The Pedophile File

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby bks » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:09 am

In the email, first obtained and reported Tuesday by The Morning Call of Allentown, Pa., McQueary said he "did have discussions with police and with the official at the university in charge of police" after the alleged incident.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/sto ... ource-says


The clear implication is that they were separate contacts. The head of police, Schultz, has been charged in the case.

PW wrote:

Another athlete/commentator pointed out that Sandusky was McQueary's superior and on top of that, carried the mystique of those especial superiors in the most vaulted program of football programs.


Someone made a similarly astute point to me that it's very different when you walk in on someone you regard as an authority doing what McQueary says he saw Sandusky do, than it is when you happen onto a complete stranger doing it. It certainly complicates the emotions one would feel and perhaps, therefore, the response.

Having said that, it may be important to remember that Sandusky was not officially McQueary's superior. He had been fired three years before and had no official power over McQueary at the time (as far as we know). Still, the point about mystique probably holds. The guy was a revered coach on the team when McQueary was a player. That doesn't go away entirely.
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Project Willow » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:19 am

^ Thanks for the technical correction, but I would say the authority aspect played far less a role proportionally than the other psychological one I described in my post.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Project Willow » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:29 am

http://www.whyy.org/91FM/voices.html

Alleged incidents of child sexual abuse brought to light at Penn State are disturbing. University stakeholders have been ousted. The campus remains a live wire of anger and confusion. As our hearts go out to children and families who have come forward with their stories, we find ourselves wondering, why did so many people fail to report what they saw or heard about?

On the next Voices in the Family with Dan Gottlieb: why the cultural hesitation and denial in sexual abuse cases, in general, when the well-being of children is at stake? We'll take a look at the psychology of institutional betrayal as well as prevention of abuse with Jennifer J. Freyd, Michael Stinson, Ken Singer, and Kelly Moore.

Jennifer J. Freyd is a Professor of Psychology at the University of Oregon. She has published extensively on topics that include child abuse, memory, and mental health, as well as ethical issues related to trauma research and conceptualizations. Her current research includes investigation of the impact of institutional betrayal. She is finishing a new book called Betrayal, co-written with Pamela J. Birrell.

Michael Stinson is the Director of Prevention Services at The Joseph J. Peters Institute in Philadelphia. He develops community education programs to address the prevention of child sexual abuse. He sits on the Sexual Assault Advisory Committee for the City of Philadelphia and represents JJPI on the Law Enforcement Child Abuse Project (LECAP).

Ken Singer, MSW, treats perpetrators and victims of childhood sexual abuse. He's written Evicting the Perpetrator: A Male Survivor Guide to Recovery from Childhood Sexual Abuse. He's executive director and past-president of NJ ATSA (Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers).

Kelly Moore has written When Men Are Cowards: Sex, Crime and Cover-Up at Penn State College Football for the Huffington Post.



Betrayal Blindness and Institutional Betrayal
Jennifer J. Freyd, Department of Psychology, University of Oregon
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/~jjf/institutionalbetrayal/index.html
What is Betrayal Blindness?

Betrayal blindness is the unawareness, not-knowing, and forgetting exhibited by people towards betrayal. The term "betrayal blindness" was introduced by Freyd (1996), and expanded in Freyd (1999) in the context of Betrayal Trauma Theory. This blindness may extend to betrayals that are not traditionally considered "traumas," such as adultery, inequities in the workplace and society, etc. Victims, perpetrators, and witnesses may display betrayal blindness in order to preserve relationships, institutions, and social systems upon which they depend. (Also, see Eileen Zurbriggen's essay on Betrayal Trauma in the 2004 Election.)
What is Institutional Betrayal?

