Kids totally dominate social situations. Parents can be conscientious about this and either arrange for some of the hangout time to be after their bedtime, or on the periphery of a playground or something where the kids are occupied, or whatever. Otherwise it's annoying when kids dominate your only chance to visit with someone.
Ow, that must be annoying.
There's a good chance the stage will pass sometime fairly soon (based only on the fact that you don't sound cross at her parents for not controlling her. If all the adults around are being sane, most kids don't stay turbo-annoying for all that long.)
I don't know many adults I'd rather pay attention to than a four year old. They are exhausting but so much fun.
Parents can be conscientious about this and either arrange for some of the hangout time to be after their bedtime, or on the periphery of a playground or something where the kids are occupied, or they can invite someone like me, who is happy to spend an evening goofing around with kids while the adults talk about boring stuff.
My favorite thing about socializing with parents is that they have to go home early, allowing me to go the fuck to sleep. Also, what togolosh and Eggplant said.
1: Kids totally dominate social situations for their parents (until they're old enough to be shooed off to go play) who have to keep them happy and amused both for their own sakes and so they don't make trouble for other adults. But if they're sucking all the oxygen out of the room for people who aren't voluntarily focused on them, that's not ideal, and it's mostly, for most kids, avoidable.
But if they're sucking all the oxygen out of the room for people who aren't voluntarily focused on them, that's not ideal, and it's mostly, for most kids, avoidable.
Well, they were probably given sugar twice in one day.
I've seen a bunch of research showing that sugar really doesn't have behavioral effects on kids lately; would it be passive-aggressive of you to send some pdfs of papers to your brother? Sure it would, but it would be fun anyway, don't you think?
Poor Stanley is no longer the spoiled one in the family.
We would not have been allowed to dominate the scene like this when I was a kid. I mean, no way. It would have been a serious violation of house rules and resulted in getting basically shut up in our room. Is it really inevitable that a four year old rules the roost?
Be nice to her, Stanley. She's the one who's going to arrange for your custodial care, making sure your feeding and respirator tubes aren't clogged, and like that.
8: They are so avoidant of any non-superficial conversation that it would just disappear down the rabbit hole. I'd never hear back.
But what if the kids had cake twice in one day?
8: I still have a hard time believing those results. Sugar highs followed by crashes feel real, if perhaps subtle.
Poor Stanley is no longer the spoiled one in the family.
It's tragic, really.
sugar really doesn't have behavioral effects on kids
Maybe no primary effects, but the secondary effect of making them whine about candy/dessert every goddamned day is plenty enough.
10: Are you really remembering being four or being eight? A four-year-old is just in the process of turning from a baby into a kid; mostly on the kid side, and they can behave themselves some, but there's a very limited amount of self-control there.
18: my parents insisted that we have fully developed frontal lobes by two and a half, no excuses.
17: It's a marvel how many interactions seem to be, basically, the kid shaking down an adult for sugary stuff. And then rejecting the sugary thing as unsatisfactory anyway. It's a tyranny.
10: I may not remember being four, it's hard to say. Maybe 5 or 6. I know by around kindergarten it would already have been totally unthinkable to me to scream or yell or be loud or disruptive in an adult setting. It was a combination of two things -- first we would have gotten walloped for it, which is pretty effective in a raw Pavlovian type way, and also a very ordered household where rules were extremely clear and the child and adult spheres were very clearly separated.
Getting walloped has its own significant downsides as a child-rearing technique, so I'm not saying it's a good way to go. But I can't help but think when I read about the omnipresence of the tantrum issue in parenthood today that it is an adaptation to a much looser style of childrearing overall.
Is Stanley talking about visiting his own parents, who are doting on their young grandchild? I can't really tell because of the twee overdose in the description. If so, the proper response is "suck it up, cockface, and be glad you had parents who liked to take care of young kids."
Also, Lopez gets it so right in 18. Almost all "when I was a kid" statements mean "when I was between 8-10."
Our family tried to shunt the kids off to the basement rec room or whatever while the grownups talked, maybe with one adult (on a rotating basis) to keep an eye on them. Or the kids would be turned loose in the more-or-less secure back yard. In any given visit, at least one grandparent would be interested in being with the four-year-old(s) than dealing with their adult children. Aunts and uncles were usually bit players in these family afternoon dramas unless they had had some recent smashing success or ignominious failure that everyone could dwell on.
20: Oh, that's bad management on the parents part.
You want me to bitch about parenting norms these days? Snacks. Little baggies of food. People have an exaggerated belief that a child that goes more than half an hour without goldfish crackers available will inevitably have their mood altered for the negative -- that allowing a toddler/preschooler to feel any perceptible hunger pang will make them into a monster.
And this really is counterproductive -- a kid can handle making it three or four hours between getting fed with no problem, and if they learn that it's normal for there to be nothing to eat until lunch, they don't get all that cranky about it. If, on the other hand, the kid knows that their parents are an endless vending machine of desirable snacks, seeing what's available turns into a really annoying hobby.
Is Stanley talking about visiting his own parents, who are doting on their young grandchild?
Not exactly. My mother seems openly exasperated about it, asking me to arrive early so we can have some time to talk before the clamor ensues.
You want me to bitch about parenting norms these days? Snacks. Little baggies of food. People have an exaggerated belief that a child that goes more than half an hour without goldfish crackers available will inevitably have their mood altered for the negative -- that allowing a toddler/preschooler to feel any perceptible hunger pang will make them into a monster.
And this really is counterproductive -- a kid can handle making it three or four hours between getting fed with no problem, and if they learn that it's normal for there to be nothing to eat until lunch, they don't get all that cranky about it
You all think I'm crazy, but I actually have a solution to this problem. Bacon and banana roll ups for breakfast. I am dead serious and it works.
23.1: I wasn't going to say anything, but I did have the same thought. If the kid is dominating the scene because everyone else is interested in her, that's irritating for you given that you're not, but nothing to do about it (except possibly try to become cuter and more winsome yourself. If you can outcute a four-year-old, that's a real skill.)
27: Okay, but peanut-butter toast for breakfast and just not habitually carrying snacks works too.
Bacon and banana roll ups
I'm not sure I want to know how this should be parsed.
Maybe "bacon wrapped banana" would be more precise.
Do you cook the bacon first? Or after? Or not at all?
28: Is it really just me whining about losing my status as the favorite? I don't really feel like that's all that's going on, but I'm willing to believe I'm self-deluded here.
When I was very young I was a very picky eater, and I'm told my mom resorted to carrying around meatballs in her purse for me to snack on.
My mother seems openly exasperated about it, asking me to arrive early so we can have some time to talk before the clamor ensues.
(1) So whose kid is it and why can't your mother say anything to them? It wouldn't even have to be anything unpleasant--just "let's have the young children [in the basement/outside/etc.] today so the adults can talk."
(2) Have you considered occasionally visiting your parents at some time other than a larger family gathering?
33: I'm intruged, but I like my bacon crispier than that.
I have no idea how small child digestive systems compare to those of adults, but if they're anything like mine, I can believe that the banana bacon thing works better at keeping a kid sated for a longer time than, say, cereal and banana. That kind of breakfast (grain + fruit) will make me way hungrier in an hour or two than if I hadn't eaten anything.
25: But the upside of having snacks around is that a kid that is eating is generally not talking.
I also don't understand why bacon-wrapped banana is supposed to be some kind of magic potion in this respect. Isn't the "magic" just a decent number of calories with a good protein/carb mix? (In other words, why would this be any better than LB's peanut butter toast?)
a kid that is eating is generally not talking
We must be doing something very wrong.
bacon wrapped banana
That paleo diet stuff may be okay for consenting adults, but leave the kids out of it!
Did cavemen really have bacon? I'm skeptical.
34: Oh, probably not, but from the way you put it it's a possibility. Mostly because you were nice about her behavior -- you implied that she wasn't all that unpleasant, just sucking up all the attention. But if the shoe doesn't fit, it doesn't.
The magic is in the bacon fat.
Seriously, I don't know. But a large protein filled breakfast and lunch really does seem to work with this for my own kid; it's a pretty simple 3 meals a day, with hardly ever any cries of hunger or noticeable food crashes (as opposed to just general late-day tiredness).
I kind of feel like what Bob is to revolutionary fantasy, I am to bacon. But it really does work!
I agree that the snack thing can be annoying, but I think it is done out of fear, at least I can attest to that on my part. Fear that my children will get hungry and then Whiny, tetchy, and all out screaming bitchcakes in that order, embarrassing me and bothering every human being in hearing distance. Hungry small children get nasty real fast.
I also think it is an adaptation to our busy, UMC lives. We have all these places to go (soccer games, etc.) and we have to haul everyone with us. For example, my special needs 2 yo goes to the 6 yos soccer games because it's hard to get a sitter for a special needs kid (she really only tolerates one particular sitter who really knows her well) for an hour. While at said game, I need to basically be strategically witholding/giving goldfish or fruit roll-up pieces for her to be reasonably behaved (not screaming, running onto the field, trying to kick the ball herself, etc.).
Also, there is a mutually assured destruction thing going on--my kids see other kids getting snacks from parents. They want snacks and will bitch or, in the case of the 2yo, actually beg like a dog to get food from other people. If everyone stopped giving snacks, it would be ok, but until everyone stops, I must continue to carry a granola bar in my purse.
41: Because toast has the demon neolithic grain in it. Meat and fruit make strong, healthy, cave babies who do not whine; grains make effete attention-seekers.
The "adults are boring anyway" component of some kid-liking makes me even more committed to the decadence and narcissism of my barren, childless life. I mean this with an emoticon I cannot type, both because of bloggic prohibitions and because I'm not sure which one it would be, just mostly one meant to indicate a softening of tone to something less than dickish.
48: Oh, don't take me too seriously. If what you're doing is working for you, I don't mean to be a jerk about it, and it's not like snack-availability is doing the kids any damage. I just get tetchy about it (and found that for us, it worked better to have a consistent "Nope, didn't bring anything, we can have something when we get home." But because it worked for me doesn't mean that it's a general panacea.)
The magic is in the bacon fat.
And it also must be convenient to feed that to the kid when you're frying up a pound of bacon already anyway!
I'm sure you're not boring, Mister Smearcase. You probably don't even talk like a muted trumpet.
52 -- I know! Somehow, the best thing for the entire world always magically coincides with my personal desires and convenience. That's why I'm so insistent on sharing it all with you.
But because it worked for me doesn't mean that it's a general panacea.
You are now BANNED from any parenting conversation.
Does "sort of my step-niece" mean it's your sibling's boy/girlfriend's kid? And that this kid is a relatively new addition to your family gatherings? You don't talk about her like a kid you've known since birth.
||
Statswatch!
Our instructor is talking about a paper where people's naive intuitions of Bayes' Rule are tested. Fine, okay. Not totally relevant, but okay. But she seems intent on doing it without ever mentioning Bayes' Rule or writing down the formula or explaining anything about, say, what a prior is.
|>
49: Right, but so things that would be an acceptable substitute for the (quite frankly bizarre) suggestion of bacon-wrapped bananas would include tons of other, more normal things. Peanut butter on bananas is good. (Or almond butter if you think peanuts are legume demons.) Bacon and fruit, separately, is also good. Especially melons and berries. Etc.
(I know I've mentioned this before, but Sally's toddler nickname was "Clan of the Cave Baby". Something about the big mop of curls on a large, cheerful, muscular kid gave a very Primitive Man impression.)
blah blah blah Urple, if you don't want to raise an awesome mini-Elvis, I can't make you.
Does "sort of my step-niece" mean it's your sibling's boy/girlfriend's kid? And that this kid is a relatively new addition to your family gatherings?
Yes and yes. Brother's girlfriend's kid from a previous relationship; they've been dating since around May.
I blame the brother/girlfriend couple for not keeping better control, and agree that Urple's 37.2 (that is, getting in visits with your family when the kid's not around) is a good solution.
Are there any older kids at these things she can be fobbed off on? Because that's a classic solution.
I blame the brother/girlfriend couple for not keeping better control
Oh come on. Who the fuck knows what they are doing? It sounds like there are no other kids in the house, so no one knows quite what to do.
Either 37.1 or 37.2 would work, as would setting up an area with a bunch of fascinating toys in a different room. Problem solved.
Oh come on. Who the fuck knows what they are doing?
Oh Halford, now *you're* banned from the parenting conversations!
So she's the only child amongst a load of adults, that she mostly doesn't know very well. No wonder she's a bit bored and irritating. Take a portable dvd player with you.
Plus, 4 year olds can be pretty awful even in ideal environments.
Just to echo PDG, I actually do remember being 4 (and being 3) and yelling and being rambunctious or interrupting when adults were over would not have ever flown. If I was upset I knew to go to a bedroom or just elsewhere and mewl there and wait until the company had gone to mewl louder. Polite, opinionated conversation with adult company was totally allowed, however. I am still tormented by long exact quotes from my family and relatives that I unfortunately remember saying, and realize now that I was sort of used as a sort of free stand-up comedy act. It sort of set me up for failure when I finally went to school---I thought I was *really* funny, and then found out the hard way that, no, actually, I'm not really that funny.
I actually do remember being 4 (and being 3)
Not to be too much of a dick about it, but I doubt this. Or, at least not in the way that you think.
60: Brother's girlfriend's kid from a previous relationship; they've been dating since around May.
In my own extended family, that sort of thing can lead to the family going out of their way to include the new girlfriend/boyfriend + child in family gatherings in order to make them feel welcome, IF the main family has decided to essentially court the girlfriend/boyfriend to become a permanent family member.
This can lead to comical situations in which the new girlfriend/boyfriend actually doesn't necessarily want to join us all for Fourth of July or New Year's Eve or what have you, but the main family is insisting on it: we don't want her to feel left out! We love her and her kid! Surely we can rearrange the timing of the gathering if needed so that she and kid can join us! We've bought presents for the kid!
Erm.
Also, there is a mutually assured destruction thing going on--my kids see other kids getting snacks from parents. They want snacks and will bitch or, in the case of the 2yo, actually beg like a dog to get food from other people. If everyone stopped giving snacks, it would be ok, but until everyone stops, I must continue to carry a granola bar in my purse.
Yeah, that's gotta be a pain.
Stanley:
You need to raise your game: knock up your gf.
You want me to bitch about parenting norms these days? Snacks. Little baggies of food. People have an exaggerated belief that a child that goes more than half an hour without goldfish crackers
Jesus, is this some sort of campaign by Nabisco? Way to set that kid up for adult obesity. Good luck maintaining your body weight in office environment with those habits kiddos.
67: Most people do, but I have enough kinds of documentation, enough kinds of continuity, and enough fairly rigorous external confirmation of my ability to remember things most people don't (I was studied, for a fairly long part of my childhood, by some cognitive psychologists) to be pretty confident in my ability to say that after 3.5 years, the sequence of most events and the shape of most days is quite clear. There's not really any way to prove it to you in this medium though.
Regarding the snack thing: my favorite thing about this trend is when my friend's children offer the adults some. I find it terribly cute, though I always politely refuse with enthusiastic thanks. (Their hands are so often snotty!) I'm probably one of those people who drives other adults crazy by totally ignoring them if there are small children in the room.
I actually do remember being 4 (and being 3) and yelling and being rambunctious or interrupting when adults were over would not have ever flown. If I was upset I knew to go to a bedroom or just elsewhere and mewl there and wait until the company had gone to mewl louder. Polite, opinionated conversation with adult company was totally allowed, however.
This was my childhood. The whole distinction between adult settings and kid settings was seriously policed and enforced. The divide could only be crossed if I could enact adult behavior. Even then it was temporary, before bedtime. This all created a certain magic, actually...does anyone else remember sneaking out to the top of the stairs after bedtime to listen in on the adult party conversation downstairs?
My childhood memories of adults have nothing to do with today's beleaguered figures trailing kids with baggies of snacks and begging them please, pretty please, not to actually bite anybody. They were intimidating, well-dressed people who drank cocktails and laughed uproariously at gossip I couldn't understand. It feels like a Fitzgerald novel in retrospect. I also got the early impression adult life was more fun than kid life. At least it involved more cocktails.
75: This described my childhood as well. Except not so much with the cocktails.
I think it's a lot easier to remember calm times than times you were screaming your head off bloody murder. I have quite vivid memories of being four. Most of them are pretty lovely.
(In fact, I only have one really vivid memory of an all-out tantrum. I was younger than four and wanted to watch cartoons, and it was not Saturday morning, plus we were leaving the house, plus I couldn't remember the word "cartoons", so I was howling and wailing about watching "the flat people", and everyone was mystified and trying to get me out the damn door already.)
PGD, it's good to see you around lately.
My childhood memories of adults have nothing to do with today's beleaguered figures trailing kids with baggies of snacks and begging them please, pretty please, not to actually bite anybody.
Almost certainly, because you can't remember who you were at that age. Few parents are trailing their 9 year old with a baggie of snacks and begging them not to bite someone.
Before about age 5, at least, the world of 75 requires some kind of adult -- babysitter, Mom, whatever -- to remain with the kids in a closed off space while the adults do their thing. Sometimes, of course, that's totally fine, but it's a labor-intensive process that also cordons off kids from adult space. Someone was trailing you and telling you not to bite, or shutting you in a space where you couldn't be disruptive, even if you don't remember it.
I'll believe Ile in 74, of course, because why wouldn't I. But seriously, 90% of "this is what it was like when I was a kid) (particularly from folks who don't have kids) is based on a kind of selective memory of what it was like to be about 8 or 9 years old.
Before about age 5, at least, the world of 75 requires some kind of adult -- babysitter, Mom, whatever -- to remain with the kids in a closed off space while the adults do their thing.
I do know a few four year olds who are mature enough not to need this kind of thing. Also kids can interject themselves in a scene periodically without dominating it.
