The Pedophile File

[justdrew]

The mortgage, dated Nov. 1, 2010, was taken out about eight months before Sandusky's former boss, head coach Joe Paterno, sold his home to his wife in July for $1 - a transaction that Rockwell said could be an effort to protect Paterno's assets from potential civil suits.

I was looking through real estate sales records in the centre county area a couple years ago, and was shocked at the significant percentage of them that were for $1. At the time I assumed it was for purposes of gaming the first time buyer tax credit.

[Jeff]

Just discovered this, and still listening to it.

Nick Bryant, author of The Franklin Scandal, discusses the similarities between Franklin and Penn State.

[bks]

Re: the decision to fold:

In many states liability can be transferred by courts. Investigators can freeze assets [which should happen immediately]. It's not a slam dunk that they escape liability this way, though what the law permits exactly in PA I don't know.

They have at least two aggrieved groups: donors who were lied to or misled, and of course the victims.

As of 2010 the Second Mile lists about $9 million in assets.

[compared2what?]

To the above issue, here is a post on a pro-PSU blog. So with that caveat in place:

If your not following Ben_Jones33 then you really should be. He just posted this to Twitter. This man needs to be hired #HireBenJones.

The Rumore mill says that the grand jury terstimony shows that 3 days after McQueary talked with Curley and Schultz, Paterno followed up and was told a full investigation was underway to investigate these matters. Not hearing anything, 3 months later, Paterno followed up and was told that the police and the DA were not going to pursue the matter. It is reported that Paterno's reaction was one of anger and that he demanded that Sandusky be barred from campus/ Paterno was told that he did not have that authority, since he was only a football coach. Paterno then said that he was going to bar Sandusky from the football facility and was told he did have the authority. (4th hand from the AG office, take it for what it is worth.[/i]

It makes perfect sense to me that he followed up three days after McQueary talked with Curley and Shultz, then a second time three months after that. But the rest of it is somewhere between "extremely difficult to credit" and "flatly not credible." So. Just to limit it to the lowest-hanging fruit:

* Paterno could easily have kept Sandusky from coming anywhere near any/all of Penn State's football facilities without the assistance of Penn State administrators. He ran those joints absolutely and had absolute power over them. We know this both because every single person in a position to know who's spoken to the issue has agreed that it was the case. And we have little reason to doubt it, knowing -- as we do -- that institutions tend to let the guy on whose unique capabilities they've been relying for tens of millions of dollars in revenues since time immemorial have his way within reasonable parameters (such as running his own shop however he feels like running it) as well as beyond them (such as...).

* There is no universe, galaxy or dimension in which a Penn State official would ever have told Joe Paterno that he was "just a football coach." Because he was not just a football coach. FFS. He was a guy whose unique capabilities had brought Penn State tens of millions of dollars in revenues since time immemorial.

I mean, bks, consider this, from a longer essay by a Penn State alum who characterizes Curley's relationship to Paterno as "Haldeman/Nixon":

In the late spring of 2004, Curley arrived at the home of Paterno, along with Spanier, in an attempt to persuade Paterno to retire, or at least formulate an exit plan. Paterno all but chased them out his door - no other coach would have that kind of power. From that moment on, Curley became persona non grata with Paterno, a man Curley had looked to as a second father. Is it possible that Curley's noncompliance with the Jerry Sandusky affair was a perverse way of making it up to his beloved JoePa?

Personally, I think that last line goes too far, in that there's no need to wonder whether Curley's lack of action was due to his wish to win back Paterno's affection, when he had a perfectly good institutional/pecuniary motive of his own. In fact, strictly speaking, since I wouldn't actually hang my hat on any part of anybody's psycho-dramatic speculation about any events they weren't party to, there's really only one point in there that I consider worth keeping in mind. But there is one, and it's this:

Joe Paterno had so much more power than both his ostensible boss and the president of the university that they had to go to his house together, in person, in order to attempt unsuccessfully to persuade him to retire.

That's not normal, bks. Football coaches who are really subject to the authority of others get fired by those authorities, sometimes out of not much more than authoritative whim. University presidents don't make house calls when they want to see their key faculty or administrative staff. They have offices to which they can summon people. As well as secretaries, to do the actual summoning. And so on and so forth.