The term "Institutional Betrayal" refers to wrongdoings perpetrated by an institution upon individuals dependent on that institution, including failure to prevent or respond supportively to wrongdoings by individuals (e.g. sexual assault) committed within the context of the institution. The term "Institutional Betrayal" as connected with Betrayal Trauma Theory is discussed in more detail in various publications, including in a section starting on page 201 of Platt, Barton, & Freyd (2009) and in recent conference posters by Smith & Freyd (2011a; 2011b) and by Medrano, Martin, and Freyd (2011).
Research Findings and Measurement Instrument: Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire (IBQ)

Carly Smith and Jennifer Freyd have been developing the Institutional Betrayal Questionnaire (IBQ) to measure institutional betrayal regarding sexual assault. The IBQ is designed to measure institutional betrayal that occurs leading up to or following a sexual assault (e.g., [The institution] "... created an environment where sexual assault seemed like no big deal"; "... responded inadequately to reports of sexual assault"). The IBQ also measures identification with the institution and prompts for a description of the institution involved. The IBQ and links to preliminary findings can be found here.
User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Allegro » Wed Nov 16, 2011 1:00 am

.
— highlights and links mine. ~A.

Spanier Departs U.S. Steel Board
— Company CEO Serves as Penn State Board Official
UPDATED @ 3:33 p.m. Nov. 15, StateCollege.com, Adam Smeltz wrote:Spanier's resignation from the U.S. Steel board was voluntary, StateCollege.com has learned. The report below has been updated to reflect that.

----------

Former Penn State President Graham Spanier, who departed his university presidency last week, has now resigned as a board member of U.S. Steel Corp., a company representative confirmed.

The representative, spokeswoman Courtney Boone, said she could provide no further comment Tuesday afternoon.

But according to a source with direct knowledge, the resignation was voluntary.

U.S. Steel Chairman and CEO John Surma is also vice chairman of the Penn State Board of Trustees. Surma announced Wednesday that the Penn State board and Spanier together had decided that Spanier would step down as university president.

Surma also announced that the university had removed Joe Paterno as Penn State's head football coach.

A message sent to Spanier was not immediately answered Tuesday afternoon. Records posted by Forbes.com show that Spanier served as a U.S. Steel board member since 2008.

As a company board member, Spanier received from U.S. Steel compensation of $270,980 in 2008, $171,000 in 2009, and $191,000 in 2010, according to Forbes.com.

The Centre Daily Times first reported on its website the departure of Spanier from the U.S. Steel board. Spanier remains a tenured faculty member at Penn State.
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Allegro » Wed Nov 16, 2011 2:23 am

.
PSU trustees hire Ketchum public relations firm
Modified: 5:48pm on Nov 15, 2011, Centredaily.com wrote:Penn State’s board of trustees has hired a multinational public relations agency to help manage communications in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal, according to Advertising Age.

That publication reports that the university hired Omnicom Group agency Ketchum effective Nov. 6.

The company helped with the trustees’ Nov. 8 press conference, according to the report. That is when trustees Vice Chairman John Surma announced that Joe Paterno and Graham Spanier were being fired.
— link mine.
Art will be the last bastion when all else fades away.
~ Timothy White (b 1952), American rock music journalist
_________________
User avatar
Allegro
 
Posts: 4456
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:44 pm
Location: just right of Orion
Blog: View Blog (144)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby bks » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:55 am

Thanks for that info on the extensions of Freyd's work into institutional forms of betrayal, PW. NPR listeners [which carries WHYY programming in Philly] would do well to take it to heart.

Lies in a Time of Threat:
Betrayal Blindness and the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election
Eileen L. Zurbriggen∗
University of California, Santa Cruz

Some of the most perplexing exit polls from the 2004 U.S. presidential election indicated overwhelming support for President Bush among voters who said they valued honesty, even though the Bush administration had been sharply criticized for deceiving the public, especially concerning the reasons for invading Iraq. A psychological theory recently developed to help explain memory loss in trauma survivors sheds light on this paradox. Betrayal Trauma Theory states that memory impairment is greatest when a victim is dependent on the perpetrator. The theory also predicts who will be “blind” to signs of deception—those who are emotionally or financially dependent on the person who is lying. Although every American is dependent on the U.S. President to some extent, religious conservatives may be more psychologically dependent than others. Because they believe their core values are under attack, they depend on powerful leaders such as President Bush to defend these values. This psychological dependence may make it difficult for them to notice the administration’s deceptions.