Sure, I don't disagree with 81 (although "mature" here just means "able to play by themselves relatively quietly for a while). But even there the kids need some kind of management, and this was true in 1950 as it is today.
Also, doesn't 81 directly contradict 1?
Perhaps I've been approaching this all wrong. What I need to do is school the rugrat in how best to slather people with ketchup, and then turn her loose on a coffeeshop or something.
||
I'm sick again, and all of my body hurts a lot, and I passed out yesterday and hit my knee on the floor so it hurts even more than the other parts, and I am very cranky.
I expect you all to fix this situation immediately. Thank you.
|>
But seriously, 90% of "this is what it was like when I was a kid) (particularly from folks who don't have kids) is based on a kind of selective memory of what it was like to be about 8 or 9 years old.
Actually, I'm not saying this is how it was like for 'everyone' when I was a kid. I was specifically saying, this is how it was like for 'me' as a kid. I have no idea if it was my mother's strong will or me and my sister's natural temperament, we were just not screamers, and screaming was inconceivable, even though we saw other children screaming frequently enough. (The ride home was often marked with a meaningful "I'm glad you're not like that.") Also, I do have an older sister who is 7 years older than me and who skipped several grades. B/c of the grad skipping she was often not around in the evenings (being at some rehearsal) or firmly committed to hanging out with the adults, so there were many nights when the 'be polite or go entertain yourself' really meant entertaining myself. But some of the time, if she was bored with the adults, she would hang out with me. I'm sure that made my mother's whole set of standards a lot more tractable.
:-( Do you have enough fluids/electrolytes? I hope you feel better soon. Passing out is no fun.
1 was written when I was thinking about the context of families getting together, not adults getting together and kids happen to live there, too, but can make themselves scarce-ish.
I get annoyed at my friend circles family parties, because it's just tiring parenting and distracted other parents, but my children aren't really old enough yet for me to see any payoff.
75, 76 sound familiar to me. By 8 and 10 years old, my sister and I would quietly and completely clear the table while the adults continued their dinner party, and then clean the kitchen down to bare counters while they drank their wine.
I am eagerly anticipating continuing this family tradition with my own kids.
At 8 and 10, that sounds perfectly plausible to me if that's how you're bringing your kids up. Sally and Newt weren't that useful (at 10 and 12 they're getting closer), but they could have been if we'd pushed it.
But (in no way disagreeing with Ile's description of her own experience), I don't think the perception of four-year-olds as requiring a good deal of labor-intensive supervision if they aren't going to annoy the adults around them is a purely modern invention resulting from lax parenting, which is the impression I'm getting from PGD. (I too have memories of adult parties where everyone was impressive and laughing at stuff I didn't understand. Not well dressed, but my parents were from Queens, and so were their friends. But my mother has memories of being exhausted chasing around after me and my sister; we were easy, pleasant kids, or so I'm told, but there was still a fair amount of effort involved.)
Not well dressed, but my parents were from Queens
Hey, that's not very nice. Velour jogging suits can be quite fetching on a person.
I have just enough electrolytes. And a hulu queue. I'll suffer through somehow...
Hulu queue sounds like some kind of Hawaiian/pirate hairstyle.
it's like a luau, but I just sit in my chair while the dancers bring me things one a at a time.
The who's-watching-the-kids thing reminds me of this recent thread.
Yeah, there's a lot of variation in how much supervision kids need and actually get. But in addition to variation in ages and the kids themselves, I'll bet there's also variation caused by generational societal standards and individual living situations. A family with a well-equipped playroom can probably leave a five-year-old unattended longer before they hurt themselves or intrude on the grownups. In the 1950s maybe you could send kids to the yard while the grownups drank, and society just accepted the fact that women with little kids would have no social lives and/or the average kid would get a concussion by the age of 10 or something.
Also, sorry, E. I guess we could help by throwing out hulu recommendations or something? I've heard good things about Grimm.
I also think (to generalize in a possibly unwise way) that childcare, and attention to childcare, is still very gendered. In some of my groups of friends, it is only mothers (plus a few other women) who worry about where the kids are, who's watching which ones, how many babies are visible, whether or not someone is locked in the downstairs bathroom, etc.
On reflection I'm not sure this has anything to do with the thread. But if you all fight about it that would give me something to read...
(I like Grimm okay but I watched it all yesterday. Thanks for the thought though!)
childcare, and attention to childcare, is still very gendered. In some of my groups of friends, it is only mothers (plus a few other women) who worry about where the kids are, who's watching which ones, how many babies are visible, whether or not someone is locked in the downstairs bathroom, etc.
This is so true, even amongst ostensibly progressive circles, that it's almost insane.
That's not very argumentative, RH.
Almost all "when I was a kid" statements mean "when I was between 8-10."
This seems like a really bizarrely weird thing to say. On what basis are you making this statement? We lived in one house when I was less than one year old. As far as I know, I have zero memories of it, or of my life there. But, we lived in another house when I was between 1-3. I have very incomplete but nonetheless extensive and vivid memories of life there. We lived in an apartment when I was 4. My memories from there are similar to those from the prior house--definitely incomplete, but there's plenty I remember. We lived in a different apartment when I was 5-7. I have pretty extensive and clear memories of life then, that aren't really significantly less complete than my memories of my life, say, ten years ago (as an adult). We moved to a different house when I was 7.
I don't have kids but have a deeply internalized Check On Everyone habit from being the oldest of all my multitudinous siblings and cousins. So I also notice who else is checking and it's almost never men (with a few exceptions of course).
My memories of grownup parties are from older than 4 and they all involve me being nominally in charge of hordes of smaller children. I use this to explain why I'm so bossy nowadays.
I don't doubt that you remember specific incidents from your life as a 5 year old (most people do). I strongly doubt that you remember them in an accurate and comprehensive enough way to reach any firm conclusions about, say, the amount or nature of interventions that your parents made in your life (most people don't). My contention is that most people's understanding of their "childhood" is basically an amalgamation of memories from later childhood that's not a particularly useful or accurate guide to remembering the specifics of what it was like to be under 5, and probably about 8.
I feel like some of the comments in this thread are conflating situations where kids are in their own houses with their own stuff and their own rooms, and/or other children to play with, and situations where they are the only child around in houses with no kid-friendly spaces to speak of.
Also the talk about how perfectly well behaved and self-sufficient you all were at eight months or whatever is giving me a complex.
My contention is that most people's understanding of their "childhood" is basically an amalgamation of memories from later childhood that's not a particularly useful or accurate guide to remembering the specifics of what it was like to be under 5, and probably about 8.
On what basis are you making this contention? Psych studies? (I'm wondering how they would be conducted?)
It just rings completely false to me. I remember what it was like being 5, for sure. (I was very sad whenever I missed my favorite cartoon.) 3 or 4? Less so, although I remember enough specifics about my life that I think I could make a pretty educated guess.
childcare, and attention to childcare, is still very gendered. In some of my groups of friends, it is only mothers (plus a few other women) who worry about where the kids are, who's watching which ones, how many babies are visible, whether or not someone is locked in the downstairs bathroom, etc.
I want to note for the record that Snarkout is superb at taking turns being the person who has to be on Prime Alert (and recognizing that when you're not on Prime Alert, you still have to be on secondary alert) in this way.
childcare, and attention to childcare, is still very gendered. In some of my groups of friends, it is only mothers (plus a few other women) who worry about where the kids are, who's watching which ones, how many babies are visible, whether or not someone is locked in the downstairs bathroom, etc.
I want to note for the record that Snarkout is superb at taking turns being the person who has to be on Prime Alert (and recognizing that when you're not on Prime Alert, you still have to be on secondary alert) in this way.
I want to note it twice, apparently.
doubt that you remember them in an accurate and comprehensive enough way to reach any firm conclusions about, say, the amount or nature of interventions that your parents made in your life
Actually, maybe I'm still misunderstanding you, because I don't think I have any idea what this means. "The amount or nature of interventions that your parents made in your life"? If you just mean that a 5-year old is generally going to miss a lot that is going on around them (such as, things their parents are doing on their behalf, or how or why exactly there's usually food in the cupboard), then sure. There's a lot that's over their heads. But that's different from saying "memories of childhood==memories of years 8-10".
I'm not a psychologist or anything, but infantile amnesia governs most people's memories of the world before age 5. I'm not saying you have no memories whatsoever. But memories like "I was generally well-behaved and no one ran after me telling me not to bite or hit," when applied to your under-5 self, are likely to be pretty extremely unreliable.
I think most adults have a kind of folk-baseline sense of childhood that doesn't have a particularly good feel for what it is like on a daily basis to be a really little kid.
We spend a fair amount of time on the front porches with neighbors, drinking wine or beer, and hanging out.
In our little block, prime alert for wandering kids is shared equally. ie the men in the group are just as likely to be a little paranoid about it. Actually, now that I think about it, the men are little more uptight about it than the women.
The same breakdown plays out at the summer pool. Men are easily as paranoid about drownings/wandering offs as the women.
Just two examples obviously.
A recent custody case involved a 4 year old saying something along the lines of "Dad sucks bc he did ____ to me when I was 1.5." Mom lost custody bc the expert said that was mom's memory, not child's.
109: I don't have any more basis than 'seems to me', but Halford's take rings true to me. My sense of my memories from before seven or eight or so is that I've got a fairly large number of vignettes that are direct memories, but any coherent sense of how things usually happened (as opposed to a snapshot of a particular day or incident), was interpolation in hindsight. And I believe I'm fairly typical in that regard.
104: I feel like some of the comments in this thread are conflating situations where kids are in their own houses with their own stuff and their own rooms, and/or other children to play with, and situations where they are the only child around in houses with no kid-friendly spaces to speak of.
This, yes.
On a child's sense-impressions and -memories:
There were no troublesome memories in his childish sleep; no token came to him of his brave days at college, of the glittering years when he flustered the hearts of many girls. There were only the white, safe walls of his crib and Nana and a man who came to see him sometimes, and a great big orange ball that Nana pointed at just before his twilight bed hour and called "sun." When the sun went his eyes were sleepy--there were no dreams, no dreams to haunt him.
The past--the wild charge at the head of his men up San Juan Hill; the first years of his marriage when he worked late into the summer dusk down in the busy city for young Hildegarde whom he loved; the days before that when he sat smoking far into the night in the gloomy old Button house on Monroe Street with his grandfather-all these had faded like unsubstantial dreams from his mind as though they had never been. He did not remember.
He did not remember clearly whether the milk was warm or cool at his last feeding or how the days passed--there was only his crib and Nana's familiar presence. And then he remembered nothing. When he was hungry he cried--that was all. Through the noons and nights he breathed and over him there were soft mumblings and murmurings that he scarcely heard, and faintly differentiated smells, and light and darkness.
Then it was all dark, and his white crib and the dim faces that moved above him, and the warm sweet aroma of the milk, faded out altogether from his mind.
Contrawise, I'm pretty sure 'infantile amnesia' describes pretty much everything in my life before about age 9. Disconnected images, no real narrative. You'd think I'd remember lots of stuff about, say, first or second grade, but no, about the only thing that stuck from that school (I moved after that) was the weird washroom design with the large round hand-washing troughs.
LB and I clearly shared a childhood. Or, rather, even if we did we might not be able to tell.
105
It just rings completely false to me. I remember what it was like being 5, for sure. (I was very sad whenever I missed my favorite cartoon.) 3 or 4? Less so, although I remember enough specifics about my life that I think I could make a pretty educated guess.
I don't. I've often thought it's weird how little I remember my childhood. Sure, vignettes and big moments both good and bad have stayed with me, and if I sat down and tried to list them I'd probably surprise myself, and I still know the basics like where I was living at certain times and stuff, but as for details I think I should have firsthand memories of - where my sister was when something important happened, how old I was when we took a certain trip, what I thought of certain kids I grew up with - it's mostly a blur before age 10 or maybe even later.
I normally think I've weird in this way and joke that my childhood was so miserable I repressed the memories, but if Halford's right maybe I'm normal in actual memory retention and everyone else just has more reminders or constructs better narratives about it all or something.
any coherent sense of how things usually happened (as opposed to a snapshot of a particular day or incident), was interpolation in hindsight
I'm not sure what this means, either, which may just mean I don't even understand how memories work. Snapshots of particular days or incidents is all I have, really, except insofar as I retroactively impose a coherent sense of "how things usually" were.
All I'm saying is that my memories of life at 5 and my memories of life at 20 feel no different to me now, looking back on them. Memories from earlier than 5 are fuzzier and fewer in number, but the ones that I have also don't fundamentally feel any different than "adult" memories.
constructs better narratives
My family is constantly arguing with each other because everyone has a very firm, different memory of events that we were all present for. Sometimes even a year or so ago.
Obviously, I'm right, and my memories are correct, but as you can see from my example it's pretty common (8/9!) for people to be wrong about the extent of their memories.
maybe I'm normal in actual memory retention
Heh. I think of myself as having a really rotten memory for direct experiences rather than random facts -- my sense of what I reliably remember is much worse than most people describe.
OTOH, I keep on reading research like the stuff about the inaccuracy of eyewitness identifications, or the ease with which people can be manipulated into confabulating false memories, and I wonder if my memory is normal, I'm just better than most at spotting and admitting to my own unreliability.
119- the argument started out being about memories of their behavior as 4-year-olds, whether it was better or worse than the behavior of the 4-year-olds they notice around them as adults. Some people think memories of one's own behavior as a 4-year-old are unlikely to be reliable sources of information about how much work any adults present might have been doing in the background.
(Actually, what I really think is that I do genuinely have a rottener-than-average memory, but that most people are self-deceived about how good theirs is.)
In some of my groups of friends, it is only mothers (plus a few other women) who worry about where the kids are, who's watching which ones, how many babies are visible, whether or not someone is locked in the downstairs bathroom, etc.
In one of his novels Martin Amis mentions the '90s-vintage theory that women sleep lest restfully than men because every 30-90 seconds their brainwaves change in a manner indicating that their sleeping brain is listening (for, presumedly, a child's cry). On the tundra savannah boreal plain wooded plateau veldt.
Men, on the veldt, slept deeply and peacefully, and were all eaten by leopards, leading to our current parthenogenetic matriarchy.
126: Presumably humanity has a long history of men being shaken awake by women saying "Honey, I heard something downstairs."
I'm on board with 124, and willing to recognize Ile as inhabiting a tail of the distribution.
On the OP, I recall making a lot of effort to keep my kids civilized, when they were the only kids -- which wasn't all that often. Bringing some objects for fun worked better than snacks, ime. And, you know, picking what kinds of things to do.
I have no recollection of being allowed to disturb an adult party, and am quite certain that my parents wouldn't have stood for it for even a minute. I would never have been the only one, though, since one brother is a little less than 2 years older, and another is 2.5 years younger. I can see how only children would get bored more easily.
120: I have an appalling memory so I avoid these fights altogether simply by having no idea what anyone is talking about even though I was present and it was only last week. Usually I can figure out what is going on by reasoning backwards from the fact that I am never wrong and figuring out how things must have been based on that. It's not perfect, but it is infallible.
I recall making a lot of effort to keep my kids civilized....
Hey, the Flippanter family is two generations (at least) into its feral-children experiment and look at how well we're ... yeah, carry on.
127: This was a completely incomprehensible thing to say until the invention of the second floor in the late neolithic era, of course.
Hey, Halford, LB, etc. -- I certainly wasn't meaning to imply that I did not need supervision and adult labor when I was 3, 4, 5, 6 or whatever. Famous incidents in the PGD clan include my fracturing my little brother's skull and breaking various household objects. What I was suggesting was that in my memory my parents imposed a rigid, absolute, and effective barrier between kid settings, where kid activities like making lots of noise and breaking stuff were acceptable, and adult settings, where children should be seen but not heard. I think they were backed up by the wider culture in making this distinction to a much greater extent than today, and also were able to use straight fear as a motivator more than parents can maybe do today (for good reason, I might add).
It also does seem to me that I spent more time unsupervised in the years from 5-10 or so than kids do today. That also has its pluses and minuses. I have more memories of wandering with roving packs of little kids where there was some real lord-of-the-flies type action possible. Upper middle class kids today seem to have adults around *all the time*. I don't know exactly how those differences add up to how "disciplined" kids were by adults back then. In some ways more so, in some ways less.
Also, I can remember little except isolated dreamlike images from 1-3 years old, I believe things start getting clearer around pre-school and especially kindergarten. The trauma of being forced to go to school left a mark. I clearly remember when I realized I had more than TEN MORE YEARS OF THIS SCHOOL SHIT before I got to be free. So awful and unimaginable.
Oh, certainly things have changed in terms of how closely supervised kids are expected to be; there's a very strong expectation that a kid under ten or so is either visible by an adult or indoors where they can't get out without being seen by an adult that's gotten much stronger over the past few decades. If that change is all you're talking about, it's absolutely happened, and it does mean a lot more kids spending time in adult settings they would have been excluded from in the past, which is annoying and laborious for the adults sometimes.
The second floor was invented by a caveman who needed extra storage for his bacon-wrapped-banana collection.
What I was suggesting was that in my memory my parents imposed a rigid, absolute, and effective barrier between kid settings, where kid activities like making lots of noise and breaking stuff were acceptable, and adult settings, where children should be seen but not heard.
I think that something like this distinction still exists. It's not like your average kid today is unaware that there are spaces that are for grownups only and where behavior needs to be different.
But, even if the changes are sometimes overstated, I certainly agree that some boundaries for raising young kids are different for UMC Americans today than they were in the recent past. Mostly, that (mostly) women who are parents of babies or very young kids feel OK with having their childcare be more publicly visible. For instance, taking your baby to a dinner party and breastfeeding, instead of either staying at home or hiring a babysitter. I would venture that this is almost 100% a good thing -- and an achievement of feminism.
