago -- are found to be credible, it would the first known cases involving people who are still under the age of 18, the newspaper reported.

The state's Children and Youth Services only investigates reports of abuse if victims are minors. All others are handled by police agencies, according to Pennsylvania law.

Sandusky faces 40 criminal counts accusing him of sexually abusing eight boys beginning in the mid-1990s. Authorities say some assaults happened on Penn State's campus and were reported to administrators but not to police agencies.

Sandusky has maintained his innocence.

Hearing delayed
Also on Tuesday, a judge delayed Sandusky's preliminary hearing in the Centre County Courthouse in Bellefonte, Pa.

The hearing, set for Tuesday, was rescheduled for Dec. 13, according to court records. The change was made “to accommodate the logistical needs involved in the hearing,” a posting on the courthouse website read.

Messages seeking comment from Sandusky’s attorney Joe Amendola and the state attorney general's office weren't immediately returned to msnbc.com or NBC News.

Amendola told ABC's "Good Morning America" on Tuesday that he was worried that there would be new criminal allegations against his client.

"My concern is, if they bring new charges based upon new people coming forward, that bail's going to be set and he's going to wind up in jail," Amendola said.

Sandusky was initially released on $100,000 unsecured bail, which means he didn't have to post collateral to be freed.

Until the preliminary hearing, prosecutors can seek to have bail modified by the district judge, Lehigh County District Attorney Jim Martin told The Associated Press. After that hearing, bail changes would have to be pursued by a county court petition, he said.

Scandal
Meantime, Pennsylvania court officials say all the judges in Penn State's home county have removed themselves from potentially presiding over the child sex-abuse case against Sandusky.

The Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts announced Tuesday that out-of-county judges have been named to deal with any related court business in the Centre County case.

The sex-abuse allegations have stunned Penn State and altered the image of its legendary college football coach, Joe Paterno, who was ousted amid the scandal.

Hearings for Gary Schultz and Tim Curley, the two former Penn State administrators accused of failing to properly report suspected abuse and of perjury before a grand jury, was set for Dec. 6 in the Dauphin County Courthouse in Harrisburg. Both maintain their innocence.

[Simulist]

The boy who first came forward to accuse former Penn State coach Jerry Sandusky of sexual assault has been harassed so intensely that he had to leave high school, prompting ousted coach Joe Paterno to speak out against bullying.

The mother of the alleged victim, who set off the investigation that has rocked the world of college sports and led to 40 counts of child sexual assault against Sandusky, told ABC News that students at her son's high school blame him for triggering the sex abuse scandal that led to the firing of Paterno, the beloved head coach who oversaw the university's Nittany Lions football team for 46 years.

Stupid people piss me off.

The first thing children should be taught is compassion; the second thing children should be taught is karate -- so that when compassion fails, they can beat THE EVER LOVING SHIT out of predators and bullies who pick on them!