snip

Furthermore, nothing in the present analysis is meant to imply that there are differences in basic psychological processes across political group or ideology. A fundamentalist Christian from Kansas is no more or less susceptible to betrayal blindness than is a liberal feminist Manhattanite. According to BTT, both individuals will be unlikely to notice and remember the lies of a politician on whom they feel dependent. . .

snip


bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby compared2what? » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:16 am

jingofever wrote:
Simulist wrote:I don't know, Jingo. My guess would be that McQueary has been shaken of late by the rightfully intense scrutiny of his actions that evening — and outright revulsion concerning his failure to act — and he's "enhancing" his story in response.

Of course maybe it's also possible that McQueary's entire account has not yet been fully represented in the written material we've read, and he's highlighting some facts the absence of which he feels have mislead people into believing things about him that aren't fully true.

The problem for McQueary is that the grand jury report explicitly says he did not talk to police. And the grand jury thought McQueary was more credible than the two Penn State officials who are being prosecuted. I understand McQueary was going to play a large part in the prosecution's case.


I've read that too. Saw him described as their "star witness," iirc. But I just now realized that the media has to be calling him that pretty much mindlessly wrt the case against Sandusky. Because prosecutors can't possibly have been counting on convicting him of abusing an-apparently-ten-year-old-child-they-can't-locate-or-identify-but-take-Mike-McQueary's-word-for-it. Right? The cases against Curley and Schultz, on the other hand, are almost totally reliant on McQueary's testimony. So those may have just gotten somewhat less robust.

Speaking of which...?

Or maybe not. But fwiw, my guess would be that they already knew -- and always have known, from the get -- that McQueary's testimony against Curley and Schultz might be impeachable, due to the huge gaping lie-of-ommission represented by his failure to implicate (and their failure to indict) Paterno. It kind of begs for attention. He's a very scary guy, if you ask me, that Joe Paterno.

Now he probably won't which considerably weakens any case against Sandusky. So either he lied to the grand jury which probably puts him in trouble and destroys his credibility or in trying to enhance his public image he threw away his credibility. Is he so stupid to make up a statement to the police when they should have it in their files? Is he so stupid to lie to a grand jury and then casually point that out?


That crisis-control press-release disingenuous email is ambiguously worded in an awfully convenient way.

I mean, who would say "I had discussions with police" when what he/she meant was "I filed a police report" (or "I went to the police" or "I did call the police that night" or whatever)? It's an inherently and unnaturally vague locution, under the circumstances. And yet (!!!!) it's really the only detail in what he wrote that he's going to have to come up with some instance or other of having done something like at some point in the last nine years. Because "[I] made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room" can be construed to mean "I did what I testified to doing and now it has stopped, for which I foolishly congratulate myself" without too much trouble. And the rest of it isn't in question.

So he hasn't been conventionally stupid, I'd say. And if his actions were at all influenced by, for instance, the perceived need to protect his future professional prospects, he may yet turn out to have been conventionally "smart."

I guess. It still wouldn't be my idea of how to live right, though. That's for sure.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby bks » Wed Nov 16, 2011 9:59 am

I'm going to be cautious before drawing too many conclusions from the vague locutions of this one or that one.

c2w wrote:
The cases against Curley and Schultz, on the other hand, are almost totally reliant on McQueary's testimony. So those may have just gotten somewhat less robust.


Seems so, but the grand jury presentment was as clear as it could be. They found Mike McQueary extremely credible, and Schultz and Curley considerably not-so. What did they find McQueary to be extremely credible about? His testimony to them that he witnessed Sandusky raping a young child and told this to Curley and Schultz in no uncertain terms.