My parents were just on the cusp of whatever culture PGD is describing and what came next. Even though my parents practically never gave adult parties, and most of our social gatherings were family-oriented, there was a distinct idea that if you were going to hang around with the adults, you had to behave yourself. (Otherwise, after asking to be excused, you could run around like a lunatic outside with the other kids. Or play text adventures.) But there were other kids, always, and an outdoor space. Mores necessarily change once neither of those apply.
My one vivid recollection of being spanked was punishment for interrupting at the dinner table. My mother assures me today that I was being really annoying and for a long time, but it remains embedded in my memory as a great injustice.
None of you are Italian. We were all up in every party (and party always = dinner party).
[Haha. I just asked my uberWASP friend about this. Kids at Tgiving etc. at his grandparents house ate in a fully different room and were served by different servants. OK, then!)
I somewhat regularly attend a holidays-ish-time dinner at the house of some family friends who, while not WASPy in the technical A-S or P senses, really act that way. They have twin children. Those children ate separately from the adults until I think age fourteen. It's still weird to see them at the regular table.
Well, if there's a biggish gathering of family and/or friends, too big to fit around the usual table, then the group has to be divided somehow, and age seems better than most divisions. The idea of kids eating separately would be weird otherwise, though.
I stayed at the Thanksgiving kids table well into my teens after figuring out the the ratio of mashed potatoes to diners was much more favorable than the adults had.
the the ratio of mashed potatoes to diners
It took me a moment to understand what this could mean. Served family style? We had two tables, but got the food buffet style.
My Filipino ex remembers moving to the states when he was ten and thinking that American kids were raised by wild animals. His parents threw all-evening dinner parties; when he got tired he was expected to put his head down on the table and go to sleep without fussing.
OTOH, I noticed when I was there that every kid under five or six had his or her own nanny to tend the kid at the gathering.
I remember the kid table being way funner. We told dirty jokes that I later realized I entirely did not get.
Oh, man. Just mentioning mashed potatoes whets my appetites for Thanksgiving. My mom makes amazing mashed potatoes, including the deprecated-on-this-blog ingredient, Philadelphia cream cheese.
Appetites plural? Sure. Let's go with it.
My parents were hippies, and pretty free and easy about our behaviour in some ways, but misbehaving at a social occasion wouldn't have been tolerated if it was in some way disrespectful to others. I don't remember us being exiled from adult occasions, though. Just expected not to be too badly behaved.I do remember my Dad waking me up one night to 'perform' for his stoned mates. My party piece was being a 7 year old who'd read most of the same books as his mates, and had really strongly held opinions about them. Me arguing the toss with some stoner about his taste in books was, I gather, hilarious to them.
I'm also on team infant amnesia. I barely remember anything before about age 7 or 8. There are really strong memories of episodes -- my sister being born, various visits to my grandparents, a few events at school -- but the rest is largely amorphous and vague, and I'd expect that some of the episodic memories are partly reconstructed from stories my relatives tell. My sister, who's younger, likes to tell lots of stories from our childhood to my wife, and I know that a lot of them are bullshit. Half-remembered, and often incorrect on key details. But I don't have the heart to keep correcting her.
118 et al. (I've often thought it's weird how little I remember my childhood.) has me, frankly, somewhat relieved. I remember next to nothing from life prior to, oh, second grade -- age 8, I guess. Isolated snapshots, some of which I recognize are provided or supported by family photographs; some vague senses of environment or ambiance (the strawberries in the family garden of a friend in kindergarten). There are a few utter blanks that are somewhat disturbing (no memories whatsoever from my 4th year when my dad was off in Vietnam).
Anyway, I'd honestly thought I had unusual memory loss in this regard, and this is the first time I've heard anything to indicate that it might be normal.
I wonder how much of my childhood amnesia is the result of my mother's being a compulsive narrator: most of my early memories are overwritten.
People don't remember shit. People who say they don't remember their childhood are just more in touch with their memories.
Huh. I have quite extensive memories of living in Jacksonville, NC, where I lived from ages 3-6.
So to what extent is it viable or plausible to put together the snapshots and ambient moments one does retain to compose a picture of one's, say, true self, or adult self, or core self -- on the theory that one remembers just these things because they, and they alone, made an impression?
On one level, the answer is: not viable at all, silly.
But really: I remember the strawberries. I remember visiting the home of a friend whose father had a piano (i.e. I remember him playing the piano, nothing else, not the friend herself or the father particularly, just the piano). Remember some odd moment when I was probably 5 when it occurred to me that I didn't really like wearing all these white-themed accoutrements for Easter.
I could put together a probably fanciful picture of how this marks my adult self: music yay! delicious garden things yay! fussy clothes boo.
152: yeah I mean 151 isn't really true, or at least sn't meaningfully true. Memory is suprisingly shitty, though, even for recent events. It just isn't shitty in a way that it's possible to be particularly conscious of, most of the time.
I hypothesize, also, that those who moved a lot as young children have hazier memories.
Really? different background makes it really obvious to me when things happened, even if I wouldn't know at all without the setting.
What if every place you lived had beige paint and pine floors?
23 Also, Lopez gets it so right in 18.
LB changed her name to Lopez? Is this a really weird autocorrect, or am I missing a joke?
158: I'm Hammer, LB is Lopez, and you are Wavy Gravy.
It was a nickname, I think. Or it was somebody else's nickname. There's some story about a nickname in a thread recently. Or something.
I dunno, I moved around a lot when I was a kid.
156: Yeah, I can see that, and I mark my ages and grades by where we were living at the time. Certainly I 'remember' the various settings, if vaguely (not the household interiors, more the neighborhood), but I'm thinking that all the moving set up a kind of haze in continuity. Not just the house and neighborhood and state changed, but also the personnel, aside from my nuclear family.
Just goes toward the notion that we construct, or reconstruct, or solidify, memories as much from narrative constants as we do from whatever we might call actual memories. In my actual memory, given that we moved every year until I was 11, people and scenes sort of flew in and out, and by. Actual physical objects (like an ongoing childhood home) play a large role in making things solid -- mental furniture, as markers. So I hypothesize.
There was a survey article in New Scientist a while ago on infant amnesia. I'm pretty sure the takeaway hypothesis was that the ability to construct narratives (and the linguistic ability to do so) was a key factor in persistent memory, and that's a partial explanation of poor childhood memories.
I could easily be argued out of this. Sifu could speak authoritatively to the contrary, in his cognitive scientist guise, and I might cave on this.
There's some story about a nickname in a thread recently.
Damn. I really need to do less work / travel / etc and find more time to read the blog.
It's pretty much just RH doing it.
165 holds anyway. My priorities are all wrong lately.
I have a pretty convenient marker in that we moved once during my childhood immediately after I attended kindergarten. (I said I wouldn't wish anymore kids into the cornfield behind the playground but the school officials were apparently adamant.) I recall the gang at my old neighborhood (a short dead-end bordered by busy streets, commercial development and scrubby waste) as being pretty feral although I think the assumption was that the moms were playing some kind of a zone defense. Not a perfect system as the summer we left the neighborhood kids gained some notoriety (and a blurb in the local paper) when they all drank from an abandoned fire extinguisher and had to get their stomachs pumped. Would I have drunk from that extinguisher? You betcha!
In general I do tend to get in semi-arguments with my mother over how events that we both think we remember clearly but differently. Now that she's quite elderly I win them.
Okay, is it possible that I still have infantile amnesia? Again, I'm not suggesting I have a good or reliable memory of being 5 (in fact, I know in many ways I don't); I'm saying that my memory of being 5 is, to me right now, virtually indistinguishable from my memory of being 20. They've both just flashes of specific incidents pieced together as a narrative that I've constructed.
Also, Halford: how many pieces of bacon do you wrap around a typical banana? (I had bacon and bananas for dinner tonight, in honor of this thread. But I did not wrap them together.)
164: I wasn't speaking authoritatively upthread (I was just being a punk) and anyhow I'm not sure why you'd want to trust me on this, but ttaM's 163 pretty much nails the key issue, which is that narrative, episodic memories are really a creation of an ongoing imaginative process, rather than being veridical representations of what happened.
Isn't "narrative" what Carp keeps saying matters for politics? It's like our brains want stories because details suck.
170 cont'd: ... which is to say, you're right.
172: our brains want stories because things would be fucking confusing otherwise. Have you ever seen Zabriskie Point?
170: I was teasing about the authoritative cog sci guy thing.
Sure, ttaM is totes right. Numerous wise persons have noted the life-giving nature of narrative construction.
174: I sort of remember seeing that, but just can't figure out in when or where or who I was with.
My brain wants stories because stories sometimes have sex scenes and data never does.
I just asked my uberWASP friend about this. Kids at Tgiving etc. at his grandparents house ate in a fully different room and were served by different servants.
Yes, the WASPier the family hosting Thanksgiving, the more likely a separate children's table. I think I ate at the children's table at my godmother's mother's house in Connecticut (that house had a name, a pond, beautiful stone walls and knotty panelling and was absolutely wrecked by some wretched Hartford dentist who bought it ten or fifteen years ago) until I was 14 or so. On the other hand, I think even my barely-human cousins were accommodated at the big table at the Irish grandparents' (angry, depressed, backbiting) place.
My party piece was being a 7 year old who'd read most of the same books as his mates, and had really strongly held opinions about them. ...
I'm also on team infant amnesia. I barely remember anything before about age 7 or 8.
How well do you recall those books?
The stuff about childrearing norms shifting toward constant supervision makes me crazy crazy crazy every time I encounter it, which is now often. I have an n-month-old (0 > n > 12), and I am taking notes here, particularly on the snacks thing. But I do not think I have the hubris to take on the supervision norm without backup from a community of like-minded families, and I doubt that this community is the one I'm in now.
Incidentally, lurking here has been a great solace and given me a totally artificial sense of community during the isolation and rough times of the last n months. I am not exactly a born parent; I think having a godawful Kantian sense of duty and gluttony for punishment has done wonders to get me through, on the basic level. But there's been no one but me and my partner, day in day out, for all but a few days of the n months, and it's gotten all science fictiony.
Isn't "narrative" what Carp keeps saying matters for politics?
He wouldn't be the only one. But that's a completely 'nother level from the narrative construction we're talking about, Hammer. Try to pay attention. Also, no sports.
180: You are in the thick of it. Fortunately, you won't remember the tough parts of it that much. Lack of sleep keeps your brain from forming a narrative.
Also, no sports.
Without Hank Williams, Jr., it's like no one cares whether I'm ready for some football.
179: Oh, Flip. The story of holidays at my friend's grandparents was followed immediately by complaints about what the folks who bought their house did to it. (This was in RI.)
I'm at a bar. Everybody else wants sports.
Forget infantile amnesia. I don't really trust any of my memories, especially of things where I might have some agenda for how I want to paint myself. E.g., I've had several occassions recently to answer the question along the lines of "so why did you and UNG divorce?" and I swear it just feels like I'm making shit up at this point, so then I just tell people to RTFA.
I don't think I can remember anything before kindergarten. Even that is just isolated moments here and there. Most of what at first seem like early childhood memories are, on closer inspection, memories of photos.
My kindergarten teacher, who I thought of as elderly when I was in kindergarten, is still alive.
183.mid: I had pretty strong feelings as well and in fact we bought our current house to some degree to maximize the ability for young kids to be able to be outside/roam with minimal supervision. That worked out pretty well for the early years, but when they got older some of those same features worked against their independently wandering further afield, and in retrospect I think that may be more important.
184: It was a very special house, from the old stable to the stone wall along the road. The only other place I remember as fondly is the house where my grandparents lived from when my father was a kid until I was six or seven, a rambling old New England pile. Also ruined, I believe, but at least it survived, largely, the McMansioning of that particular town.
190: yeah, my house was in a nice wooded neighborhood ideal for wandering kids, but on a busline downtown. at least when i had bus fare, that worked out pretty well through morbid adolescence.
typos corrected: "wandering ids"; "abusline".
Once I found some dogshit while wandering around behind our condo. I covered it with a rock so it would remain undisturbed, and checked in every few weeks to see what would happen to it.
I was raised in a house on the edge of a very small town. They cut hay behind our yard and we kept a horse across the street. We had values, plus tobacco, guns, and illegal fireworks.
193: How old were you? What else happened that day? What was the story, man?
We had two driveways, which was the same as the number of full bathrooms.
195: it's all just a series of dreamlike images. Poop... under a rock! Wait, what's this? Poop... under a rock! Wait! It's poop... under a rock!
180: This is a perfectly valid sense of community, thank you very much. Although you do have to comment to take full advantage of it.
And do something about that name. "Lurkey" is not a name. If you don't call yourself something, we'll never remember who you are the next time you have something to say. (I'm figuring that haranguing new commenters about their pseuds is a fair replacement for the fruit basket, right?)
198.2: Lopez is still available.
198.2: great, now they're going to change it and you're going to complain that they changed it. Poor urple should go back to "Dr. Iman00b" for all the thanks he gets from you.
It was on two and a half lots. The half lot was a shelter belt to keep the north wind at bay. Dad moved in about twenty 8 foot pine trees and they took twenty years to get big enough to block the full blast from Canada. Fucking prairie.
198.2: Also, ahem (hoohole and all).
I'm feeling nostalgic now, you bastards.
179: the WASPier the family hosting Thanksgiving, the more likely a separate children's table.
This I don't understand at all. My family had a separate children's table, and while we were W and A and S and P (with some C), I suppose, there was nothing fancy about it: the kid's table was a dinky thing over to one side whereupon the kids could make an utter freaking mess with their mashed potatoes, the slightly bigger kids knocked their knees under the dinky table, a great time was had by all, more or less, except for the sulky kids, who were annoying, and the adults interfering to chastise so-and-so for not drinking his milk, and admonish such-and-such for having nothing but, you know, mashed potatoes. And no you can't have any apple pie unless you finish your peas, so Aunt Mildred can cut it out with the apple pie.
I pronounce it Lur-KAY, and I think it's beautiful.
Halford: please see 169.2. I had 11 pieces of bacon and one large banana and I'm wondering if my ratio was off.
206: It's an ogged tribute pseud.
We had a dog named Polly who would kill birds because she was the most patient murder-dog ever. She also killed baby bunnies, mice, and my ability to walk across the yard with clean shoes.
Semi on topic, a conversation with a college friend made me realize that I'd adopted a false memory. Like, someone had a great anecdote of something, and I'd internalized it as something that I'd been there for. Which I hadn't. The anecdote involved a trip to Toronto that I'd NEVER TAKEN, yet had thought for years I'd been on. In conclusion, my mind is fucked.
I ask because so far this is even less magical than unwashed genitalia.
Urple! I am glad that you have taken this step into a new, more satisfying life. Starting your bacon banana wraps at dinner is a particularly bold move. Generally, I like a piece of fairly thick cut bacon, and cut the banana into about 6-8 pieces, so that just a little bit of the banana sticks out from the circle of bacon. Also, it works best with a thicker banana.
I have an imdb credit I have absolutely no memory of at all.
My parents' house had a vacant lot across the street, where my sisters, I, and some neighborhood friends would play "Nina, Pinta & Santa Maria" (I got to be Santa Maria) or on other occasions and with suitable accessories, "Cowboys and Indians." There were authentic hobo campgrounds to explore (never any hobos to run into, which was for the best, since we were all under 10). It was a wilderness of feral eucalyptus trees and pussywillows, and we loved it.
My parents still live there, but the lot has been turned into six or seven luxury homes. They sort of had to be luxury homes, given that the lots were directly on top of the Hayward fault and that the foundations alone cost $200,000.
Still.
The anecdote involved a trip to Toronto that I'd NEVER TAKEN, yet had thought for years I'd been on. In conclusion, my mind is fucked.
Okay, that's really bizarre. However, I had a recurring dream for years about going to play in this certain , um, field, I guess you would call it. I could tell you directions to get there from my house and everything, even though the field didn't actually exist. For literally probably 10 years I could have sworn was real. I think's it's maybe because I never woke up while the dream was in progress. In fact, that's what ultimately shattered it--one day I woke up in the middle of the dream, and thought to myself "huh, that's weird, I was dreaming about being in that field," only to slowly have it sink in that the field was just a dream, and that all the times in my life I'd thought I'd been there had all been dreams, and even though it was obviously right (upon reflection) I still had a very hard time believing it, and I laid there disoriented for a long time. This was in college.
All this time I thought the banana was to remain whole.
Nebraska only had tornados, not earthquakes or hobos.
210: I have had a few concerts like that. But then in a discussion about a hometown venue with my sister over the weekend I suddenly remembered that I had seen Heart there in 1977, which I had absolutely forgotten and would not have listed them among groups I had seen.
Shutup.
212: oh, wow, I guess I did it wrong. I'll try again, although I have to say the flavors don't strike me as especially complementary.
217 works better without the final "in".
Re 180
I recall the books fairly well. But about 7 is when the memories start to get thick rather than episodic. There's not nothing before that, and i remember stuff like the jubilee, bits of early school, our garden at our first house, and so on. But it's sparse. And before about 5 it's just two or three episodes and some vague impressions.
But, the truth is that I've recently found a supplier of incredibly delicious bacon, so I'm basically always looking for good excuses to eat it.
224: Well, now that the truth's out, tell us about your magical unwashed genitalia.
I really want to know what urple's strategy was.
Wasn't urple doing the "no soap" thing?
I tried washing my hair less. I just got flakes.
They're attracted to greasy hair.
I just started wearing light colored shirts.
Maybe you'll attract butterflies.
Urple was doing the no soap thing, and I think he'd reported having stuck with the program for almost a month (?!) at last notice, but perhaps he's becoming disenchanted now. The bacon-banana may or may not improve matters. I dunno, maybe he should just have a soap-laden shower and a smoothie, then luxuriate upon some fluffy towels, for recovery.
I have a great memory for my early childhood and it doesn't give you any insight whatsoever as to whether you dominated a situation with your chatter or were high maintenance or anything. You might remember the rules, but you don't know whether it was a ton of energy for your parents to enforce them, or easy, or how much you screamed, etc. Your brain shuts off during a tantrum, and you don't record it.