Admittedly, "Curley and Spanier went to Paterno's place to ask him to retire in 2004" is just one widely reported and generally accepted story among many. But I have yet to see as much as one single detail that credibly suggests Joe Paterno considered himself to be answerable to anybody on earth or in heaven, or that he had any reason to do so. And I see many that suggest he had as much personal power over most (maybe all) of the people he regularly encountered as it's possible for any one person to have, not excluding some (though not all) cult-leaders and despotic heads-of-state.

I mean, just about everything suggests that, afaic. All roads lead to it. For example: How long was Sandusky there again? And how many decent head-coach jobs did he turn down during that time?

All of their CVs are like that, too, it wasn't just Sandusky. And that shit's not normal. Ever. It's just not always super-sick.
___________________

So. I don't know. Almost all of that is just my opinion, which has zero real transactional value wrt determinng what really is or isn't true. That whole post about Paterno totally, absolutely could be nothing but the truth, for all I do really and truly know.

It's not like I was there. After all.

[Avalon]

Ira Glass's This American Life radio program discussed Penn State, football, and a pervasive culture of alcohol abuse there. The current Sandusky problem is discussed, and some background is provided from a 2009 program on the school that they did.

While the current program is not available online yet, you can probably hear it online tomorrow (Saturday Nov.19, 4 PM Eastern) via public radio station WAMC at wamc.org .

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... penn-state

[bks]

Listening to Nick's interview, if all this is as it seems, I'm struck by the irony of the Paterno legend.

Near the end of the interview, the host did a good job relaying the attitude that the average person not disposed for or against Penn State will bring to this: namely, in light of the fact that the DA declined to prosecute in 1998, what do you want a university [and Paterno] to do to Sandusky?

In other words the host seemed to be saying: Sandusky retired in 1999, a year after the 1998 allegations. He clearly was forced out in some fashion, probably by Paterno, probably with some sort of deal cut. In 2002, if in fact Paterno followed up McQueary's charges as is rumored, and was told by Curley that the DA wasn't interested in pressing charges ONCE AGAIN, what could Paterno have done?

The answer is of course simple, and I wish Nick had said it: All Paterno had to do was call a press conference with McQueary by his side, the former player and current coach WHO EYEWITNESSED SANDUSKY RAPING A CHILD IN PATERNO'S OWN FACILITY, and simply tell the story. Tell the public about the unwillingness of the police to go forward despite the 1998 report and the 2002 incident (not to mention the 2000 incident). Talk about the moral imperative to bring this to the world's attention so that not one more child is harmed. Give the police an out, explaining that you understand knowing someone is guilty and being able to prove it are different things, but that private citizens cannot stand by when they see evil being done, and tell everyone that he, Joe Paterno, cannot stand by. And then point into the camera and DARE Sandusky to bring a civil case against him for defamation if any of this isn't true.

People would have stood up and cheered. Victims would have come out of the woodwork to lend credence to McQueary's claims. The papers would have been filled with statements of incredible gratitude from parents praising this wonderfully brave man, coach Paterno. And Sandusky would have done his 'Why-me?' act, pretending to wonder where all this was coming from, swearing it was all a mistake, but he wouldn't have moved a muscle against Paterno. What would have happened is that Paterno, by his bravery, would have shamed the police into a deeper investigation. And all of what's coming out now (and more) would have come out then (minus the crimes from the last eight years)

That's the irony: Paterno, in 2002 and at age 75 in the late autumn of his life, had a chance to become the man he was widely and erroneously believed to be by the public. He had all the power that is ascribed to him in State College. He literally had a moment to cement for himself an image in the eyes of a nation that he did not to that point deserve, but nevertheless enjoyed. If he failed, he would leave himself open to being discovered NOT to be that man for the rest of his life. All he had to do, then, in that crucial moment, was be brave.

But he isn't that man, and so he couldn't possibly show that bravery. In the end, it seems he's shown himself to be the errand-boy-turned-company man his detractors said he was. Joe the Rat: a man willing to squeal on anybody, except when to do so actually required courage.

[bks]

Just saw your post now, c2w?. Was listening to Nick Bryant and then composing the post above.

Maybe I wasn't being clear enough: I accept Paterno always had the power, of course. Of course. But a person with that power using it judiciously is fine, too. Nothing wrong with going through channels, letting the "bosses" do their jobs. So long as they do them.

The issue comes when they don't do their jobs. That's when those with the real power have to show it, and Paterno had the power to show it, of course. Of course.

And he didn't, because of what he is. That's a least how it looks to me now.

[compared2what?]