If McQueary is a coward, and I'm not saying he is or isn't, how do we explain a coward making something like this up? Why? All it does is make potential problems for him. Does a coward make something like this up and then claim to a grand jury with the power to indict him for perjury or worse, that he repeated the story to his coach, who happens to be the most powerful public man in that part of the state? Again, why? And if he's not a coward, why make it up then? No reason I can think of. Only makes problems again.

The most reasonable explanation for his GJ testimony is: McQueary saw rape. After consulting with his father [and either intervening or not - I have no opinion on that part of this], he reported that rape to Paterno, and then also to Curley and Schultz. Could Paterno have convinced him to fudge the details in his telling of the story to Paterno's superiors? Not at all hard to believe. Would McQueary have done that? I can't know at this point.

Anyway, Schultz and Curley very, very likely knew about the 1998 report as well. Whether or not they did, the fact of it makes McQueary's contentions all that much more credible to a jury. If they had knowledge of it, they look that much worse for their actions in 2002. Lastly, GJ presentments leave lots of stuff out. It's not at all clear Mcqueary lied (or even left key stuff out) yet.

Here are some rather eye-opening excerpts from the blog of a man named Matt Paknis, a graduate assistant during the years of 1987-88 when Sandusky was defensive coordinator and McQueary was 14 years old, dreaming of playing for Notre Dame.

Matt Paknis wrote:
Another bizarre tradition at PSU was the coaches showered together after each practice and game. We never did this at Brown or at URI and my coaching friends never experienced this on their staffs. It was one of the many things at PSU that made me realize there was something very strange about the program and its staff.


Is this true? If so, did this tradition continue after Sandusky's departure in 1999? When exactly did McQueary join the staff at Penn State as a GA? Was it before Sandusky's departure? Would that make him a shower-er too?

On Paterno:

I experienced Joe Paterno as a racist when he stated Pennsylvania was not ready for an African American quarterback while Randall Cunningham started for the Eagles. He was the consummate bully and control freak who banished players and their potential careers when they did not buy into Joe's persona.

Overall, I saw Joe as a master spin doctor whose image shed a far greater shadow than his actual character. At the time, there were even rumors in State College about Joe being a wife beater. I was reminded of these when, in the early 90's after a loss to Texas, he said he was going to "go home and beat my wife"


More:

As a Penn State assistant under Rip Engle, Joe's nickname amongst players was Joe the rat. He tattled on players' misconduct to the head coach. Joe went to Rip instead of addressing the player face to face. He always used power and leverage to exert authority instead of true leadership and influence. Joe was Rip's protected favorite, like a mama's boy. I imagine he felt he could do anything to others and get away with it.

Thus, decades later, when a powerless boy needed a man of real character and integrity to protect him, Joe showed his true colors. He protected himself and let the little boy disappear.


Paknis is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse (potentially triggering material at link)
http://mattpaknis.blogspot.com/2011/11/ ... utely.html
bks
 
Posts: 1093
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:44 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Jeff » Wed Nov 16, 2011 11:44 am

Thanks for the Paknis blog, bks.

And oh, look:

Documents released by a Philadelphia-area representative show The Second Mile, Jerry Sandusky's former charity, raised money for the judge who freed him on unsecured bail.


I'd known she was a Second Mile volunteer, but I hadn't known that.
User avatar
Jeff
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11134
Joined: Fri Oct 20, 2000 8:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Elihu » Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:28 pm

reality gusher capped. junk shot: sex scandal. top hat:did he penetrate? did he not penetrate? who did he penetrate? who watched? did he tell the cops? did he not tell the cops? corexit:participant pharma ceo to issue unbiased full disclosure complete with new policy guidelines. participant judge frees/keeps canary on a string. slice off wellhead and drill intercept well:fire the coach, fire the prez, can the practicing psycho trustee. fill with water-proof concrete:congressional hearing, football team runs table. yea empire! who's got the remote?
But take heart, because I have overcome the world.” John 16:33
Elihu
 
Posts: 1418
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 11:44 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby jingofever » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:37 pm

compared2what? wrote:I mean, who would say "I had discussions with police" when what he/she meant was "I filed a police report" (or "I went to the police" or "I did call the police that night" or whatever)? It's an inherently and unnaturally vague locution, under the circumstances. And yet (!!!!) it's really the only detail in what he wrote that he's going to have to come up with some instance or other of having done something like at some point in the last nine years.