I'm sounding scientific but I'm making it up. But I still believe it.
Wasn't urple doing the "no soap" thing?
Jammies threw in the towel last week! I almost posted about it but then I remembered to feel sorry for myself.
233.last is pretty much the foundation of psychology.
I think Jammies (and Urple) both started about 6 months ago.
234: Jammies threw in the towel last week!
Sure, he had to go on his camping trip.
Incidentally, lurking here has been a great solace and given me a totally artificial sense of community during the isolation and rough times of the last n months.
Lurkey, I'm glad to hear this!
I don't rememer exactly when I started (although I think it was April), but since whenever that was I've probably used soap in the shower about 2 or 3 times. So, irregularly.
I'm sounding scientific but I'm making it up. But I still believe it.
The first sentence is half true. On the second sentence, I mostly do too (except I don't think your brain shuts off; I think that as a little kid you had no real ability to understand your effect on other people and no real sense of time, so that you could easily remember that you hardly ever misbehaved and were an angel when you only misbehaved seven hours a day, max).
It was already summer vacation, because I wouldn't have undertaken it during the school year. So I'm going to say May or June.
Blech. I'm so glad I started using soap again.
I asked Jammies why he started up and he said he just got bored in the shower.
The first sentence is half true
I think you mean that I don't sound as fancy as I think I do when I make shit up.
he said he just got bored in the shower.
There are more traditional remedies for that.
he said he just got bored in the shower
Yeah, that brings up a lot of childhood memories from age, oh, 13 or so.
"I'm scientific but up": true.
"sounding I'm making it": false.
Stormcrow and Essear: Totally busted.
Hey, gettin' a little bacon around the ol' banana in the shower is hardly cause for remonstration, Halford. Especially when you're talking about teenagers.
Butt up, scientific!
Sounding off, I'm making it!
Banana pork fat, terrific!
No soap, I'm hating it!
I don't know. There's some vague tune spinning around in my head. Some kind of chorus of a girl group anthem?
250: Don't know it, maybe if you hum a few bars.
My memory beats Urple's memory!
253: You might recall that he doesn't capitalize his name.
Somehow I didn't even realize that jammies was in on the experiment. Other than getting bored in the shower, did he have any feedback? What about B.O.?
What about B.O.?
History's greatest monster.
I remember a bunch of things from when I was five. Nothing that I can think of from when I was four, although I wouldn't be surprised to learn that some episodes I think of as from being 5 were actually 4. We moved just before I turned 6 -- and in the previous year, our mare had foaled, we had a huge blizzard, and the president got shot. And my best neighborhood friend's dad committed suicide -- there was some speculation among five year olds about the relationship between the suicide and the president. Not that my friend's dad was at the grassy knoll, but that life didn't seem worth living.
in the previous year, our mare had foaled, we had a huge blizzard, and the president got shot
No causal relationship ever proved.
We moved just before I turned 6 -- and in the previous year, our mare had foaled, we had a huge blizzard, and the president got shot. And my best neighborhood friend's dad committed suicide -- there was some speculation among five year olds about the relationship between the suicide and the president. Not that my friend's dad was at the grassy knoll, but that life didn't seem worth living.
145 more pages and you've got yourself a YA novel.
Other than getting bored in the shower, did he have any feedback? What about B.O.?
I didn't notice him ever smelling rank. He said his skin felt better. He shaves his head at the beginning of the summer and then lets it grow out for the rest of the year, so I don't know if his hair growing longer had anything to do with it.
I have a ton of memories that I don't know if they happened to me, or if I dreamt them, or if I saw a movie or read a book or someone else told me.
Also I regularly have dreams about doing really everyday things like commenting on unfogged or whatever, so it's hard to tell if I've posted this comment before.
I used to dream whole days and then not know what day it was, ever, when I woke up, but I don't think I've done that since high school so it would probably freak me out if it happened now.
I am a new convert to using honey to wash your face. It sounds sticky and horrible! but it works really well.
The pseud: I know I know. Somewhere in your horribly Foucauldian Fucking Archives is an occasion when I decided to explain how turkeys got their name, and it amused me to sign that as "lurkey." Then I never changed it.
"Meleagris palloalto" is tempting, but clearly less beautiful, per 206.
I would... might... comment more, but circumstances make it ridiculously hard to type things.
Trustworthy memories definitely don't go back past age 4 for me. Among the earliest: the time I greedily ate The Pink Thing off a slice of birthday cake. Pink, so it had to be tasty, right? It was a piece of candle wax. I seriously thought I was going to die for what felt like hours of solemn, horrified chewing.
I would... might... comment more
If not for those ellipses we'd have a beautiful, 7500 word comment right here.
I remember being 4 quite well. Many episodes, some conversations, lots of various emotions and sensations. Iran hostage crisis looms large, but I also remember my 4th birthday party at pre-school, the first time my slightly older friend from church came over to play when we had moved into our new house, my nervousness about my little sister being on the way -- lots of stuff. Memories of being 3 are really shaky though -- very vague sense of trips and special occasions.
I can't see how that would have much to do with how high-maintenance you were as a kid though. When I was 3 and 4 I used to delight the oldsters on the bus by shouting out "Low bridge, everybody down" whenever we went under a bridge. Which probably annoyed some people, but they were just humorless sociopaths, so screw them.
Have I mentioned my memory from when I was 4 or 5 and we were driving through Chi on the way to my grandparents' house? There was a big lighted billboard for Minute Maid orange juice that my parents woke me up for, and then on the way home we went by the projects from the opening sequence of Good Times and I like to died of excitement, let me tell you!
My parents took me to Watts Towers when I was about 10, but I didn't really appreciate it until later.
In my memory, we were there at night, but that seems unlikely given the time frame and neighborhood so I might have dreamt that part of it.
I'm pretty sure we really went though.
I gotta see the Watts Towers next time I'm in LA. I should have seen them the first time I went. Oh well.
Definitely go with Meleagris palloalto*. Then there'll be four bird names (and three birders?).
*Like the city in California? Is this a subspecies? Off to Wikipedia
Oh, I see. A joke.
I am too earnest.
||
Junie's water broke last night around 11:30p, and after about 18 hours of labor, sans epidural, our beautiful baby was ultimately born via cesarean section. 8lbs 7oz, 22in, Baby DoranPongo, mom and dad are all doing well.
And now I'm going to sleep.
|>
Congratulations!
Wash it with soap, don't keep it locked in a room away from adults, and feed it bacon-wrapped banana pieces.
Baby! Congratulations! Yay!
Congrats on baby, don't listen to anything Halford says, except about the soap.
(I've got one word, soccer!)
I've got one word, soccer!
Don't play soccer with a newborn. They don't roll very well.
And now I'm going to sleep.
That's what you think. Congratulations.
Happy baby having/raising. I'm really drunk by now (rusty nails hit quicker than beer) and going to sleep. My baby is five, so it should work.
You should be sure your have had enough scotch before you try to raise a baby. Scotch and BPA-free containers. That's all I remember.
That's wonderful news, J(immy)P(ongo). Mazel tov.
Oh hey, congratulations Mrs JP and Jimmy.
Congrats, JP and family! That's absolutely fantastic.
Congratulations to all the Pongos. (And congratulations/condolences to the lurkeys. I'm sure having a baby is hard. I know that intense parenting is exhausting.)
262. Now someone has totry olive oil and a strigil.
Congratulations, Pongos! So glad to hear it.
Also, Minne, I was happy to read about your friend's baby the other day, too.
Hey, babies! Yay for the Pongos!
Hooray for PongoBabies! (What flavor of baby is it? I ask only because unfogged has been all about the Y chromosome in the past 12 mos. At least off the top of my head: HokeyPokey, the sprOgged, Baby Ouden . . . who am I missing?)
I like to think that JimmyPongo*, alameida, and I were all at the Continental Divide or Save the Robots on the same night some time in 1990.
*Right? We discussed your being around then?
What flavor of baby is it?
All babies are ham-flavored.
296 How long ago was RFTS's kid born? XX, I think?
Baby Ouden seems a bit hard - Oudeis, surely by now?
299: Well, CA is oudeis, so I don't know. Maybe he can be Outis.
Jane will be 2 in a few months!
Jane will be 2 in a few months!
What happened to the whole year?
Medeis?
Hey congratulations, Pongo family. Hooray for 2011 babies!
296: there have been a number of boys born in my circles too, but my own child is not among them, at least not at this stage of identity formation.
Natilo's friends had a girl too, right? (Congrats to them as well, as long as I am blithely congratulating people for this temporary descent into Blessedly Cute Hell.)
302: Aha! And congrats to you, lurkey! And I hear you -- I'm kind of selfish about my time/routine and the learning curve between newborn who bounces happily in his chair and 9mo who crawls everywhere and tugs everything and puts everything in his mouth has been steep and painful. But really cute!
Congrats, baby makers! Unfogged has an excellent streak of adorable babies.
Congrats, baby makers! Unfogged has an excellent streak of adorable babies.
I'm not exactly making babies, but Mara's adoption will be finalized next Monday, which is exciting and a relief.
I expect she's as relieved as you are.
306: Congrats, Thorn! We were so excited when our kids' adoptions were finalized. Although that was quite a while ago, I still have a soft spot for the people involved - in fact, last week I voted to re-elect the same clerk of court who signed off on the legal papers for each of our kids. He's in his late 70s now, appears to be doddering and there's a good case that he should have retired...but hey, he was in our corner when we needed him.
308: All three social workers who had her on their caseload will be able to make it, as will my parents and I think at least representative members of each of the three families who wrote letters of reference for our homestudy, including her best friend's homeschooling family. Then we'll all have some sort of epic but inexpensive lunch.
We also took her to meet her dad yesterday for the first time since she was about 18 months old and both of them were thrilled about the contact and clearly love each other. I'm so glad we've been able to give her the contact with her biological family that she's yeared for and think their approval is even strengthening her comfort in our family. She's already known her full long name with our hyphenated last names added and I think the last name change will be the most meaningful part for her.
Thorn, that's so great. Congrats!
And more congrats to Jimmy Pongo! And to lurkey!
Thanks, everyone!
Oudemia, he is boy flavored, so not helping the distribution there. Also, he's asleep on my chest right now while Mom dozes.
Mmmm, warm baby. Nothing like a warm baby on your chest on a chilly afternoon.
297: I'm not sure you're thinking on me. I was a Junior or Senior in highschool in St. Paul in 1990, so maybe at First Ave or Speedboat.
313: I have pitbull puppy with his head on my crotch, growling and working his jaws in his sleep. It's something like that, right?
Not entirely dissimilar, although the new-baby snuggle is floppier.
I have pitbull puppy with his head on my crotch
Your time as defensive coordinator is over. And I'm going to the head coach right now.
Congratulations Jimmy & Thorn! I am going to go see my friends' baby again tonight. Babies are nice and warm.
302: Yes, although they are not going to repressively gender her any more than necessary. She is so little! I was there yesterday for a moment and she gave the most gigantic tiny yawn ever!
Congratulations to the DoranPongos (with best wishes to the mother for a speedy recovery) and to Thorn!
Warm sleeping baby is pretty thoroughly awesome. I'm going to have to get better at the one/one and a half-handed typing though.
Everyone deserves to have a baby sleeping on their chest. Someone should create a line of realistic doll babies, with heating pads inside. And little artificial lungs.
Someone should create a line of realistic doll babies, with heating pads inside. And little artificial lungs.
Your time as defensive coordinator is over. And I'm going to the head coach right now.
Everyone deserves to have a baby sleeping on their chest.
Even Jerry Sandusky?
Sandusky is innocent until proven guilty. And he says he's innocent. He can have a realistic baby doll.
19:01:47:00: "Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?"
"Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?" Sandusky repeats.
"Yes," Costas answers.
"Sexually attracted, you know, I -- I enjoy young people," Sandusky says. "I -- I love to be around them. I -- I -- but no I'm not sexually attracted to young boys."
326, 327: Not taking the decent way out, then.
I think I'll go read some Punisher comics.
Even if accurate, does not change the overall moral calculus, but McQueary says that he did stop the assault.
329: I'd pretty much assumed that was the case.
It doesn't change the moral calculus either way, as you say. But even in the moment, there's "I stopped the rape -- the rapist was no longer penetrating the victim when I left them together," which is kind of different from "I stopped the rape, and saw to the safety of the victim." I mean, I'd bet the kid drove off in Sandusky's car.
It changes it a little, because not stopping the rape would be even more monstrous. But like Apo I was pretty sure the rape would have stopped (see my 24 in that thread).
True. It makes what McQueary did much less weird. Not less wrong, but less strange.
Getting back to happier topics, congratulations to all the new parents!
Thanks variously. Looking over this thread I only just registered Mr. Pongo's "18 hour labor/no epidural/c-section" bit... ye gods. Let me report that after a rough labor, I was inordinately delighted to be brought small treats while nursing, particularly beverages and the small bars of "wake-up chocolate" that I would nibble at 2 a.m. to keep from losing consciousness.
Not to make light of the ghastliness in any way, but just as an aside: the one question about all the Penn State stuff that I've seen no one attempt to answer is this -- what kind of ham-handed fiction writer names his all-powerful college football coach "Joe Paterno"?
McQueary also says he talked to the police at the time. McQueary doesn't strike me as a bad person. Sandusky is even now saying he is innocent and directly accusing McQueary of lying. Even now. That gives you a sense of what McQueary would have faced had he pushed it harder. Few people would have I think.
Sorry for changing back to the bad subject...
People say a lot of things. Stopped the assault how? The grand jury says he left immediately. If by "stopped" he means stared awkwardly until Sandusky noticed and pulled out then don't expect any medals there Captain America. And then did what, leave and hope Sandusky drives the kid home instead of killing him and burying the body in the woods? What police did he talk to? Who took the initial report? What's the case number? Recorded interview? Maybe a written witness statement? The grand jury report specifically says he was never questioned by University Police and "no other entity conducted an investigation until he testified in Grand Jury in December, 2010".
Congrats to all the new parents, birth and adoptive.
I certainly do not know how to assess the veracity of McQueary's latest claims versus whatever he said to the Grand Jury (which none of us have seen) versus the summary in the Grand Jury report. As I said, it does not change the overall moral calculus that much, but I did think it was worth noting that he was explicitly challenging certain assumptions that were widely being made based on the summary write-up.
But I will also note that it is certainly a Problem for the prosecution when the witness about whom this was written, "The Grand Jury find the graduate assistant's testimony to be extremely credible." [emphasis added] feels the need to deliberately float* new information/spin because of public reaction to his perceived actions based upon the summary report--in particular with regard to the perjury charges against the two Penn State officials where McQueary is the key countering witness.
But on the other hand, the prosecution has Sandusky's lawyer allowing Sandusky to give interviews that are unwise to say the least: (from an unaired portion) And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have -- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."
*If anyone doubts that, despite most of the press saying it was an e-mail sent to a "friend", it reads in part, "You are the first person I have told this ... and I don't know you extremely well ... and I have been told bye (sic) officials to not say anything ...." and "This is off record ... again ... I have not and will not say anything to anyone else."
Gswift notes my concern: I would assume that kid is going to be missing/ dead. No witnesses.
Gswift notes my concern: I would assume that kid is going to be missing/ dead. No witnesses.
336: If you read it in context, that's campus police. (Although in reading about this thing, I've found out that campus police are often in some legal sense genuine police. But they're working for the university and can be expected to participate in coverups.)
In this case the actual cops thought it was game on and the coverup had to come from then DA Gricar and Thomas Harmon who was the director of the campus police. The mother of Victim 6 reported the case to University Police and Detective Schreffler interviewed Sandusky with an investigator from the PA dept. of Public Welfare, eavesdropped on conversations between Sandusky and the victim's mother, etc. They went to Gricar with the case and he wouldn't file charges. Detective Schreffler also testified that Harmon ordered them to stop the investigation.
If McQueary went to police then let's see that report.
And the Gricar disappeared mysteriously, which is just weird.
When will they start digging in Sandusky's backyard?
343: That's '98, the incident that doesn't seem to go past fondling in the shower, where the kid's mother reported it. That one made it to real police and a DA, and dead-ended there. The 2002 rape is what McQ is now claiming he reported to police, but from reading the email in which he talks about the university official in charge of the police, I'm pretty sure he means campus police.
343.1: Just to keep it straight that was from the 1998 investigation, not the one involving McQueary in 2002.
345: That seems implausible, doesn't it? Second Mile may have been a fucked up organization, but if there were missing kids, someone would have said something by now. I mean, maybe on top of the MO we know about, he was also snatching kids from rest-stop bathrooms and murdering them, and so they just haven't been connected to him yet, but it seems like long odds.
I still wonder how many times people mentioned weird behavior, only to have Paterno get pissed at them. Or how many times people in the program mentioned weird behavior but nobody went to Paterno bc they knew he wouldnt react well.
I want to hear from the players who were on the teams when he had kids with him. Surely, others saw him in odd situations.
Step up, Penn State players.
348:
It is difficult to believe that someone who would rape a ten year old might end up killing one? The kid freaks out and says he is going to tell?
Maybe it isnt highly likely given the brazeness of raping a kid in the freaking Penn State Locker rooms. ie he knows that nobody is going to believe the kid.
350
Step up, Penn State players.
So you too can be villified for not doing more?
346.last: Yes, but even having specific talks with the university police (rather than their administrative boss) would seem to contradict the Grand Jury report (acknowledging that none of us have seen his actual testimony). And not to put too fine a point on it, moral monster, total dick or whatever else he may be, per 339 he is the fucking key fucking prosecution witness to the fucking, not to mention perjury--the "extremely" credible dude in the Grand Jury report.
351:
There comes a time when you have to step up and say "I saw something odd. I regret not doing more."