Re: the decision to fold:

In many states liability can be transferred by courts. Investigators can freeze assets [which should happen immediately]. It's not a slam dunk that they escape liability this way, though what the law permits exactly in PA I don't know.

They have at least two aggrieved groups: donors who were lied to or misled, and of course the victims.

As of 2010 the Second Mile lists about $9 million in assets.

Courts can do that when there's already been a finding of liability, and sometimes also when there's an action that might establish liability either pending or in-progress. But (to the best of my knowledge) it can't be done merely on the off-chance that at some point someone's going to sue for damages, even if someone notifies the court that they intend to do exactly that.

There would have to be a complaint filed and summons served on the defendant before there could be a motion to freeze his/their/its assets, at the absolute bare-bones minimum. I think. You definitely can't do that little everywhere, and I'm not totally sure you can do it anywhere. But you might be able to do it in the state of New York. Or you might have to wait until the respondent had either, um...well, responded or failed to do so within the allotted time period.

Whatever the case, it can't be done lickety-split. It takes a little time and effort to show cause. Because, you know. Otherwise, we could all go out and file frivolous lawsuits right now.

Hence the implication that attaches to The Second Mile's having decided to fold about five minutes after it retained counsel. As a matter of fact. They're probably in the clear for civil litigation until the related criminal matters have been settled. But you never know. So better safe than. Et cetera.
__________________

^^

I'm not an expert in civil procedure, which is both very complicated and somewhat variable on a state-by-state basis. But I'm pretty sure you can't freeze someone's assets without showing quite a bit of cause.

Unless you're a federal agency charged with keeping America safe from the terrorist menace, in which case you just have to paste a phone directory on the wall, throw darts at it, and (maybe) inform the FISA court that you're going to freeze the assets of whoever's name you hit before -- Hey! Presto! -- you're good to go.

Of course.

[bks]

Ira Glass's This American Life radio program discussed Penn State, football, and a pervasive culture of alcohol abuse there. The current Sandusky problem is discussed, and some background is provided from a 2009 program on the school that they did.

While the current program is not available online yet, you can probably hear it online tomorrow (Saturday Nov.19, 4 PM Eastern) via public radio station WAMC at wamc.org .

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-a ... penn-state

Anyone with "power" who had knowledge of the "Sandusky problem" prior to it breaking, and who didn't use that power to expose it, deserves similar treatment from history to that which Paterno seems presently destined to receive.

Having said that, I do think that if he followed it up as is rumored, then that may have been sufficient to allow him to keep his job. It just wouldn't have been sufficient for him to be considered a decent human being, and it CERTAINLY wouldn't have been sufficient for him to be considered JoePa anymore, the patron saint of Center County.

He had the power single-handledly to bring this out into the light and stop it, more power than even the DA, apparently. And he didn't. That's his cross to bear.

I'm not saying Ira Glass or anyone on his show did, only that if they or others did, they had right to come forward before in a responsible way.

[compared2what?]

The mortgage, dated Nov. 1, 2010, was taken out about eight months before Sandusky's former boss, head coach Joe Paterno, sold his home to his wife in July for $1 - a transaction that Rockwell said could be an effort to protect Paterno's assets from potential civil suits.

I was looking through real estate sales records in the centre county area a couple years ago, and was shocked at the significant percentage of them that were for $1. At the time I assumed it was for purposes of gaming the first time buyer tax credit.

You can't game it that way, the property transfer record includes its estimated value for tax purposes. That's usually lower than its real-market value. But it wouldn't be as low as $1 unless the property's real-market value was, like, $5.

Or....I guess I really mean: "You shouldn't game it that way." Someone probably could, if he or she was lucky enough not to get caught within the statute of limitations.

You'd be better off gaming it in some way for which you could offer a plausible defense if you got hauled into tax court, though. IMO. Not that I'm advising it. I should hasten to add. In fact:

Don't game the tax system! It would be wrong!

That's what I really, really meant.

[justdrew]

The mortgage, dated Nov. 1, 2010, was taken out about eight months before Sandusky's former boss, head coach Joe Paterno, sold his home to his wife in July for $1 - a transaction that Rockwell said could be an effort to protect Paterno's assets from potential civil suits.

I was looking through real estate sales records in the centre county area a couple years ago, and was shocked at the significant percentage of them that were for $1. At the time I assumed it was for purposes of gaming the first time buyer tax credit.