Looking back at the grand jury report, it says:
The graduate assistant was never questioned by University Police and no other entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December, 2010. The Grand Jury finds the graduate assistant's testimony to be extremely credible.

Elsewhere it says:
Although Schultz oversaw the University Police as part of his position, he never reported the 2002 incident to the University Police or other police agency...

and:
The Grand Jury concludes that the sexual assault of a minor male in 2002 should have been reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare and/or a law enforcement agency such as the University Police or the Pennsylvania State Police.

It could be that McQueary did have discussions with some other police agency, who chose not to conduct an investigation, and that they only mention the University Police because Gary Schultz oversaw them and never bothered to get them involved.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby jingofever » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:31 pm

Mike McQueary's statement to police doesn't say he stopped attack or notified police about Sandusky allegations:

Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary never mentioned that he talked to police in 2002 after witnessing an alleged sexual assault by Jerry Sandusky of a young boy, according to a hand-written statement McQueary gave to police during the recent grand jury investigation.

The Patriot-News has viewed a copy of the statement and verified it through a source close to the investigation.

In it, McQueary states that he witnessed a boy, about 10, being sodomized in a shower and hurried out of the locker room. He does not mention stopping the assault, and does not mention talking to any police officers in the following days, the statement says.

The whole incident, the statement says, lasted about a minute, and McQueary wrote that he would not recognize the boy if he saw him today.

McQueary does say in the police statement that he talked to his father, to Joe Paterno, and to Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz.
User avatar
jingofever
 
Posts: 2814
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2005 6:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby compared2what? » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:55 pm

jingofever wrote:Mike McQueary's statement to police doesn't say he stopped attack or notified police about Sandusky allegations:

Penn State assistant football coach Mike McQueary never mentioned that he talked to police in 2002 after witnessing an alleged sexual assault by Jerry Sandusky of a young boy, according to a hand-written statement McQueary gave to police during the recent grand jury investigation.

The Patriot-News has viewed a copy of the statement and verified it through a source close to the investigation.

In it, McQueary states that he witnessed a boy, about 10, being sodomized in a shower and hurried out of the locker room. He does not mention stopping the assault, and does not mention talking to any police officers in the following days, the statement says.

The whole incident, the statement says, lasted about a minute, and McQueary wrote that he would not recognize the boy if he saw him today.

McQueary does say in the police statement that he talked to his father, to Joe Paterno, and to Athletic Director Tim Curley and Vice President Gary Schultz.


Right. The wording in the GJ statement is what I was reading his email against. They're loosely compatible, except that he's adding that he had "discussions with police"at some unspecified point in time. So if he were asked what he meant when he wrote that, he might say, for (ypothetical) example, "I continued to see Sandusky in the locker room, even after I'd been assured his keys had been taken away. That made me so upset that I called a police hotline anonymously on a number of occasions. But since I didn't know the child's name or identity, they advised me that there was nothing I could do about it besides keep an eye out for signs of trouble." (Or whatever.)
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby MinM » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:22 pm

The Brutal Truth About Penn State

The problem can't be solved by prayer or piety — and it's far more widespread than we think

By Charles P. Pierce
POSTED NOVEMBER 14, 2011

Image
"But you, when you pray, go into your inner chamber and, locking the door, pray there in hiding to your Father …"

— Matthew, Chapter 6

It was midway through the pregame prayer session that the gorge hit high tide. There is always something a little nauseating in large spectacles of conspicuous public piety, but watching everyone on the field take a knee before the Penn State-Nebraska game, and listening to the commentary about how devoutly everybody was praying for the victims at Penn State, was enough to get me reaching for a bucket and a Bible all at once. It was as though the players and coaches had devised some sort of new training regimen to get past the awful reality of what had happened. Prayer as a new form of two-a-days. Jesus is my strength coach. Contrition in the context of a football game seemed almost obscene in its obvious vanity.