I can understand the desire to not step up. Sure. But is that how you want people to act?
I know it's the '98 incident. The point is that Schreffler was University Police and he did a real investigation and brought in other guys like Jerry Lauro from the state to help. So if McQueary went to the police like he claims there should be some paper trail. '98 indicates the rank and file cops were just fine going after this and had to be shut down from up on high.
353
I can understand the desire to not step up. Sure. But is that how you want people to act?
If you want people to step up maybe you should cut down on the negative incentives.
355:
Cash reward and free tickets to games!
Sure, McQueary was no hero. But I'm just saying that he was a young guy in a big hierarchy who saw a very respected superior doing something wrong, stopped the incident, and then reported the wrongdoing to something like a half dozen more senior people in three separate meetings. Then he testifies in detail before the grand jury recently. Exactly how much are we asking of him here? Is he supposed to try to hound Sandusky into jail personally at risk of his career and possibly reputation? Sandusky is going to say he's lying, clearly.
Frankly if McQueary is telling the truth he probably did a little better than the average person would have (probably because he was confident in his own standing in the Penn State community and Paterno's trust in him).
Just so we don't get too carried away with the uniqueness of the Penn State situation in sports, USA swimming abuse scandal.
Frankly if McQueary is telling the truth he probably did a little better than the average person would have
Fucking Christ, no he did not. An average person goes to the police rather than call his dad like a child and then tell a bunch of people with a vested interest in seeing this shit swept under the rug.
Sandusky is going to say he's lying, clearly.
Everyone believed him and he damn well knew this because he got promoted.
who saw a very respected superior
Not just a work superior, but a superior who was a family friend from his childhood. Lots of people freeze up when they're shocked.
359:
One of the linked articles indicates that 36 coaches have been banned for life in the last 10 years.
I dont see anything indicating USA swimming covered up. Just that there are coaches who do bad things. No shock there.
It seems like USA swimming deals with that much better than other organizations, but I havent really spent any time looking at the issue.
35 years ago, I am sure that it was much worse, just as it was in high schools. Teacher/student relationships that were consensual werent viewed so horribily. Obviously, we have rightfully modified what consensual now means in those situations.
It is also one thing to see something happen where it might be a one-time thing, and then you do not see any further evidence of it. You see a family friend shove his wife one time. That is bad. But, you might think it was just a one-time bad emotional reaction.
Raping a 10 year old? You have to think that is going to continue. But not doing anything, you know that other kids are being abused.
362.last: Yes, for instance in a HS I was *very* familiar with (lets just say), three coaches in a row were guilty The first two were "consensual" situations, the third more approaching this PSU thing.
But dig a bit deeper on the USA Swimming thing, because there was a buttload of covering up for a long time.
Yes, if you dig deeper, you will find the buttload.
I thought the official line was that they didn't know the identity of the victim; that's hardly consistent with mcqueary taking the bleeding child to the hospital after calling 911, is it? "he pulled out for a while until I left the room" is NOT stopping a rape, people, sorry. for christ's sake, I honestly don't know why this guy has so many defenders.
Let's be fair, he might have also stared until Sandusky lost his erection.
I honestly don't know why this guy has so many defenders.
Because it's uncharitable to vilify someone based on incomplete information. And because the people who claim they would have swooped in reflexively and saved the day seem suspiciously confident in their own self-estimation.
Exactly how much are we asking of him here?
We're asking that he inform law enforcement not controlled by an organization with an interest in covering up a crime that he saw a child being raped. That doesn't seem like a whole lot to me.
350: It's not that I'd put killing a kid past him -- if he's a rapist, why shouldn't he be a murderer -- but people do notice missing kids. If there was a "No one ever figured out what happened to little Jimmy" around Sandusky, it'd be in the news by now. So for him to have been killing anyone, he'd need a supply of victims other than Second Mile, not publicly connected to him. Not impossible, but on the current facts, not likely.
Frankly if McQueary is telling the truth he probably did a little better than the average person would have (probably because he was confident in his own standing in the Penn State community and Paterno's trust in him).
This, I find incomprehensible. The average person would connive in covering up the rape of a child, under circumstances making it plausible that the rape of more children was ongoing? Maybe I think too highly of people, but I don't think so.
if he's a rapist, why shouldn't he be a murderer
Or a diamond smuggler! Or running a Nazi underground railroad! What he's accused of is plenty bad enough; I'm not sure what the urge is to invent all new crimes for which there exists no evidence or suspicion whatsoever.
What if he's actually a wolfman!?
372: I was trying to talk Will down there; just from the angle that it's not about the implausibility of the commission of the crime, because who can know, but the implausibility that no one would notice a crime like that had been committed.
Also, what's a Nazi underground railroad? Smuggling Jews back out of Sweden?
375: ODESSA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ODESSA
To be clear, I'm not defending him as an example of moral behavior, to the extent I'm defending him it's from the accusation he's a villain.
Specifically, I think describing his behavior as actively conniving in covering up the rape of a child (as in 371) is unfair, particularly on what we know now. That's a very strong accusation that does apply to the higher-ups at Penn State but not I think to him. Also, I think it's unfair to say that he was deliberately limiting his reporting to the one entity with an interest in actively covering up the crime. Penn State completely dominates the town; the town's police could have had the same interest (although it appears they didn't). He's culpable because he stopped pressing the case before he understood exactly what had been done, but the expectation that after reporting the case to responsible parties he would actively it through layers and layers of bureaucracy until he saw the guy arrested seems to me to go beyond what most people would do.
people, what the fuck? I think 90% of the time just yelling "oh my got stop raping that kid!!" or "what the fuck are you doing" would stop an older man from forcibly raping a young child. then you get your phone out and call 911, wrap the kid in a towel, and wait for the cops. joking upthread aside, you don't have to be the fucking batman. are you people telling me if you heard a rhythmic slapping sound from the shower and it turned out to be someone raping a 10-year-old against the tiles you might just walk off? this isn't some fantasy shit about how you would have jumped up and tackled the shooter in some mass murder; this is where pointing your cameraphone at the guy just stops everything instantly, you are in no danger, and you CALL THE MOTHERFUCKING COPS. you don't let the kid go home with the rapist. what. the. fuck.
oh, I better check with my dad and the head coach if this might be a crime that say, maybe, just to pick an example at random THE MOTHERFUCKING POLICE ought to be looking into. cuz, you know, maybe it's not. who can tell?
Also, I think it's unfair to say that he was deliberately limiting his reporting to the one entity with an interest in actively covering up the crime. Penn State completely dominates the town; the town's police could have had the same interest (although it appears they didn't).
That's not an argument for stopping with the campus police, that's an argument for calling the state police, if you thought the town police wouldn't work. It's still just a phone call.
He's culpable because he stopped pressing the case before he understood exactly what had been done,
And because he watched a man he saw rape a ten-year-old care for dozens of boys in that age bracket over the next six or seven years without informing the man's employers that he wasn't a fit caretaker for children. He couldn't have forced the police to prosecute Sandusky if they refused to, but he could have made a public fuss that would have stopped Second Mile from manufacturing victims for him.
his isn't some fantasy shit about how you would have jumped up and tackled the shooter in some mass murder;
And this. It is simply not self-aggrandizing to say that you would have reported a rape to the police. That's not extraordinary heroism, that's bare minimum acceptable civilized behavior.
going to bed now so no one can piss me off any more. I was in more or less this position at 15 and a trusted family friend whom I loved did something even worse than just walk out. how did I feel then? I thought grown-ups generally approved of and enjoyed this sort of thing and there was no one at all, no matter how much he seemed like a kind person, who would help me. I cannot overstate how much that fucked with my head.
if anything, anything at all happened other than that kid went somewhere with mcqueary and received medical attention and talked to the cops--if that kid went home with sandusky, motherfucker deserves all the vitriol he's getting and more. this isn't the cheap moral posturing of those who imagine themselves saving jews from the holocaust; this is basic human decency. I can't imagine any of you really think you might just leave a child alone with a man you saw violently raping him. I think better of everyone.
great, I'm sure it'll be easy to fall asleep now, right? have a good day, other-side-of-the-world unfoggetariat.
I can't imagine any of you really think you might just leave a child alone with a man you saw violently raping him.
To not be self-aggrandizing, I don't know what I'd do if it required physical bravery--if I was immediately frightened of the rapist. (And I really don't know what I'd accomplish if anything violent were required, but probably not much.) But an immediate 911 call at least.
What 378 said. Sometimes I wonder how different people's moral compasses can be, because 378 and 383 seem completely fucking obvious.
This might be the first time in the history of the internet that a massive group of people saying "What's wrong with this moron, he should have done this, I certainly would have done this and I like to think I speak for humans in general" are actually correct instead of being internet tough guys.
A lot of people at various colleges and universities I've been at think that regular police don't have jurisdiction on campus. They're wrong, but it seems to be a widespread belief. I guess that could have had something to do with it as well.
A lot of people at various colleges and universities I've been at think that regular police don't have jurisdiction on campus. They're wrong, but it seems to be a widespread belief. I guess that could have had something to do with it as well.
It makes sense to me that when you want to report a crime that occurred on campus to the police, you should report it to the campus police. Are they not an actual branch of the police? What are they there for then, just to intervene in public drunkenness?
to the point where they think there are campus detectives who handle murders on campus too? aaack, ok, really going to sleep now.
I couldn't imagine leaving a child alone with a man I saw violently raping him. I could imagine not believing my own eyes and being uncertain about what I had seen.
Yes, alameida, if I reported a murder on campus to the police, I might very well report it to the campus police, under the impression that that is the local branch of the police and they know the area better than anyone else. And I would imagine that they would be in touch with other local police forces that might have access to detectives.
I don't think it's the chain of reporting that's at issue here. It's the 'not fucking stopping the shit then and there, making sure it was stopped, and taking the child to a place of safety'* that's fucked up.
* accessorize with actual physical violence depending on levels of keyboard-commando-hood.
I could imagine not believing my own eyes and being uncertain about what I had seen.
Yeah, but from his own testimony, that doesn't seem to have been an issue at all.
389: This isn't unreasonable -- treating the campus police as an interface between the university and the regular police -- except where there's an interest in a coverup (which is very often in terms of the university wanting to make campuses look safe. Sexual assault against adult women is often not passed on to the real police, and I think property crimes are also often minimized so they won't show up in statistics.)
I wouldn't have thought a bad thing about McQueary if he'd called the campus police immediately, and only went to the real police when he became aware that no one was taking action.
(Well, I would have thought he was a coward for running rather than physically intervening, but I'm trying not to be a keyboard commando here -- I would consider myself obliged to intervene and get the kid to safety, but I just don't know what I'd do if it required physical bravery, I've never really been in that sort of situation, so I might be a coward as well.)
I dont think it is a great leap to say he might have killed one of those kids. Not saying he did.
But, it certainly isnt an implausible path to go from raping disadvantaged kid with few parental figures to making them disappear.
They do "run away."
Not saying he did, just I would be checking out all leads about missing kids when investigating him.
I don't believe his email.
Al is right (and those agreeing with her) in every particular. Leaving the boy is not excusable.
If the email is true, and he reported, in full, to campus police, then maybe that is enough at that stage. I don't think he's morally obligated to go over the heads of the campus police, deciding for himself whether or not their investigation (which, for all he knows involved the real police in the background) had been adequate and the consequences, which he also can't see, were just.
That's completely extraneous to the question what he was supposed to do at the time. Which was protect the kid. Which by his own account he didn't do. PSU should let him go, and then he can see if he can't do something so worthy and redemptive that this episode doesn't appear in his obituary.
I don't think he's morally obligated to go over the heads of the campus police, deciding for himself whether or not their investigation (which, for all he knows involved the real police in the background) had been adequate and the consequences, which he also can't see, were just.
In the abstract, that sounds fine. In the concrete, he was a witness to the rape of a child and no one from law enforcement ever took a statement from him, and he continued to see the rapist caring for children. With that level of knowledge, I am very comfortable attributing knowledge that the investigation was inadequate to him and believing that he had responsibility for taking it further.
The language you use seems appropriate for the people who knew about the '98 incident -- it got to a DA, there was a real investigation, the allegations were a little more ambiguous. But here he knew he was a witness to a crime, and he knew no one in law enforcement had ever taken a statement from him.
If the email is true, and he reported, in full, to campus police, then maybe that is enough at that stage.
He doesn't claim in the e-mail to have reported anything in a timely fashion. The grand jury says he talked to VP Schultz about 10 days later - so apparently that's what McQueary is referring to when he says he "did have discussions with the official at the university in charge of police."
So a few days or weeks or months later, he had a chat with a cop, too. So what? The grand jury report - which is necessarily going to be written to make McQueary look good - says he was never "questioned" by police.
I don't believe the email. If I'm wrong, and he did report fully, I think that may be enough. I don't think he has a moral obligation to police the police.
Enough in the months/weeks after the incident. Not enough as the incident was taking place.
401: I believe he reported fully to Schultz, the PSU VP in charge of the campus police (who is also fully culpable for the coverup.) Do you think that's sufficient, do you doubt he did report to Schultz, or is there something that seems different to you about reporting to a uniformed campus policeman rather than his boss?
Moral obligation, or sufficient information to know whether he can make a moral judgment. Part of this is the cultlike atmosphere, but part again is his position as an outsider to the investigation (whatever it ends up being). For all he knows, the kid's parents have asked that nothing public be done. There are a million things that might have happened in the black box, and I don't think it's anywhere near as clear and hindsight makes it.
The incident itself, though, is every bit as clear, and I don't think there's any internet tough guy in that.
403 -- I think reporting to a uniformed police officer is qualitatively different from reporting to a university VP who has the police under him in the org chart, yes.
Do you think he had any moral obligation to look into the 'black box' the next time he saw the man he'd seen anally raping a ten-year old bring another boy about the same age to a football event? Obviously, I don't think his lack of knowledge about the details of the investigation excuses anything, but even if I did agree with you about that, I'd run out of excuses when McQueary continued to be aware that Sandusky was caring for kids.
405 -- (Personal reactions play a role in these thing, I guess. I haven't had anything to do with academic life (other than as a funder) for decades, and so I'm not part of the cult in any way. That said, one of my closest friends here has a longtime and very close relationship with the senior VP of the local university. I've met the VP several times, we've skied together, and we'll be on a week-long trip together early next year. I've been with him enough to have some confidence in his values. If I witnessed a crime on campus, there's no way he'd be the guy I would call -- although he probably has some supervisory authority over the campus police. If, however, I mentioned something troubling -- say a rumor of sexual misconduct reported by someone else I know associated with the university -- and he told me he'd get to the bottom of it, I'd probably leave it go at that.)
If he'd done the right thing wrt the incident he witnessed, everything would have been different after that.
I think he should have followed up, but I don't think he's a monster for trusting in the system, provided he really did what he was supposed to do (which I do not believe he did).
For all he knows, the kid's parents have asked that nothing public be done.
What investigation? The grand jury report says there was none, and McQueary doesn't contradict this. The idea that the cops went to the child's parents - the unkown child's parents - before questioning McQueary seems absurd to me.
I don't think he's a monster for trusting in the system
Where he has direct, unambiguous, personal, firsthand, eyewitness knowledge that 'the system' is allowing a child rapist to continue to care for children? Monster is an overblown word, but where he has absolutely no doubt or uncertainty to hide behind, trusting in the system to that extent makes him a bad man.
Agree with 395. Rape is, in fact, one issue on which I'd try to avoid campus police if possible. Even if there's no concrete record of wrongdoing - and it would vary a lot depending on the school and era and off-campus community, I'm sure there are places where campus police are actually better than municipal police, I'd want to check both what "everyone" "knows" and the actual facts about a given school before assuming anything, and so on et cetera - the obvious conflict of interest is always present.
trusting in the system to that extent makes him a bad man.
One of the odd things about all of these conversations is that they have a tendency to take for granted that McQueary is being both honest and complete about his role. But even accepting McQueary's narrative makes him out to be reprehensible.
I don't buy McQueary's narrative. Sandusky started his charity decades earlier - I think before McQueary was born. Sandusky had been previously investigated, and suddenly gave up his coaching career at its approximate peak. He'd known McQueary and Paterno for decades. The idea that they were shocked by this turn of events - well, one can easily construct a different narrative.
I keep coming back to McQueary and his father. How did they know what to do here? How did they know that Paterno would want to be consulted before the police were involved?
My guess is that they knew because they knew about Sandusky, and they knew that Penn State wanted to keep this under wraps.
I mean, we don't need to guess about whether Penn State wanted to keep this under wraps; that's been established. The question is: How did the McQuearys know that in the moment?
I think Carp gets it right. What he did at the time was clearly not OK by any reasonable standard, based on what the facts seem to be from what we have. 399 is crazy, though, at least if we're talking about the universe in which ordinary folks and not moral heroes act. The guy did, eventually, report it to the people in charge of investigating these kinds of crimes, and put himself at considerable professional risk by doing so. He wasn't responsible for investigating crimes; he went to people who were, and they massively dropped the ball. The fault for that lies with the people in authority who really did have power -- Paterno and the University administration. It seems wildly unfair to attack a low level employee who did report the crime to responsible people, including the (civilian) head of the police force with jurisdiction, for not going over their heads to the state police or whatever. I mean, McQueary didn't act particularly well -- clearly the better person would have pursued things to the end -- but, assuming he made the reports he claims to have made, we're well within the bounds of normal behavior.
Anyhow, I'm sick of talking about this low level guy, who at least is prepared to testify now. The responsibility for the coverup lies with the people in power, including Paterno and the PSU administration.
McQueary should have killed Sandusky. Just snapped his fucking neck right there in the shower. No jury would convict.
399 is crazy, though, at least if we're talking about the universe in which ordinary folks and not moral heroes act.