You can't game it that way, the property transfer record includes its estimated value for tax purposes. That's usually lower than its real-market value. But it wouldn't be as low as $1 unless the property's real-market value was, like, $5.

Or....I guess I really mean: "You shouldn't game it that way." Someone probably could, if he or she was lucky enough not to get caught within the statute of limitations.

You'd be better off gaming it in some way for which you could offer a plausible defense if you got hauled into tax court, though. IMO. Not that I'm advising it. I should hasten to add. In fact:

Don't game the tax system! It would be wrong!

That's what I really, really meant.

then maybe it's just people passing their houses around (in their families I guess)?

on edit: I was thinking of the one time, "stimulus" deal they had going for a time, where they'd give you 4 or 5 thousand to buy a house. Sure, they'd likely still have to pay tax on the sale at assessed value, but many of the houses may have low valuations, and anyway, the tax paid to the state on this is a write off on the federal tax isn't it?

[bks]

You can't game it that way, the property transfer record includes its estimated value for tax purposes. That's usually lower than its real-market value. But it wouldn't be as low as $1 unless the property's real-market value was, like, $5.

Or....I guess I really mean: "You shouldn't game it that way." Someone probably could, if he or she was lucky enough not to get caught within the statute of limitations.

You'd be better off gaming it in some way for which you could offer a plausible defense if you got hauled into tax court, though. IMO. Not that I'm advising it. I should hasten to add. In fact:

Don't game the tax system! It would be wrong!

That's what I really, really meant.

True story from 2009 in Pennsylvania, where I live: I bought a car for $2K, with a significantly higher blue book value (abut $5500). I got the discount (from a complete stranger) because the car had a great number of little-to-medium-sized things wrong with it. It's been a problem ever since, btw. Wasn't worth having, even at the reduced rate.

Anyway, last year I get a notice form the state saying I owe the state about $250 for underpayment of sales tax, given the car's estimated value. The state, of course, has no fucking idea what the car was actually worth when I bought it. They sent no inspector to look at the car. They go by the book.

I called to complain, which I wouldn't usually do. I was told they would waive the fee if i could produce confirmation from the seller that in fact the car was sold to me for the price noted on the bill of sale.

I said something to the effect of, "Isn;t that what notaries are for? Why did we go to a notary to complete the sale if not to certify things for the state?"

I was told that despite the notarized bill of sale, I needed a letter from the seller to confirm the discount (and perhaps the reason for it? Though I'm not sure about that). I kid you not. The seller could have been dead, moved to another state, changed her email, anything. The state assumed i could contact her as if she were my sister or something.

I didn't pay them the money in a timely fashion, so it was taken from my federal tax refund and delivered to the state. Really.

So yeah, the enforcement climate for these sorts of things has way changed.

[Project Willow]

Ira Glass's This American Life radio program discussed Penn State, football, and a pervasive culture of alcohol abuse there.

Ira Glass has never been a friend to abuse survivors. He went out of his way to humiliate us during the height of the backlash. His is another voice I can't stand to hear.

[Peachtree Pam]

http://www.yardbird.com/DA_seeks_FBI_pr ... ractor.htm

True stories from the case files of A Town Gone Bad

Pennsylvania DA Tom Kearney asks FBI to investigate Corbett administration security contractor with ties to pedophile sex ring


An aspect of the growing courthouse child sex and prostitution scandal was covered-up and protected by then-Attorney General Tom Corbett

Corbett contractor Russ Wantz has close ties to courthouse pedophile ring

Three York County PA judges - Renn, Linebaugh, and Musti Cook - concealed complaints of courthouse pedophile ring involving Wantz and Attorney Larry Heim



November 16, 2011 -- District Attorney Tom Kearney, of York County, PA, has asked the Federal Bureau of Investigation to investigate longstanding allegations that Corbett Administration security provider Russell Wantz, Jr. has ongoing close ties to a prostitution and pedophile ring centered in and around the York County courthouse.

Sex offender Wantz, of York County, was arrested in a Craigslist sting in December 2007, by Swatara Township police. In 2009, Wantz was granted an ARD by Dauphin County District Attorney Ed Marsico. At the time Marsico refused to investigate Wantz further.

Wantz is the owner of the Schaad Detective Agency of York. Schaad holds multi-million dollar security contracts with the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett. Schaad guards sensitive state complexes such as the PennDot headquarters in Harrisburg.