So, when the feeling had subsided somewhat, I dropped by the sixth chapter of Matthew, and then I went on to the Teacher in Ecclesiastes, who warned his people:

For God will bring every deed into judgment, including every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil.

And I felt better, but not much. There is solace in Scripture, but there are also too many places where the guilty and the morally obtuse can hide.

The crimes at Penn State are about the raping of children. That is all they are about. The crimes at Penn State are about the raping of children by Jerry Sandusky, and the possibility that people lied to a grand jury about the raping of children by Jerry Sandusky, and the likelihood that most of the people who had the authority at Penn State to stop the raping of children by Jerry Sandusky proved themselves to have the moral backbone of ribbon worms.

It no longer matters if there continues to be a football program at Penn State. It no longer even matters if there continues to be a university there at all. All of these considerations are trivial by comparison to what went on in and around the Penn State football program.

(Those people who will pass this off as an overreaction would do well to remember that the Roman Catholic Church is reckoned to be a far more durable institution than even Penn State University is, and the Church has spent the past decade or so selling off its various franchise properties all over the world to pay off the tsunami of civil judgments resulting from the raping of children, a cascade that shows no signs of abating anytime soon.)

There will now be a decade or more of criminal trials, and perhaps a quarter-century or more of civil actions, as a result of what went on at Penn State. These things cannot be prayed away. Let us hear nothing about "closure" or about "moving on." And God help us, let us not hear a single mumbling word about how football can help the university "heal." (Lord, let the Alamo Bowl be an instrument of your peace.) This wound should be left open and gaping and raw until the very last of the children that Jerry Sandusky is accused of raping somehow gets whatever modicum of peace and retribution can possibly be granted to him. This wound should be left open and gaping and raw in the bright sunlight where everybody can see it, for years and years and years, until the raped children themselves decide that justice has been done. When they're done healing — if they're ever done healing — then they and their families can give Penn State permission to start.

If that blights Joe Paterno's declining years, that's too bad. If that takes a chunk out of the endowment, hold a damn bake sale. If that means that Penn State spends some time being known as the university where a child got raped, that's what happens when you're a university where a child got raped. Any sympathy for this institution went down the drain in the shower room in the Lasch Building. There's nothing that can happen to the university, or to the people sunk up to their eyeballs in this incredible moral quagmire, that's worse than what happened to the children who got raped at Penn State. Good Lord, people, get up off your knees and get over yourselves.

There is something to be said, however, for looking at how it happened. Which is not the same thing as trying to figure out how it "could" have happened. The wonder is that it doesn't happen more often.

(How many football coaches out there work with "at-risk" kids? How many shoes are there still to drop? Unfair? Ask one Bernard Law, once cardinal archbishop of Boston, if you can pry him out of his current position at the Basilica of Our Lady of the Clean Getaway in Rome.)

It happens because institutions lie. And today, our major institutions lie because of a culture in which loyalty to "the company," and protection of "the brand" — that noxious business-school shibboleth that turns employees into brainlocked elements of sales and marketing campaigns — trumps conventional morality, traditional ethics, civil liberties, and even adherence to the rule of law. It is better to protect "the brand" than it is to protect free speech, the right to privacy, or even to protect children.

