In retrospect, Paterno-cheering Penn State students deserve heavy scorn

To John Odermatt and his facebook comments:

I am not sure if you read McQueary's testimony yesterday. Do you know how to spell perjury? But of course I am the "ass hat author," the "moron," the "hack journalist." I am the one you should be directing your visceral anger towards. You have already outed yourself as an ignorant apologist. Just keep defending the cowards and critcizing those who see through the bullshit. Enjoy your crow.

LMAO AT THESE COMMENTS ANY PATERNO FANS OUT THERE NEED A TISSUE????? LOLLLLLZZZZZZ

Timothy Lydon (Continued)"...and think objectively. Regarding my supposed embarrassment. I don't feel embarrassed for what I wrote. It was you who twisted my words and rallied the salvos against me on this and the facebook comment wall. And as for your groundless threats of bringing a lawsuit to my school, good luck with finding "errors" and "omission" when everything I wrote can be found verified in the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Grand Jury Report. Take your icon-worshiping arguments and your thoughtless cadre of spineless "anonymous" dittoheads elsewhere.

Timothy Lydon (Continued)...were found in Schultz's testimony. Why don't you label Joe Paterno as unreliable too? It was, after all, Paterno that relayed the initial information to Curley, who then told Schultz. Both Curley and Schultz have already admitted they knew of Sandusky's actions - however ambiguous the term - in 2002. The fact that McQuery changed his story does not nullify the fact that Paterno went to Curley immediately and told of Sandusky's "disturbing" and "inappropriate" conduct. "The records reveal that the 2002 incident was never reported to any officials, in contravention of Pennsylvania law," the report says. Spanier at least knew a shower and a child were involved, Schultz heard a lot, asked no questions -or asked and didnt listen to the answers - and selectively remembered very little. Paterno had information of 'disturbing" and "inappropriate" conduct, and McQuery initially said he saw anal intercourse. I am sure all the men were just waiting "for the facts to come out" as some people on this comment wall have condemned me for not doing. For your Bogus Belief #3, I did not write that "Joe Paterno was more interested in protecting himself than fulfilling his responsibilities to report McQeary's story." I wrote that "doing everything he could to help the university was the reason there was a cover up in the first place." This is very different. Paterno could "have done more," as he says in his own words. Why would he say he should have done more if he didn't know anything inappropriate was going on? Do we not even believe that McQueary went to Paterno? Let's say McQuery lied to Paterno (which is unlikely) and said he saw anal intercourse when he really didnt? What incentive would he have to do this? Let's say he only told Paterno that he saw something "inappropriate" and Paterno, without asking any questions, told Curley that it was something "inappropriate" who, without asking any questions told Schultz that it was something "inappropriate," who then told Spanier that it was an "incident." Spanier asks no quesions so the allegations quickly dissapate and time renders them irrelevant to all these men. Time was so nurturting that Schultz eventually said that the whole incident was "not that serious," and surely "no crime was committed." Who do we blame? Who is responsible? What is justice in your eyes? Or is trying to get to the truth just a conniving trick of the media? Paterno might have thought that not pursuing the leads was best for the University, and perhaps it was in the short-term, but in the long term, it was disastrous. This is why I wrote Penn State's leadership has provided a model for another school that finds out a sexual predator is on the loose. If these men had the chance to go back and handle this situation differently is there any doubt that they would?Bogus Belief #4. I did not write that "Penn State students deserve mockery for rioting after Paterno was fired." I wrote that "the Penn State students who decided to riot in defense of their legendary coach" deserved mockery. Again, two different things. You frame it as if I am condemning all Penn State students. You then list accomplishments that the student body has done in helping fight cancer. Cheap approach. I have been to Penn State many times, including a football game, and I am lucky to call many of my good friends' Penn State graduates. I admire them very much, as well as the academic tradition at Penn State. My denunciation is simply of the Penn State leadership who failed to act (and lied under oath), and of the "students who decided to riot..." Interestingly, what I condemn the rioters for doing; you condemn me for doing - jumping to conclusions, blindly. The rioter's knee jerk reaction was that the media was aggressive and negligent and they were blowing the story out of proportion. However, if they read the Grand Jury Report, as you implored me to do, they would see, clearly, that there was a cover up at the highest levels of Penn State leadership. And finally, your Bogus Belief #5: We should be grateful to the media for their reporting and they are the public watchdog. You write that "the media is responsible for many of these bogus beliefs that Mr. Lydon gossips about - and many more." However, everything the media reported and brought to light can be found in the Grand Jury Report. Later on, you help strengthen my argument that such behavior by the media "should be practiced across the board." By sitting on the Syracuse tape for 8 years, ESPN did not live up to this standard. You can apply this same conscience prodding standard ("If one child was injured after ESPN had this tape, it is on the conscience of every reporter and producer involved") to the Penn State leadership who sat idly by and waited.Men in power lie. Why does this come as such a revelation to you, and is it so hard for you to accept? Step away from your affiliation with the university and...