I really should drop it, but I couldn't disagree more. You saw the rape, you reported it to your boss but not law enforcement, and then you saw the same guy caring for kids at your workplace. I feel as if I know you well enough, just from talking online, to be certain that you would take further action at that point -- go directly to the police, go to Second Mile, go to the papers. And I don't think this is any great compliment to you -- I'm not calling you a hero, I'm saying that I think you're capable of normally acceptable ordinary moral behavior.
414: Wait, if you're calling for ultraviolence, does that mean that Bob is going to start eating strange things?
I'm only a pacifist with respect to organized mass violence like warfare. Interpersonal violence is sometimes justified.
I mean, I do feel like I would do all the things in 415 (though have never been tested), but that's mostly because I have no respect for authority and despise universities and particularly university administrators, who are basically a bunch of bloated pompous cowards.
But authority just works that way. At risk of being banned, imagine if McQueary was a low level soldier or policeman who witnessed a crime and reported it to his superiors up the chain of command. If those superiors dropped the ball, would he have had some independent obligation to jump over their heads and go to some third party authority? I would say no.
It's not that I'd put killing a kid past him -- if he's a rapist, why shouldn't he be a murderer -- but people do notice missing kids.
No one has been able to locate the 10-year old from the 2002 incident.
418: There's a 'what can you do' problem at some point. Germans who didn't die in the defense of their neighbors as they were dragged off to the gas chambers were probably in some sense doing the wrong thing. But for any individual, they would have died, and wouldn't have stopped anything -- it's a real problem. So once you've gone to all the legitimate authority there is, and they won't help, it's hard to judge you for giving up.
McQueary didn't get close to that point. He went to his employer, who is not the legitimate authority in matters of personal justice. If the police hadn't done anything, a call to Second Mile should have at least kept Sandusky from using it to procure victims. If that hadn't worked, going to the papers would have blown the lid off the police inaction. He had a lot of options.
419: But that's different from there being a missing kid.
McQueary should have killed Sandusky. Just snapped his fucking neck right there in the shower. No jury would convict.
See, this is what Internet macho-talk would look like. People who say they would call the cops if they happened upon child-rape aren't engaging in wishful thinking.
Yeah, he could and probably should have done all of those things. But when you're in a hierarchical situation and don't have a lot of power, most people tend not to. And it's really really difficult in this situation, I think, to overestimate (in this world) the powers that he went to -- he went to the people who basically controlled the world in which he lived in, they told him what was going to be done. Frankly, if I was a low level football coach and Joe Paterno told me that things were going to be one way, I might not have a great deal of confidence that a call to the state police was going to make things happen another way. These make his actions understandable, if not laudable.
In any event, I think the focus on McQueary really deflects blame from the people who really are responsible for the coverup -- the people in power. With great power comes great responsibility, as you nerds like to say.
Also, "probably should" should be "definitely should."
420: you really do seem to be demanding a lot. McQueary was likely aware that the Second Mile was aware of the incident (as well as at least two other incidents):
That, however, was at least the third time in 10 years that the organization had been made aware of allegations involving Mr. Sandusky's contacts with children. The organization knew in 1998 that Mr. Sandusky was investigated for alleged sexual misconduct in a Penn State shower involving a different boy from the program, according to a presentment by a statewide investigating grand jury....
The Second Mile learned of another investigation involving Mr. Sandusky in 2002. In its statement, the agency said its chief executive officer, Jack Raykovitz, testified at the investigating grand jury that he had been told by Mr. Curley that an internal Penn State investigation had found no corroboration for an allegation of inappropriate contact by Mr. Sandusky with a youth in a university locker room shower.
So, the police were aware (the campus police, but the police nonetheless), all authorities at the school were aware, and the charity was aware. I suppose you can stick to the claim that McQueary was evil for not taking his story directly to the newspapers, but that strikes me as a difficult case to make. I think the argument that he was morally obligated to kill Sandusky in the shower probably holds more weight, and that was sarcasm.
In any event, I think the focus on McQueary really deflects blame from the people who really are responsible for the coverup -- the people in power.
I'm a firm believer in thinking that many people can each be fully responsible for a situation. They're all responsible, from Joe Pa to Schultz to Spanier, to anyone else who knew. I guess I'm a little more het up about McQueary partially because he personally walked away from a kid who saw him and who he could have helped, and because he doesn't have any doubt about what happened to hide behind.
I've said all I'm going to say about McQ as well, for reasons id'd by Halford.
426: That's not worth arguing with in detail, but it's nonsense.
Are people here as condemning of the janitor who only reported it to his supervisor as at the grad student who only reported it to his?
You're equating Second Mile's having known that Sandusky was investigated and cleared twice with what they would have known if an eyewitness to a rape had gone to them (in a timely fashion, when they could have identified the kid.)
You're identifying the campus police with the real police, despite the fact that they're controlled by the university.
You're speculating about what McQueary 'must have known' about what Second Mile knew.
The whole comment makes no sense.
431: Slightly less, because he had more legitimate reason to fear losing his job, to fear not being believed, and so on. But yeah, him too.
It's interesting that a number of people say "McQueary was admirable about reporting things after the incident, but it's just unforgivable that he walked away from a boy being sexually assaulted without doing anything to get him to safety", and a number of other people say "I can understand being in shock and not acting appropriately in the situation, but he should have done more to follow up afterwards". Personally, I'm a lot closer to the former view than the latter, but both seem sensible enough to me that I'm not willing to judge McQueary too harshly over the whole incident. I don't think he did the right thing, not by a long shot, but his actions seem understandable enough not to seem monstrous.
I really despise the equation of "understandable" with "not really wrong". Of course behaving very badly is often "understandable". I've done some very bad things in my life, and I understand perfectly well why I did them. I don't give a fuck if it's "understandable" to abandon a child being raped, it's contemptible.
I really don't think the distinction between the campus police and "real" police is even close to as well-known as you're implying. I went through college without knowing it, or even suspecting it. I think most people assume they actually are the real police, just those officers assigned to work on the university campus. (And, you know, in most (all?) places, they actually *are* real, sworn-in police officers. It's not like they're just private security guards or something.)
I don't give a fuck if it's "understandable" to abandon a child being raped, it's contemptible.
Huh, that seems odd, since in earlier conversations you were one of the main advocates for the "I can understand being in shock and won't hold his reaction in the locker room against him, but he should have done more to follow up afterwards" side of the argument.
436: If the excuse for how McQueary acted is that he had a massive head injury during his football career and is incapable of logical thought, that's one thing. If he's of normal intelligence, though, and he works for a college where he knows there's a university administrator who supervises the campus police, he knows he reported a serious crime, and he knows the police never conducted any investigation of it, then he knows that the university didn't let the report go to any non-campus law enforcement. I'm willing to attribute responsibility for that amount of logical deduction to him.
433: Also, I'll bet it's partially because of speculation about whether McQueary had a personal reason for reacting the way he did. "Just some janitor" isn't nearly as compelling a story.
As for understandable vs. contemptible, there doesn't actually have to be a conflict between the two. This is relevant.
I do not see a contradiction between recognizing that a) what McQueary did was vile and cowardly, and b) that any of us might do the same thing under those circumstances. In fact, I think plain moral sanity requires us to hold both views. I find it to be a dangerous sentimentality that seeks to withhold or minimize condemnation of McQueary on the grounds of imaginative empathy ("I might do the same thing in his position.") Yes, of course we might -- which is why we need to hold before us, clear in our minds, the despicable nature of such an act, as a kind of vaccination against falling prey to the same moral cowardice.
Perhaps it's a bit off topic and too theoretical, but this discussion reminded me of this post, which everyone should read and which is really great. Maybe unfairly, I read a bit of kind of weird discounting of the power of private or personal authority in LB's comments on the subject. The question seems to be, "Why not just realize that everyone you've been dealing with as the powers that be for your whole life is corrupt and vile, and go over their head to the responsible authorities in the government?" Well, the answer is because authority and power, for most people, are primarily located in local, immediate, private institutions, and people understand that it's those institutions that really have control over their lives.
437: The distinction I'm drawing is between freezing for a short period of time, or being physically afraid to intervene, as opposed to not doing anything effective to help the kid ever.
440: I don't think I'm undervaluing it, I'm saying that there are circumstances where an ordinary, decent person is responsible for saying "Looks like I'm going to be moving out of state if I make this phone call. Sucks to be me," and dialing the damn phone.
I cut the janitor some more slack for possibly being under real economic duress, but for a 28-year-old nationally known football hero with a graduate degree, even if he screws over his career plans by not abandoning a kid to being raped, he's still going to be fine.
The distinction I'm drawing is between freezing for a short period of time, or being physically afraid to intervene, as opposed to not doing anything effective to help the kid ever.
Well, but my point is that if you're willing to look past his failure to act in the moment in the locker room*, it's really unfair to say he never did anything effective after that to help the kid ever. He reported it in a way that resulted in knowledge of the incident reaching the coach, the university administration, the campus police, and the charity. All those people dropped the ball, but that's not McQueary's fault.
* Which, again, I personally think is the contempible part of what he did. I don't really care if he was in shock or physically afraid or what have you--those things are understandable, but not exculpatory. He should have gotten the kid to safety.
I may be working too hard not to be bombastic about the minimum necessary to take command of the situation, and I'm also trying not to assign additional responsibility to him for being a giant, healthy, muscular young man, and I'm trying to allow for the possibility of being so shocked that he was literally not physically in control of his body. But yes, if I stop bending over backward for him, not rescuing the kid in the moment was contemptible.
He reported it in a way that resulted in knowledge of the incident reaching... the charity.
No. That's just not true. What you quoted says that the charity was told that an incident was investigated and not substantiated. They were lied to. He could have told them the truth. (Might not have worked, people there might have also covered it up. But it was possible.)
You're listing the university, the coach, and the campus police as if they were three separate entities. They're not. He didn't report it to anyone who wasn't paid by PSU.
I think the janitor is catching relatively little flak because, unlike McQueary, we haven't heard any of his side of the story, and since he's now a dementia victim, it feels a bit like piling on to point out his cowardice and misfeasance.
The question seems to be, "Why not just realize that everyone you've been dealing with as the powers that be for your whole life is corrupt and vile, and go over their head to the responsible authorities in the government?"
Sure. To go full college sophomore on you: Many of us would have been slaveholders, had we been born in the right time and place. I keep arguing that McQueary's conduct can only be understood in the context of the corrupt organization he was a part of. But as I think LB is saying, you can't let someone off the hook for this. Slaveholding was bad, too.
According to the grand jury account, the janitor was afraid of being fired. What kind of organization instills this kind of fear in people? What did the janitor and his co-workers know about Joe Paterno?
He knew what many of us know: That big-time college sports is an inherently corrupt business.
And, damningly, McQueary continued to work for the people at PSU who failed (to our knowledge) to take responsible action after he informed them, enjoyed a promotion that a man with a shred of self-knowledge ought to have known for a silencing bribe and, for years, failed to alert the real authorities or, as I think I suggested in a previous thread, to blow the whistle in the media that aren't beholden to PSU.
If I were in the mood I was in last week about this, I'd quote something Somebody said about a man not being able to serve two masters, but, I guess, you may take that as read.
Combining the parasailing (is that what you do? Whatever it is.) and the fire-and-brimstone Calvinism could be a thing -- you could swoop overhead declaiming righteousness and woe to sinners. I'm just saying, I think there's a market niche here.
All those people dropped the ball, but that's not McQueary's fault.
None of them, in fact "dropped the ball." All of them acted quite deliberately, and until the grand jury report came out, they accomplished exactly what they intended to.
And McQueary abetted this. It's not some weird coincidence that he and his father knew - without even asking - that Paterno et al wouldn't want the cops called.
And even if it was a coincidence, he knew what was happening after the fact (knew he'd reported it only within the university, knew no outside law enforcement had investigated, knew Sandusky was still allowed to work with kids. That is sufficient to establish knowledge that he knew it was being covered up) and could have blown the lid off whenever he wanted.
447: Mumble the wicked do not fear God's wrath, but His love mumble.
That is sufficient to establish knowledge that he knew it was being covered up) and could have blown the lid off whenever he wanted.
I disagree with both of these propositions. I think a reasonable (if incorrect) conclusion would be that it had been "dealt with" in the manner in which the responsible authorities were going to deal with it, and that doing more wouldn't do any good or have any effect other than ruining his career. Again, Paterno and the Penn State administration ran not only his job, but the entire town in which he lived, were the primary authority figures in his life, were in control of the situation, and had reached a decision.
I think a reasonable (if incorrect) conclusion would be that it had been "dealt with" in the manner in which the responsible authorities were going to deal with it, and that doing more wouldn't do any good or have any effect other than ruining his career.
And I think that's nuts. Living in Nazi Germany, you could reasonably conclude that there wasn't any authority that was going to help you if you complained that Jews were being taken to camps. Living in Pennsylvania, Paterno and PSU certainly owned the State College town government, but they don't own the state, and they don't own all the newspapers, and this was an eyewitness to the rape of a child. Thinking that it would wreck his career is one thing, but thinking that there wasn't anyone to report it to who would take action is absurd.
Do you think the same thing about the janitor? I mean, most people's response to going up against the system that controls their life is that they lose, because most times they do. Whistleblowing is admirable, but we can't really expect it of people, I think (putting aside whether or not we should).
See 433, 442.2 for what I think about the janitor. Same responsibility as McQueary, slightly more sympathy because more significant economic duress and less status/likelihood of being believed. But not much more sympathy.
I mean, most people's response to going up against the system that controls their life is that they lose, because most times they do.
I don't know what you mean by 'lose' here. Do you mean that he could reasonably have thought that if he went to the state police and said that he'd eyewitnessed a rape, that they would have called Joe Pa and asked "Mr. Paterno, do you want this investigated or should we sit on it?" Because that seems absurd to me.
If by 'lose' you mean 'lose his job', sometimes people have hard decisions to make.
I mean, wouldn't a pretty reasonable, or at least understandable, conclusion be something like "I will go to the newspapers, and then Paterno and Spanier and Sandusky and the rest of PSU, who are literally the most respected people in the state, will just say that I'm crazy or didn't see what I'm saying I saw, and then I will be painted as crazy and nothing will happen and my life will be ruined for nothing. On the other hand, Paterno, who is generally a great guy and in control of things, has told me that things have been taken care of, and I guess that's just how things will be taken care of."
If I understand Halford/urple/Carp correctly, they're saying that yes, McQueary was contemptible for not having reported Sandusky immediately, but his subsequent behavior wasn't so bad. (At least Carp is saying this directly.)
But you can work the same logic for Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier. Their later insistence on not calling the cops was pretty understandable, given the fact that they didn't call the cops in the first place.
But you can't separate those things. McQueary should never have left this decision to Paterno in the first place, and everything he did after that was determined by his decision that first night.
But you can work the same logic for Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier.
No, you can't. Because they were actually the people who were supposed to be in charge. Great power, great responsibility.
will just say that I'm crazy or didn't see what I'm saying I saw,
On what basis could anyone but Sandusky possibly say that? They weren't there. That doesn't make any sense.
OTOH, any police investigation would find the kid, who would be able to tell the story.
Except the actual police, who haven't been able to find the kid. And the prosecutor, who investigated but failed to prosecute when similar allegations were presented to him in 1999. Is it really insane to think that his raising the issue would have accomplished nothing other than bringing disaster on him? That's often how people without a lot of power think, when confronted with bad acts of people with power.
Because they were actually the people who were supposed to be in charge. Great power, great responsibility.
You don't think Paterno feared for his job?
On what basis could anyone but Sandusky possibly say that?
The PSU administration could say that they'd investigated, and hadn't found anything. In fact, they did say this to the charity. McQueary had no assurance whatsoever that any police agency would take his allegations seriously.
456: You can not use the same logic for Paterno. Paterno has been an icon in the state of Pennsylvania for 40 years. He could act consequence-free in a way that most of us can only imagine.
460: It's just a completely different situation. As Walt said in another thread, Paterno could have gone to the Pennsylvania legislature and said, "I need to have Sandusky executed, but can't tell you why" and the legislature would have voted to do so unanimously. You better believe that Paterno had, and knew he had, more than enough power to do something here.
457: And are you seriously invoking the just-following-orders defense? Don't make me go all college sophomore on you.
OTOH, any police investigation would find the kid, who would be able to tell the story.
Assuming he isn't buried in Sanducky's back yard.
pf, I'm not really understanding your point and I don't think you're understanding mine at all, but frankly it's too boring to try and work through this, so I'd rather not get into it.
463: As corrupt as Penn State is, the idea that McQueary couldn't get them to investigate an eyewitness account of a rape is absurd. He had all the power he needed to do the thing he needed to do.
McQueary did try to get them, i.e., Penn State, to investigate a rape. PennState failed to do so, at least adequately.
Right. He spoke with the head of the responsible police force, and says he spoke to officers of the police itself.
As corrupt as Penn State is, the idea that McQueary couldn't get them to investigate an eyewitness account of a rape is absurd.
I'm totally confused by this sentence. The idea that he couldn't get Penn State to investigate an eyewitness account of a rape is absurd? Isn't that exactly what he tried (and failed) to do? Who at Penn State should he have talked to, that he didn't?
459: They haven't been able to find the kid a decade later. Within a month or two, people would have been able to figure out what kid Sandusky was taking around that day, most likely.
And the 1999 allegations were much more ambiguous. I really think the suggestion that McQueary might have reasonably thought that there was no law enforcement authority he could go to who would take his eyewitness account of the rape of a child seriously is absurd.
471: He spoke to university employees, whether or not they were acting as police, only. That's not a subtle point.
But, he says he did go to a law enforcement authority. And there's no question that he went to the guy in charge of the immediately responsible law enforcement authority, as well as the rest of the power structure in the town where he was. Your criticism seems to be that he should have gone to other, unrelated law enforcement agencies or to the mass media.
Right. He spoke with the head of the responsible police force, and says he spoke to officers of the police itself.