If Mike McQueary had seen a child being raped in a boardroom or a storeroom, he wouldn't have been any more likely to have stopped it, or to have called the cops, than he was as a graduate assistant football coach at Penn State. With unemployment edging toward double digits, and only about 10 percent of the workforce unionized, every American who works for a major company knows the penalty for exercising his personal freedom, or his personal morality, at the expense of "the company." Independent thought is discouraged. Independent action is usually crushed. Nobody wants to damage the brand. Your supervisor might find out, and his primary loyalty is to the company. Which is why he got promoted to be your supervisor in the first place...
Further, the institutions of college athletics exist primarily as unreality fueled by deceit. The unreality is that universities should be in the business of providing large spectacles of mass entertainment. The fundamental absurdity of that notion requires the promulgation of the various deceits necessary to carry it out. The "student-athlete," just to name one. "Amateurism," just to name another. Of course, people involved in Penn State football allegedly deceived people when it became plain that children had been raped within the program's facilities by one of the program's employees. It was simply one more lie to maintain the preposterously lucrative unreality of college athletics. And to think, the players at Ohio State became pariahs because of tattoos and memorabilia sales.

By an order of magnitude, the Penn State child-raping scandal is miles beyond anything that ever happened with the Ohio State football team over the past five years, miles beyond anything that happened with the SMU football team in the 1980s, and miles beyond anything that happened with the point-shaving scandals in college basketball. It is not a failure of our institutions so much as it is a window into what they have become — soulless, profit-driven monsters, Darwinian predators with precious little humanity left in them. Penn State is only the most recent example. Too much of this country is too big to fail.

On July 20, Enda Kenny, Taoiseach of the Republic of Ireland, rose before the Dail Eireann and excoriated the Vatican and the institutional Roman Catholic Church for the horrors inflicted on generations of Irish children, horrors that they both committed and condoned. This was an act of considerable political courage for Kenny. The influence of the Church had been a deadweight on Irish politics and the secular government since the country first gained its freedom in the 1920s.

Nevertheless, Kenny said:

"Thankfully … this is not Rome. Nor is it industrial school or Magdalene Ireland, where the swish of a soutane smothered conscience and humanity and the swing of a thurible ruled the Irish-Catholic world. This is the Republic of Ireland, 2011. A Republic of laws … of rights and responsibilities … of proper civic order … where the delinquency and arrogance of a particular kind of 'morality' will no longer be tolerated or ignored … as taoiseach, I am making it absolutely clear that, when it comes to the protection of the children of this state, the standards of conduct which the Church deems appropriate to itself cannot, and will not, be applied to the workings of democracy and civil society in this Republic."

He did not drop to his knees. He did not ask for a moment of silence. He did not seek "closure" but, rather, he demanded the hard and bitter truth of it, and he demanded it from men steeped in deceit from their purple carpet slippers to their red beanies. Enda Kenny did not look to bind up wounds before they could be cleansed. And that is the only way to talk about what happens after the raping of children.

Charles P. Pierce is a staff writer for Grantland and the author of Idiot America. He writes regularly for Esquire , is the lead writer for Esquire.com's Politics blog, and is a frequent guest on NPR.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/723 ... penn-state
Earth-704509
User avatar
MinM
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Wed Jun 04, 2008 2:16 pm
Location: Mont Saint-Michel
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Pedophile File

Postby Bruce Dazzling » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:36 pm

Arthur Silber weighs in.

Aren't You All Just the Most Wonderful People!
November 15, 2011
Arthur Silber


Regular readers are familiar with my extensive writing on the abuse and mistreatment of children. My concern extends beyond physical abuse (although I've written many posts about it), and includes a detailed examination of what is much more common: the everyday emotional and psychological abuse of children, in forms that are accepted and approved by the majority of adults. Because of my focus on this subject, I've read a fair amount about the Paterno-Sandusky-Penn State story.

I would have read more, but I find most of the commentary profoundly disheartening and sometimes sickening. As I read about this latest horror story, I kept thinking: We've seen all this before -- and nothing changes. The phenomenon is largely identical to what one might experience reading about the current "crisis" on the economic front or in foreign policy. This, we are assured -- where this is whatever happens to be the "hot" story of the day or week -- is the breakthrough that will finally sweep away the rot and corruption and usher in a new order. Then, after a few weeks, the story slowly recedes from public awareness, to be replaced by another controversy. And that one will be the breakthrough that will finally sweep away ... well, you see how that goes.