Among the allegations reviewed by DA Kearney and his county detectives are complaints that Wantz's campaign manager and lawyer, Larry "L.C." Heim, also of York, openly displayed to several clients photos of a young girl whom Heim openly boasts he'd bought for sex.

One former client of Heim's has even voiced his concerns on a Youtube video that Attorney Heim, while leaving a Liquor Control Board hearing, openly displayed photos of a young girl who Heim said he bought for sexual purposes. Three of Heim's cleints so far have come forward to say lawyer Heim showed them the photo of his sex victim. "Larry must've shown that photo to half the town," one client says.

In his formal request for the FBI to investigate state security contractor Wantz, DA Kearney notes that his office has a conflict of interest prosecuting members the well-protected York County courthouse prostitution and pedophile ring. "I would have a clear conflict of interest in any prosecution," Kearney writes.

An aspect of the growing courthouse sex scandal was covered-up and protected by then-Attorney General Tom Corbett.

Attorney General Corbett refused to investigate related complaints filed in 2005 by Chief County Detective Becky Downing in a federal lawsuit. In court papers Downing complained that York courthouse personnel used a state police forensic evidence computer to view child pornography.

In a sworn deposition for the lawsuit, York County Detective Jeffrey Martz was asked, "Was there an incident where (a law enforcement official working for the district attorney's office) improperly accessed a child porn website from the PSP (Pennsylvania State Police) in your office? Do you remember that?"

"Yes," Det. Martz replies. "I conduct forensic examinations on computers through my investigations, as well as other county departments. I am assigned a laptop computer issued to me by the Pennsylvania State Police Computer Crime Unit. That particular laptop is used strictly for forensic analysis.

"I recall Detective Millsaps asking me to go into my office to 'use the computer,' is how he expressed it, to later find out that he, as well as the information service representative, loaded the internet onto my forensic laptop and there was pornography observed."

AG Corbett's office repeatedly refused to prosecute, or even to investigate, those involved -- some have close political ties to his office. Corbett, now the governor of Pennsylvania, is also currently enmeshed in another institutional pedophile scandal involving former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky.

In February 2005, AG Tom Corbett's office ridiculed anyone suspecting Corbett was unwilling to investigate Chief Downing's complaints.

"The attorney general's office and Tom Corbett are fully capable of conducting an independent investigation into the allegations that are detailed in the civil suit and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous and disingenuous," Corbett's PR flack, Kevin Harley, told the York Daily Record on February 26, 2005.

AG Tom Corbett's office waited a year, until February 2006, to publicly announce that Chief Downing's allegations were "unfounded."

Wantz's attorney, York Attorney Larry Heim, for his part openly brags to clients and others that he engages in sexual activity with under aged minors. Heim says that he and the others in the not-too-secret courthouse pedophile ring are effectively protected by the involvement of York County judges, as well AG Corbett's refusal to investigate. One of Heim's clients says that Heim boasted that his law firm had funneled legal work to one of the county judges before she got on the bench, and that gifts of Havana cigars have been purchased for judges to "look the other way."

Attorney Heim claims York County District Court President Judge Stephen Linebaugh, former President Judge Richard K. Renn, and Judge Maria Musti Cook protect the courthouse pedophile and prostitution ring. Heim's law partner, Robert Katherman, chaired Judge Cook's campaign for county judge.

When informed of Heim's statements, judges Linebaugh, Renn and Cook threatened court retaliation against any who would report the growing courthouse pedophile ring scandal. None of the three York judges reported to law enforcement the allegations they'd repeatedly heard of the courthouse child sex ring.

DA Kearney told the FBI that concerned citizens and even high-ranking law enforcement officials in York County are helpless to stop the well-placed courthouse pedophile and prostitution ring. DA Kearney in his letter asked the FBI to "review and follow-up."

"I note that both (former York City controller) James Sneddon and former York City Police Chief Herb Grofcsik both confirmed in recorded interviews that information ... was forwarded to ... Federal authorities although it is unclear what became of that investigation," Kearney wrote in a letter sent to the FBI.

Former York Police Commissioner Grofcsik, now with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, said in a sworn statement that he feared the local FBI office in Harrisburg would not investigate the courthouse sex ring due to its close ties with the York DA's office, where Wantz is also a contractor with the county drug task force, with close ties to state and federal law enforcement figures. Grofcsik asked another federal law enforcement agency to investigate Wantz, and others, with close tie to the York courthouse. That investigation, Grofcsik said he feared, got "File 13."