Sure, he did that eventually (assuming his account is accurate). How is that relevant to his initial decision to cover it up?
I mean, the campus police=police. It's a state university with a state accredited police force, and the university officials are state officials. It's not like he discussed it only with some business manager who was in charge of the rent a cops. They, like the state police, were being paid by the state of Pennsylvania.
pf, again, I'm seriously just not understanding what it is you're saying. I am with Urple and Carp in thinking that what McQueary did in the moment is blameworthy. The question is whether we should also strongly blame him or treat him as an extraordinary moral monster (I'm willing to blame him, of course) for not taking more action after he'd reported the incident up the chain, after the fact.
I think we hashed this out before, but here is the statute governing the Penn State police force:
5. to exercise the same powers as are now or may hereafter be exercised under authority of law or ordinance by the police of the municipalities wherein the college or university is located, including, but not limited to, those powers conferred pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D (relating to municipal police jurisdiction).
6. to prevent crime, investigate criminal acts, apprehend, arrest, and charge criminal offenders and issue summary citations for acts committed on the grounds and in the buildings of the college or university and carry the offender before the proper alderman, justice of the peace, magistrate or bail commissioner and prefer charges against him under the laws of this commonwealth. Except when acting pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, campus police shall exercise these powers and perform these duties only on the grounds or within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university. For the purposes of applying the provisions of 42 Pa.C.S. Ch. 89 Subch. D, the grounds and within 500 yards of the grounds of the college or university shall constitute the primary jurisdiction of the campus police.
479: And I say again that you can't separate these things. I'll agree that after initiating the coverup, his subsequent decision not to double-cross his co-conspirators is probably understandable on some level, but this seems like a very fine point indeed.
How did he "initiate the coverup"? That's actually absurd. He reported the incident to people who reasonably were responsible for handling it. They failed to do so. They are responsible for the coverup. He's arguably responsible for not reacting once he realized that the responsible people were not acting responsibly, but that's a different kind of moral obligation.
When I was in college, all the public information crime watch sort of signs directed people to call or otherwise report to the campus police if they knew anything about any sort of crime on campus, including sexual assualts. I'm aware that there may be nefarious reasons for giving people that sort of direction, but I think it's absurd to suggest that everyone obviously ought to be aware of that. As I said, I wasn't aware of it at the time.
How did he "initiate the coverup"? That's actually absurd. He reported the incident to people who reasonably were responsible for handling it.
My point might be more understandable if we were talking about a bank robbery. Suppose McQueary was witnessing a bank robbery in progress. And suppose that 10 days later, he spoke to a civilian official who ran the police department - but only after that civilian official summoned him.
It would not be possible to say that "he reported the incident to people who reasonably were responsible for handling it." It would not even be possible to say "he covered his ass."
But look, if we're stipulating that his initial decision to cover up the crime doesn't count, then it doesn't count. I get that. We don't need to thrash out that point any more.
476: That's exactly my criticism. When he became aware that PSU was covering his report up (and we can argue about what he 'knew', but I think it's ridiculous to say he didn't know there was a coverup) he was responsible for going to law enforcement not controlled by PSU, which would not have been difficult -- the state police has a website with phone numbers.
483, see 395: Going to the campus police initially is fine, when he knew they weren't taking action he should have gone to non-PSU police.
482: He initiated the coverup by calling the football coach first instead of any police.
In fact, the Penn State police department apparently does routinely investigate rape, assault, robbery and other serious crime that occurs on campus, and make arrests. It's not a rent-a-cop organization.
486: Hell, if he'd called Paterno that night he'd be somewhat less culpable. If he'd done that, he would have been implicating Paterno in the immediate coverup, and possibly forcing Paterno's hand. Instead, he deliberately waited until Sandusky had safely made his getaway and had a chance to cover his tracks.
487: What's the point of saying that they're not rent-a-cops? Whatever they are, he knew two things (1) they are supervised by PSU administration and (2) they did not investigate an eyewitness report of the rape of a ten-year-old. The conclusion that 'maybe police just don't investigate child rape these days, no point doing anything' is lunatic; the conclusion 'the PSU admin is covering this up' is inescapable. At which point you call someone who doesn't answer to the PSU admin. This is not rocket science.
The "initiate the coverup" thing is bizarre. He didn't react well in the moment. That's a grave error, but it's not a "coverup." Then he went and talked to Joe Paterno, a guy who both knew Sandusky undoubtedly had the power to immediately begin an investigation. Then, he talked to the person in charge of the campus police, and says that he spoke to the actual campus police. That's not "initiating a coverup," that's trying to inform people who are plausibly the responsible authority figures about what happened. Those people failed in their responsibilities.
I agree, of course, that he should have reported it to non-PSU law enforcement. But I do think it's very understandable that he would have thought that his complaints to non-PSU law enforcement would not be taken seriously or have much of an effect, since actual powerful people responsible for these issues had already decided on, and implemented, a course of action.
Going to the campus police initially is fine, when he knew they weren't taking action he should have gone to non-PSU police.
And I'm saying that most people don't even realize there's any difference between the two. When you report something to one police officer and they don't follow up sufficiently, it's not a typical response to call the police again and try to report the same incident to another police officer, in the hope that they'll handle it differently. And that's basically what you're asking of McQueary.
they did not investigate an eyewitness report of the rape of a ten-year-old
How does he know this? He has no fucking idea what the cops are or aren't doing, or what they have or haven't investigated, or why. Ultimately, he knows that Sandusky isn't in jail. He has no real assurance whatsoever that the local cops would act any differently.
But I do think it's very understandable that he would have thought that his complaints to non-PSU law enforcement would not be taken seriously or have much of an effect,
Can you spin out what you think he reasonably thought would have happened to a complaint to the State Police? He would have said "Officer, I saw a ten-year-old boy being raped in the Penn State football locker room by Mr. Sandusky. I reported it to the administration, but I don't think they've taken any action."
And then...? The State Police would have had him killed? They would have called Paterno and been instructed to drop it? They would have without instruction decided that if Paterno didn't mind kids being raped in the locker room, it's his football program and he's a good man?
Those all seem like luridly implausible reactions for a police force not supervised by people with a direct interest in minimizing scandal, and it seems really implausible to me that McQueary would have expected such reactions.
pf, if you've understood me as saying that what I think McQ did was ok, you've misunderstood me.
How does he know this? He has no fucking idea what the cops are or aren't doing, or what they have or haven't investigated, or why.
Like I've said over and over and over and over and over, he knows they didn't investigate because he never gave anyone a statement. He's a grown man who's lived in the US all his life -- he knows that it's beyond implausible that an eyewitness account of the rape of a child wouldn't lead to an arrest unless there was a coverup going on.
There's a reason we congratulate and celebrate whistleblowers, and it's not because they did the right thing. It's because they did the right thing AND it's a very difficult thing to do. Whistleblowers are considered heroic because they are rare.
The conclusion that 'maybe police just don't investigate child rape these days [when it's alleged against a well-connected demigod and the local powers-that-be have decided to not to push the issue], no point doing anything' is lunatic doesn't seem that far-fetched, or frankly that dissimilar from what actually happened.
491: He was in a meeting with the PSU VP who supervises the campus police. He works for PSU. It is ridiculous to suggest that the difference between police supervised by the university and outside police wouldn't have occurred to him.
maybe police just don't investigate child rape these days... doesn't seem that far-fetched,
And I'm out. Good talking to you.
And is anyone seriously arguing that responsibility in this case is not directly proportional to power (i.e. Spanier>Schultz>Curley>McQueary>janitor, with Paterno's exact position debatable)? That's what leadership is supposed to mean. If you get credit for the good you take the heat for the bad.
493: The investigating officer from the state police would have called the university. The university says something like, yeah, our police force has looked into into this, McQueary is crazy and this isn't going anywhere, and (this part is probably implied) oh, and by the way, state police officer, this is a highly delicate political situation that we're handling and you really really don't want to be involved in besmirching the name of Penn State football on the basis of what a lone wacko thinks he saw. By the way, we're firing McQueary next week and he'll never coach again.
Is that how things would have gone? I have no idea. In fact, given the 1998 investigation, it probably wouldn't have gone that way. But it's not crazy for McQueary to think that something like that would have happened. Cops and prosecutors fail to investigate or deal with things reported to them all the time. I think you are radically underestimating how easy it is for someone without a lot of power to have confidence in the government, when going up against extremely powerful people.
That's not "initiating a coverup," that's trying to inform people who are plausibly the responsible authority figures about what happened.
In fact, not one of those people is a crime-scene first responder, and therefore not one of those people is a plausibly responsible authority figure regarding that incident.
As soon as he decided not to report the crime in a timely fashion, he was making a decision to let the criminal get away - with the child, no less.
What do you think motivated that decision?
LB, come on. Your position is really that the idea that the local police would be involved in a cover-up is "lunatic", but the idea that the campus police would be involved in a cover-up is so blindingly self-evident as to make morally culpable anyone to whom it didn't occur?
494: Nope. Hope I didn't say anything that suggested that.
Well, any police department that didn't go to McQueary for a statement has self-evidently become part of a cover-up. That is knowledge that McQueary had. The "campus" police part is more reason to believe that an investigation has gone off the rails.
As soon as he decided not to report the crime in a timely fashion, he was making a decision to let the criminal get away - with the child, no less.
What do you think motivated that decision?
Fear? The fact that he'd known Sandusky all of his life as an authority figure? Shock? Disbelief? Who knows. It wasn't a good move, at all. It's deeply blameworthy. But it's not a deliberate effort to keep the whole incident from being investigated, which is what "coverup" implies to me.
498: In a non-collegiate situation, you don't bypass the cops and report a rape to the mayor - not unless you're participating in a coverup.
FWIW, I agree with Halford that the campus cops are cops, and had he actually called the campus cops in a timely fashion, he would have been much less culpable for any subsequent coverup. But he didn't do that, so he was, in fact, much more culpable for the subsequent coverup.
McQ is almost certainly full of shit about talking to actual police because the '98 makes it quite clear the University cops were totally willing to do a full blown investigation on a lesser allegation.
Godamnit, can we at least have this be a learning experience for some of the commenters? Call the cops. Street cops. Don't talk to the fucking civilian in charge of their budget or some other horseshit. There's a reason the typical response of someone getting caught is "don't call the cops" and not "don't call the finance VP".
As I said in the other thread, being overly respectful of authority (and intimidated by it) is itself a moral failing. Sometimes people have to just whatever-gender-the-fuck-up. This isn't someone with their fingers in the till, or any number of other minor or not-so-minor transgressions where we cut people a little slack when it comes to considering their own self-interest when faced with the forces that might be arrayed against them. This is someone fucking a child. If there's ever a time to fucking stand up and not be a fucking coward, that's it.
I don't disagree with 510, at all. But 496 is also right. Whistleblowing is often the right thing to do, but it's a goddamn tough thing to do. Particularly in a circumstance like this, where there's a reasonable basis for thinking that you've met the responsibility of passing on the problem to folks with power and authority, and it's not clear that further rocking of the boat will in fact have an effect, it seems to me that (on the reporting afterwards part, not the intervening at the time part) we're in the realm of pretty ordinary, if somewhat despicable, human behavior.
Godamnit, can we at least have this be a learning experience for some of the commenters? Call the cops. Street cops. Don't talk to the fucking civilian in charge of their budget or some other horseshit. There's a reason the typical response of someone getting caught is "don't call the cops" and not "don't call the finance VP".
So, go to the guys on the ground, the low-level cops who work on campus. Don't go over their heads to some guy behind a desk.
I don't really disagree with 511. The not intervening at the time part is the part I find morally incomprehensible. The stuff later, really shitty, but in the range of shitty behaviour that one (sadly) expect. Wrong, but not 'Holy Fuck!' inexplicable. Not intervening at the time? Completely fucking alien.
Also to gswift's point, parents, please think about what you'd do if it were your child who'd been victimized. And I don't mean "Oh, I'd snap the motherfucker's neck!" but think about the terminology you'd use to talk to your child, whether there's a children's hospital or a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner program or even better a local specialist organization that deals with child victims of sexual assault. (Here, for instance, there's a place that can do forensic pelvic exams and the necessary interviews in one location to at least marginally minimize the trauma involved with that part of the experience.)
I hope this isn't pertinent to most of you who aren't in the line of parenting work I'm in, but you have no way of knowing whether it will or won't be and this is not the kind of thing you'd want to figure out on the fly.
But it's not a deliberate effort to keep the whole incident from being investigated, which is what "coverup" implies to me.
He didn't accidentally fail to call the cops. That was a decision that he and his father made after deliberating. Taking action after deliberating is more-or-less the definition of "deliberate."
He acted to give Paterno the option to cover it up, and I have a hard time imagining that he was surprised when Paterno did so. As I said in 448: It's not some weird coincidence that he and his father knew - without even asking - that Paterno et al wouldn't want the cops called.
If he actually thought of Paterno as a moral and responsible leader - according to ordinary definitions of those words - he would have worried about being fired for not reporting to the cops immediately.
Oh, I think I finally understand your point, pf.
I mean, yeah, the decision to go to Paterno, a football coach, first is bizarre taken out of context. But I find that part absolutely understandable -- you have a seriously deep crisis involving someone close to you, the first person you go to is the person you think of as being the trusted authority figure in charge of your workplace. That doesn't ring "coverup" to me -- I don't think he made a conscious decision to have Paterno sweep things under the rug -- it rings "holy shit this is a big deal way outside of my pay grade and I better go to the guy in charge." Having seen a lot of corporate-type wrongdoing, after the fact, in my line of work, that's pretty much the response that most people have when they become aware of wrongdoing. They go to some guy close to them who they trust is in charge and can tell them what to do, not straight to the government.
'maybe police just don't investigate child rape these days [when it's alleged against a well-connected demigod and the local powers-that-be have decided to not to push the issue], no point doing anything' is lunatic doesn't seem that far-fetched, or frankly that dissimilar from what actually happened.
This is bullshit. The campus cops are known to have gone the distance in '98 on a much lesser allegation with no witnesses and took that investigation to a DA.
that's pretty much the response that most people have when they become aware of wrongdoing. They go to some guy close to them who they trust is in charge and can tell them what to do, not straight to the government.
That's pretty much the response to something like embezzlement, not witnessing an old man forcibly buttfucking a young child.
Really?
I mean, I don't understand not intervening immediately in the moment, and not going to the cops then. I agree that that's deeply crazy. (sometimes, people are crazy, but that's crazy).
But once you've gone that far -- you haven't intervened in the moment -- is it really that bizarre that the first guy you'd go to would be the trusted coach, famous for doing the right thing, the guy who has been basically your mentor and leader your whole life, and who also knows Sandusky? And also clearly has the power to do something about the problem? That part seems totally plausible and humanly relatable to me.
I am expecting apologies from all of you if (once) they find the bodies in Sandusky's back yard. If serving on a jury, I would cut a couple years off of his multiple life sentences if he had the good sense to bury the bodies in Paterno's back yard.
Speaking of Paterno's yard, the NYT reported that he transferred his house to his wife for $1 last summer. Cough hiding assets from civil liability cough.
521
Cough evading the estate tax cough.
Cough he's 84 years old cough.
Cough his wife is only 71 cough.
The article is much more informative.
Experts in estate planning and tax law, in interviews, cautioned that it would be hard to determine the Paternos' motivation simply from the available documents. It appears the family house had been the subject of years of complex and confusing transactions.
Lawrence A. Frolik, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who specializes in elder law, said that he had "never heard" of a husband selling his share of a house for $1 to his spouse for tax or government assistance purposes.
"I can't see any tax advantages," Frolik said. "If someone told me that, my reaction would be, 'Are they hoping to shield assets in case if there's personal liability?' " He added, "It sounds like an attempt to avoid personal liability in having assets in his wife's name."
Two lawyers examined the available documents in recent days. Neither wanted to be identified because they were not directly involved in the case or the property transaction. One of the experts said it appeared to be an explicit effort to financially shield Joe Paterno. The other regarded the July transaction, at least on its face, as benign.
Can anyone explain to me why this isn't a tax advantage?
Cough evading the estate tax cough.
Doesn't apply to bequests to a spouse.
I have no idea why, but $1 intra-family real estate transfers are common around here. I kept seeing it when not buying a house. Usually they are to a trust, not a spouse.
I'd imagine the transfers in 526 are mostly to living trusts. Though, why you'd need to sell for $1 as opposed to just donating the house to the corpus of the trust is beyond me [now approaching limits of knowledge].
If the house had been in North Dakota, he'd have sold it to her for 22 cents.
528: Not with the oil boom in effect you wouldn't. People are living in flood-damaged houses that should probably be condemned, as there is so little cheap/temporary housing available right now.
I wonder what the very rightest sequence of actions is. So, this part is easy: you walk in, shout "WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING?" and run to the kid as Sandusky pulls up his pants and makes his exit. Now here you are with a scared, ashamed, assaulted, half-dressed kid and (I presume) no Sandusky.
Do you call the cops then and there and let them take the kid, who I bet really does not want to be taken off by the cops and has his own, more pressing needs? Maybe I'm an idiot and this is the only possible answer. But what if the thought of the cops makes the kid frantic? Do you let him run off? Do you take him to his own house? What if he doesn't want to go there? He's not an adult. You yourself probably shouldn't be in an isolated place with him for too long. What do you do?
Robert says this:
I mean, yeah, the decision to go to Paterno, a football coach, first is bizarre taken out of context.
And this:
I mean, I don't understand not intervening immediately in the moment, and not going to the cops then. I agree that that's deeply crazy.
This is where we disagree. I don't think it's at all crazy. I think it's perfectly undertandable, and not at all bizarre.
In fact, you've described McQueary's motives in a way that makes a lot of sense to me. You've explained that he was afraid to cross the authorities.