One of the themes common to much of the Paterno coverage is the insistence, mixed either implicitly or explicitly with small or large helpings of self-congratulation, that "we all must protect the children!" The writers who condemn what happened at Penn State (which is all of them) are, by virtue of their heatedly announced condemnation, on the side of the angels, for they are fulfilling their responsibility to "protect the children." They know horrifying, sickening, even evil acts when they see them, and they are dedicated to eliminating them.

With so many people so passionately dedicated to "protecting the children," the safety of children in the future can hardly be in doubt even for a moment. Yet nothing will change -- and the abuse will go on.

For the most part, I don't doubt the sincerity of the writers who are outraged by what happened at Penn State, insofar as this particular story is concerned. I'm sure the pattern of extreme abuse that has been revealed genuinely horrifies them. But reactions of this kind (of every kind, in fact) are shaped and conditioned by the culture in which we live, including by the kinds of behavior that are so common and longstanding that they barely register in people's consciousness. Especially severe instances of cruelty grab our attention; such is the nature of "sensational" events in a culture which finds its primary nourishment in the sensational, while the common forms of cruelty continue uninterrupted.

Moreover, public displays of outrage and condemnation, particularly when engaged in with such unsettling eagerness, are to be distrusted. Anyone and everyone will rush to say, when the spotlight is on him, "No one could possibly care more about protecting children than I do!" The test of his sincerity is what happens when the spotlight moves on, when no one is looking -- no one, that is, except his own conscience and sense of humanity (and God, if he believes in such).

The test of his sincerity also includes what he does not say. I have yet to come across an article about what happened at Penn State that mentions this:

Thirty-one nations fully ban corporal punishment.

Sweden, in 1979, was the first to make it illegal to strike a child as a form of discipline. Since then, many other countries in Europe have also instituted bans, as have New Zealand and some countries in Africa and the Americas.

More than 70 additional nations have specific laws in place that prohibit corporal punishment in schools. You can sort through the table above to see where different countries stand on the issue.

In some cases, such as the United States, there are partial bans in place depending on either location or the age of the children.

For the U.S., corporal punishment is prohibited in public schools for 31 states and the District of Columbia. Two states, Iowa and New Jersey, extend their bans to private schools as well.


Thus, in the United States, corporal punishment is legal in public schools in 19 states, and in private schools in 48 states. In addition, corporal punishment is legal in every home.

I'll keep this simple. I'll put it in bold capital letters:

AN ASSAULT ON A HUMAN BEING IS AN ASSAULT ON A HUMAN BEING.

CHILDREN ARE HUMAN BEINGS.

CHILDREN ARE NOT PROPERTY.


I refer you to an article I wrote, God help me, in 2004: "From Mild Smacking to Outright Sadism, Torture and War: The Lie of 'Well-Intentioned' Violence." Here is the opening of that essay:

I had begun this essay with a different title: A New Law for Adults -- Moderate Assaults Now Permitted. Can you imagine for one moment that anyone would assent to a law of the kind suggested by that statement? Think about the howls of justified outrage that would greet a proposal to pass a law stating as follows:

After review of many studies and having consulted the opinions of numerous experts, we have concluded that it is sometimes acceptable for one spouse to smack the other, if he or she does so to inflict "moderate punishment" for disapproved behavior. However, we emphasize that this new law should not be taken as permission for any adult to go further. Any violence engaged in by one spouse which results in genuine physical or mental harm to the other will be prosecuted to the full extent permitted by other applicable laws.


Yet physical assaults on children are legal in public schools in 19 states and in private schools in 48 states, and in every home in the Glorious United States of America.


Much more at the link.
"Arrogance is experiential and environmental in cause. Human experience can make and unmake arrogance. Ours is about to get unmade."

~ Joe Bageant R.I.P.

OWS Photo Essay

OWS Photo Essay - Part 2
User avatar
Bruce Dazzling
 
Posts: 2306
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2007 2:25 pm
Location: Yes
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 175 guests