Wantz unsuccessfully ran for public office this spring. He lost a primary election bid for Springettsbury Township, York County, supervisor. Attorney Heim, who admits to clients that he enjoys sex with minors, is listed in campaign records as Wantz's campaign chairman.

Another detailed account of corruption in York county:
http://www.yardbird.com/a_town_gone_bad ... e_fall.htm

Don't find any more background on the pedophile aspect or Corbett's role as AG.

[seemslikeadream]

The Penn State Child Sex Abuse Scandal & the Desperation of David Brooks
Frederick Clarkson
Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:04:14 PM EST
Neoconservative New York Times columnist David Brooks recently illuminated an important dimension of the neo-conservative alliance with the Religious Right. His column about the Penn State sex abuse scandal suggests a gnawing sense of desperation in light of a certain bitter truth: The same lack of accountability and abuse of authority in the Catholic Church exposed by the priest sex abuse scandal is also being exposed in the iconic football program at Penn State, and it is natural and inevitable to make this comparison. This bodes poorly for the neocons and their Religious Right allies.

Therefore Brooks, in his desperation, wants to direct our attention elsewhere.

Brooks claims, without any evidence to justify his hyperbole, that "a zillion commentators" have engaged in "vanity" because they are outraged about the alleged child rape, serial sex abuse and cover-up at Penn State. He claimed, again with no specifics, that this mass "indignation is based on the assumption that if they had been in Joe Paterno's shoes, or assistant coach Mike McQueary's shoes, they would have behaved better. They would have taken action and stopped any sexual assaults."

"Unfortunately," Brooks continued, "none of us can safely make that assumption. Over the course of history -- during the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide or the street beatings that happen in American neighborhoods -- the same pattern has emerged. Many people do not intervene. Very often they see but they don't see."

Its certainly true that people often turn a blind eye to atrocities large and small. And Brooks goes on to cite social science research that seeks to explain such phenomena. But he uses theses finding to broad-brush all media outrage about the Penn State scandal as therefore inherently "naive."

But really now.

Is Brooks actually outraged because media commentators are outraged? Me thinks he doth protest too much. There is something else going on here that I think throws open a window onto what Brooks does not want us to see: How society has responded to the child sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church is a far more relevant analogy to the Penn State situation than the world's inaction in response to the genocide in Rwanda. The widespread sex abuse and child rape by Catholic priests and the cover-ups by the hierarchy is one of the great moral scandals in the Western world in recent decades. One consequence is that this situation has made it difficult for the Catholic neo-conservatives who have politically aligned themselves with the Religious Right to wield the moral authority of a Church engulfed in an historic meltdown from which it may never recover. (Even if the Church somehow manages to regain its footing on economic justice, it may already be too late.) The emphasis on authority, obedience, and orthodoxy emphasized by the Catholic Right and neo-conservatism as the foundation of society is undermined when the moral authority of foundational institutions are so seriously undermined that few are able to take them seriously.

Even Brooks' diversionary army of strawmen cannot decouple the child sex abuse scandals at Penn State and in the Catholic Church. People generally, even Brooks' most loyal readers can see that the real issue remains the permission these institutions and their leaders gave themselves to tolerate heinous crimes. That being so, Brooks not only attempts to divert our attention from the crimes, the criminals, and the institutions that gave them succor. He tries to shift the blame, and in so doing waxes nostalgic for moral systems of centuries past including -- I kid you not -- the Puritans!

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.

And there you have it. The real problem is the hippies who have led us all to think that some "outside force... like the culture of college football or some other favorite bogey" is to blame, and not our inner darkness, the inevitability of our fallen nature that needs to be restrained by ancient moral codes and institutions that know better than the rest of us ( certainly better than the hippies on TV.) Therefore, according to Brooks, those of us who look to change the laws so that they are less likely to be evaded and more likely to be enforced against child rapists and their enablers are "naive" and indulging our "inner wonderfulness."

This is a dimension of the so-called culture war that merits more and not less attention. The conservative, authoritarian culture of elements of the Catholic Church and of college sports stands exposed as so protective of their own power and prerogatives, that that they will tolerate and protect one of their own against accountability for sex crimes against children whose care has been entrusted to them. There is hardly a better expression of illegitimate power and authority than the ability of certain elites to hold themselves above and exempt from the moral standards and the laws that apply to the rest of us.