The praise that you continue to lift for Paterno indicates the broad sphere of influence that he held, which reflects the real wield of power. Spanier tried to get Paterno to retire shortly after 2000, but he lacked the ability to make him leave.

When Triponey tried to do her job and address student behavioral problems, Paterno told Spanier to handle the "Triponey" issue or he would stop fundraising for PSU...Spanier folded.

So to make these ridiculous suggestions that the man with the greatest amount of power and sphere of influence did all he could by reporting child sex abuse to campus police shows the lack of ethics and assignment of accountability to those who blindly support a man who's inaction led to massive damage to too many innocent lives.

Shame on you.

First and foremost, this was a great article! You were on point and I hope this article goes viral since it conveys a message that many other people agree with. I find it a bit disturbing (or coincidental) that many criticizers of this article are from Pennsylvania. As a UC Berkeley alum, I know for a fact students would riot against an individual to be removed off campus no matter how great his contribution to the university. At least justice will be served even though too many years had to pass to get to this point.

I won't bother engaging in a comment war with some of these other readers but I wanted to personally comment to tell you how proud I am to see someone write a piece that states the points succinctly and puts shame on the students that rioted against Paterno's dismissal.

everyone wants to blame JoePa for coverup... what everyone seems to have forgotten is that coverups start @ the top... this isn't the first coverup Spanier has been involved in... look back @ Nebraska when he was the chancellor there in/around 1995 and authorized payment to Lawrence Phillips (heismann candidate) girlfriend NOT to testify against him when he was arrested several times for beating the crap out of her... now I wonder... has everyone forgotton about that and one final note... JoePa COULDN'T coverup anything @ PSU if the PRESIDENT-SPANIER hadn't given his blessing... WHY hasn't anyone kicked SPANIER to the curb... why is JoePA the one being crucified...?

We can't be too quick to judge anyone, Sandusky, Paterno, the media, and writers. Just wait and see until the trial is over.

Well said, Jim Balaban. Thank you for the truth.

The student riot in downtown State College was targeted at the media because they (the media) were reporting things that just weren't true - that's why the students turned over a TV truck. How do I know this? Because I was there.
And afterwards published reports in the media said things like "PSU students rioted because football is more important to them than child abuse" and, get this one..."PSU students rioted because they needed an excuse to party on a Wednesay night." Geez, the media just doesn't get it right on several fronts and continues to get it wrong after the fact. Those students aren't dumb, they see right through it.
Then again, the media is in the business of selling news, they are not in the business of reporting accurate news. Just like this article.
Another interesting tidbit - Paterno has been blamed in the media for not reporting what McQueary told him to the police (which by the way would be considered to be hearsay in a court of law or another word for that would be 'rumor'). Well get this - Paterno reported it to the head of the campus police - a fact that has not received the press it deserves. And why would Paterno report it to the campus police instead of the State College police - uh - well maybe, just maybe because State College police don't have jurisdiction on campus where this alleged crime occured. Just an example of another fact that seems to be lost on the media....hmmmm.