Somehow, though, you think that motive didn't apply to his initial failure-to-report. In your telling, it probably never occurred to McQueary (or his father) that Joe Paterno wouldn't want the cops called. It's just a coincidence that by not reporting the crime, he happened to do the exact thing that JoePa and the rest of the administrators unanimously wanted him to do.
I don't buy it. I think he fully understood the danger to the program if Sandusky got busted, didn't want to be the one to bring that shitstorm on, and passed the buck to Paterno, knowing that Paterno would want the buck passed to him.
If he were motivated, as you suggest, by a desire to pass the matter along to someone he trusted to do the right thing, and he thought Paterno was such a person, he would have informed Paterno that evening. He didn't wait for the next day to talk to his father.
My paralegal told me the other day that strippers in the ND oil patch are making $3,000 per night.
He's not an adult.
...but he's not a little kid, either.
He's not an adult.
...but he's not a little kid, either.
531 is pretty weird. I mean, I agree that McQueary probably thought "oh shit, this is a really fucking big deal, what do I do?" and went to Paterno. The interpretation that this means he was planning in the moment to "initiate a coverup" is bizarre. He wouldn't have had any idea what to do, which is why he went to the guy who he thought was capable and able to decide what to do in a really serious crisis.
Again, going to trusted superiors with moral authority in situations where there's a serious crisis is what people do. It's not even a little bit unusual. Paterno then totally failed
We are not the 99%.
God it's cold in here.
Ginger, Lycra, Aspartame, Palermo, Metonymy, Quisling, Sancerre, Imogen, Plexiglas, Weiblich, Aurochs, Belomancy, Trotter, Libya and Queequeg, I don't know why I let my precocious tween children name you but they ain't payin' to see your names. Now get out there and shake those moneymakers!
apparently strip clubs in North Dakota are good places to find oil well jobs too:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/25/pf/America_boomtown_strippers/index.htm?iid=Popular
Anyhow, McQueary's career and much of his life have now been permanently ruined. Meanwhile, he's the guy who will be testifying against the PSU administration and will be the star witness against Sandusky. If he were really incredibly evil or committed to a coverup, he could have just shut his mouth about the entire thing. Would have been much better for him personally.
I don't find what he did in the moment (based on what we know) acceptable in any way, and I don't think he acted with great courage immediately afterwards. But the folks with more power, who could have but didn't do anything, and who (most likely) gave noncredible statements to the grand jury, are so, so much worse.
Grabbing a naked, engorged, elderly man would be something I'd be reluctant to do, so I don't blame him for not doing a citizen's arrest.
"...going to trusted superiors with moral authority in situations where there's a serious crisis is what people do. It's not even a little bit unusual."
Yeah. I don't see why this part is in dispute. It's not as if he was a cynical old man at the time this went down. Everyone else blew it completely. McQ certainly didn't cover himself with glory but he's not the prime (other than Sandusky himself) villain. That role is Paterno's.
I'd wager a bag of gold that Paterno will deploy the Reagan-perfected doddering-old-man defense.
542: You mean standing naked with a boner or the "there you go again" when somebody points out an error he made?
543: (a) Thanks for the visual. (b) I don't recall, Senator.
Flip and F: you guys should really see a doctor about those coughs. And in the meantime, transfer your assets to me for safekeeping.
540: Not on a slippery shower floor, for sure. Maybe a youngish quarterback type would and could, but I wouldn't get into a fight unless I had a weapon handy. Otherwise, it's cellphone and police.
519 is it really that bizarre that the first guy you'd go to would be the trusted coach, famous for doing the right thing, the guy who has been basically your mentor and leader your whole life
It seems pretty bizarre to me, but I guess I've just never had that kind of respect for any mentor figures. I mean, I guess I call my parents for advice about things on occasion, but I don't think I've ever respected any authority figure enough to just wholesale swallow their opinion about something I wasn't certain about. (Going to people to get reassurance when I've basically already made up my mind is a different story...)
I would first consult the Mineshaft.
I don't think I've ever respected any authority figure enough to just wholesale swallow their opinion about something I wasn't certain about.
Even this seems to overstate what McQueary did, though. Based on what we know, it's not as if he went to Paterno and Paterno said "I know this is a terrible situation, but I really think we should keep this under wraps, for the good of the program." Or anything remotely like that. From McQueary's perspective, he reported it to Paterno who reported it to the administration (alll the way up to the President) who involved the head of the campus police (who called McQueary in for additional conversations), etc. The wheels were turning, and the matter was being processed through what would seem to be all the appropriate channels.
He wouldn't have had any idea what to do, which is why he went to the guy who he thought was capable and able to decide what to do in a really serious crisis.
See, I think the serious crisis involved a child being raped, but McQueary and his father knew that the serious crisis involved Penn State football.
So by my lights, McQueary did not, in fact, report the serious crisis to Paterno. As I said in 488, if he'd called Paterno that night he'd be less culpable. He didn't, and by that first deliberate act of sweeping the crisis under the rug, he became culpable for the coverup that he and his father deliberately enabled.
Had McQueary taken the real crisis to Paterno, Paterno might have himself felt forced to call the cops to tell them that there was a rapist whose victim was still under his control. But McQueary didn't do that, and I don't think Paterno's gratitude is some kind of weird coincidence. I think McQueary damn well understood that Paterno didn't want to be put in that corner. Fuck McQueary.
And why no sympathy for Paterno? This is a guy who, in real-time, was in a bad spot, job-wise. He was widely considered over-the-hill. His teams weren't winning. And like McQueary, he reported the matter to the proper authorities - eventually.
Had it gotten out that he'd employed a pedophile for several decades, I'm pretty sure it would have been the end of his career and a serious blow to his legacy. Why do you think he covered up for Sandusky?
McQueary and his father knew that the serious crisis involved Penn State football.
I don't think the Flip-Pater is perfect, and certainly not so long as he continues to fail to buy me a car for my birthday (after 20+ consecutive annual failures, fingers crossed), but he'd never tell me to call a college football coach about a sexual assault on a minor.
Had it gotten out that he'd employed a pedophile for several decades, I'm pretty sure it would have been the end of his career and a serious blow to his legacy. Why do you think he covered up for Sandusky?
He was weak where he claimed to be strong and empty where he claimed to be full.
549: McQueary reported that child's rape the same way that Ted Kennedy reported Mary Jo Kopechne being trapped in a submerged car.
Except Kennedy probably couldn't have prevented Kopechne's death.
And why no sympathy for Paterno?
Because he was the guy with the power, the guy in charge, who abused his power horribly, to cover up for a sex abuse scandal. Not a junior coach/grad student/former team member who went to the guy in charge.
Honestly, 550 is so weird it just seems to me to come from a different planet. If he'd gone to Paterno that night it was OK, but because he waited a day it wasn't? That just doesn't match up to any plausible understanding of human beings in crisis that I know of. The idea that he and his father cooked up a scheme to deliberately coverup the incident and then recruited Paterno into it is just weird. Why not just assume that he thought that Paterno, who was in charge of the football program, and apparently told him that he'd report it up the chain, was a guy authorized to, and capable of, handling the crisis?
I mean, I'm sure McQueary and his father were both shocked and horrified and didn't know what to do and were worried about what it all meant for themselves and their lives. I'm sure they were cautious in part because they feared the man who McQueary had caught, and feared what all of this could do to them. That's very different than "initiating a coverup."
If McQueary really wanted to coverup the crime, he could have acheived that very easily, even today. All he needed to do was to say nothing to the grand jury. One of the main reason why the crime has not been "covered up" right now is McQueary. And saying nothing almost certainly would have been way better for his life, though worse for his soul.
Suppose McQueary saw, say, a janitor raping a child in the Penn State showers. Do you think there's any chance he would have waited a day to report it, and then reported it to Paterno?
I actually think there's some chance that he would have gone to Paterno in that situation. But say he wouldn't have. So what? I'm sure that this crisis felt very different to him because the guy involved was Jerry Sandusky, both because of their personal relationship and Sandusky's position at the University. This was a bigger deal for his life than witnessing a janitor. McQueary was right to think that, and went to a guy who plausibly could have helped him through that situation. That's not "initiating a coverup" -- that's how human beings behave.
This is a good place to start on the problems of whistleblowing, as applied to McQueary.
This piece at Grantland is also pretty good.
The idea that he and his father cooked up a scheme to deliberately coverup the incident and then recruited Paterno into it is just weird.
Not what I said. Not like anything I said.
Why not just assume that he thought that Paterno, who was in charge of the football program, and apparently told him that he'd report it up the chain, was a guy authorized to, and capable of, handling the crisis?
Read 550 again. I agree that this is exactly what McQueary did. I just disagree about the nature of the crisis. (And Paterno did not, in fact, tell McQueary he'd report it up the line until after McQueary had stonewalled for those first hours, so McQueary obviously wasn't acting on Paterno's assurances.)
If McQueary really wanted to coverup the crime, he could have acheived that very easily, even today.
I didn't say he wanted to initiate the cover-up, just that he did. What he wanted to do was pass the buck to Paterno, and that's why he passed the buck to Paterno.
555: So people don't initiate coverups? That's not how people behave?
I get that people are capable of all kinds of despicable things. Child-rape is also "how people behave."
I think it's important to keep in mind what's despicable and what isn't.
What he wanted to do was pass the buck to Paterno, and that's why he passed the buck to Paterno.
And this is bad because?? What [nonheroic] people without power do in moments of crisis is pass the buck to people in power who they reasonably think are authorized to, and capable of, handling it. I don't think McQueary covered himself in glory, but that's just how ordinary people act.
All he needed to do was to say nothing to the grand jury. One of the main reason why the crime has not been "covered up" right now is McQueary. And saying nothing almost certainly would have been way better for his life
Alternatively, McQueary's testimony only covers 1 out of the 8 victims mentioned and refusal to testify could result in a felony obstruction of justice charge along with prison time.
He couldn't have refused to testify. He could easily have said he personally witnessed nothing, or that he personally saw nothing but "horsing around" that he didn't interpret negatively, or that he told Paterno and the other PSU officials that he only told them things that they could plausibly interpret as innocent conduct.
557 is excellent.
And 551.last is well-said and true.
He could easily have said he personally witnessed nothing, or that he personally saw nothing but "horsing around" that he didn't interpret negatively, or that he told Paterno and the other PSU officials that he only told them things that they could plausibly interpret as innocent conduct.
All things which would conflict with other people's accounts and still make him subject to a felony charge. Why tell anyone if it's all innocent?
All things which would conflict with other people's accounts
Whose accounts? Curley and Schultz's? All he had to do was to say he saw something that he didn't know how to interpret but that didn't look like a rape, and raised this with Paterno, Curley, and Schultz in a way that didn't indicate a serious crime. Then all three would have had a consistent story. He totally could have played ball and prevented the scandal from reaching the top levels of PSU or Paterno personally, but chose not to.
I mean, I'm assuming you see people lying every day under oath, sometimes in ways that are very effective for them (and sometimes not)?
Paterno testified the assistant very upset and called Curley to his house and told him McQ saw Sandusky doing something sexual to a young boy. Schultz specifically testified that Paterno reported "disturbing" and innapropriate" conduct in the shower. Schultz also testified he had the impression "Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boys' genitals while wrestling around."
McQ trying to sugarcoat his testimony could have real easily gone wrong for him. When it's a felony involving a kid I make everyone knows that fucking with me in the slightest will result in me going to the ends of the earth to put them in prison and I imagine someone told McQ something similar.
Right. And Schultz and Curley have now been charged with felony perjury because their testimony conflicts with McQueary's testimony, which the jury found credible. McQueary easily could have said something like Schultz's testimony -- he saw Sandusky wrestling around in the shower, in a situation where Sandusky might have inappropriately touched a kid by accident, but wasn't sure what to make of it. He easily could have sugarcoated his story to make it consistent with the other folks testifying. And the consequences would have been . . . ?
I'm not saying McQueary is a hero, but he's definitely standing up and testifying in a situation where his superiors are not doing so. He'll be the star witness against Sandusky, and is also the key guy in bringing light to the scandal.
Do you call the cops then and there and let them take the kid, who I bet really does not want to be taken off by the cops and has his own, more pressing needs? Maybe I'm an idiot and this is the only possible answer. But what if the thought of the cops makes the kid frantic? Do you let him run off? Do you take him to his own house? What if he doesn't want to go there? He's not an adult. You yourself probably shouldn't be in an isolated place with him for too long. What do you do?
I don't think I have a great answer for this, but I do have a related answer and I really, really strongly urge all of you to do it: Look up the hotline for your local crime victim service agency and store it in your cell phone NOW.
Victim advocates aren't the police. They'll go with you to the police, and to the hospital, and to court, but they're not beholden to anyone. Unlike the police, and unlike the DA's office, their highest duty is to you, the crime victim.
Congress established federal funding for victim services through the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) in 1984 years ago. Every year about $600 million comes from convicted criminals (mostly white-collar fines and penalies) and is doled out to muncipalities across the country. Much of it funds nonprofit crime victim service agencies and their staff of advocates.
The victim advocates I know range from basically competent to absolutely awesome people. I've seen advocates spend dozens of hours with one family, sheltering them through the ups and downs of the criminal justice process. I've seen advocates go toe-to-toe with police on egregious policy screw-ups, including one on homicide notification for the parents of a young teenager. I've known advocates who dealt with distraught and petrified victims of assault, and gone with them to get a rape kit done even when the victim wasn't sure she'd ever feel comfortable filing a police report. I've known advocates who patiently and stubbornly persisted through masses of bureaucratic paperwork to get a victim the financial compensation they desperately needed to replace prescription eyeglasses, or a stolen Social Security check.
None of us can know for certain how we will react in a crisis situation. What we can do is think through what resources we want to have at hand.
No system is perfect, and I'm sure there are inexperienced or incompetent victim advocates out there. But for my money, if you wanted to tell a story about heroes, their daily work is pretty damn amazing.
Schultz and Curley have now been charged with felony perjury because their testimony conflicts with McQueary's testimony
And with each other's testimony, as well as Paterno's. Schultz testimony isn't even consistent with itself. From the report:
Schultz testified that he was called to a meeting with Joe Patemo and Tim Curley, in which Patemo reported "disturbing" and "inappropriate" conduct in the shower by Sandusky upon a young boy, as reported to him by a student or graduate student. Schultz was present in a subsequent meeting with Curley when the graduate assistant reported the incident in the shower involving Sandusky and a boy. Schultz was very unsure about what he remembered the graduate assistant telling him and Curley about the shower incident. He testified that he had the impression that Sandusky might have inappropriately grabbed the young boy's genitals while wrestling and agreed that such was inappropriate sexual conduct between a man and a boy. While equivocating on the definition of "sexual" in the context of Sandusky wrestling with and grabbing the genitals of the boy, Schultz conceded that the report the graduate assistant made was of inappropriate sexual conduct by Sandusky. However, Schultz testified that the allegations were "not that serious" and that he and Curley "had no indication that a crime had occurred."
I think McQueary trying to mellow his testimony as you describe could easily have resulted in a charge.
I don't think I have a great answer for this, but I do have a related answer and I really, really strongly urge all of you to do it: Look up the hotline for your local crime victim service agency and store it in your cell phone NOW.
Hey, thank you, this is helpful!
I think McQueary trying to mellow his testimony as you describe could easily have resulted in a charge.
The fact that he wasn't charged probably says something.
Do you call the cops then and there and let them take the kid, who I bet really does not want to be taken off by the cops and has his own, more pressing needs? Maybe I'm an idiot and this is the only possible answer. But what if the thought of the cops makes the kid frantic?
FWIW a lot of kids seem to do all right with us I think mainly because they at least feel like they're protected. I had an 18 month old who was in the back seat when her idiot grandmother got into a car accident while totally drunk. That twerp wouldn't stop crying for anything except being carried so I ended up with a little girl on my arm for half an hour while wandering around a traffic accident scene filling out forms with my other hand while we waited for relatives to show up and get her.
Look up the hotline for your local crime victim service agency and store it in your cell phone NOW.
And if the cops are already there you can ask for one. Our agency has them on during peak hours and also on call. We often call one out for certain types of crimes without the vic even asking.
I think McQueary trying to mellow his testimony as you describe could easily have resulted in a charge.
Maybe. OTOH, it also arguably could have protected his reputation, his job, the PSU football program, and Joe Paterno. A lot of people would have taken that risk, and maybe it would have paid off.
"Q: When you entered the shower, what did you see? Sandusky and a boy in the shower together, kind of horsing around and wrestling. Q: Why didn't you go to the police at once? A: I wasn't sure that I'd seen anything wrong, at least nothing serious enough to warrant a call to the police just then. Q: If you didn't see enough to report the incident to the police just then, why did you have the conversation with Paterno? A: I wanted to be as cautious as I could, and I found it very disturbing that Jerry could be coming this close to arguably sexual contact with the kids he was helping. It just seemed like it might be inappropriate, but I wasn't sure. I thought it could be a real problem, even if Jerry didn't have bad intentions. Q: And what was Paterno's response? A: He immediately took it very seriously, and said he would report it to his bosses and look into it. Q: Did you actually witness sexual contact between Sandusky and the boy? A: No, as I recall, I couldn't quite make out what I was seeing, just the wrestling around. Q: Is that what you told Coach Paterno? A: Yes, I told him I couldn't be sure what I had seen, but that I was worried someone looking at it could have seen it as sexual. Q: When you saw this happening in the shower, did you do anything to intervene? A: Yes, I shouted over to them, and they stopped wrestling at once. But the incident stuck in my mind enough that I felt I should talk to Coach Paterno, because I knew he would take these kinds of things very seriously, and I wanted to talk to him. Q: Did you have any idea that Sandusky had been involved in other incidents? A: No, as far as I knew from everything else, he was a good guy and was helping those kids. That's why I couldn't be sure about what I'd seen, and wanted to talk to Coach about it."
I mean, there could have been a fatal hole there that got him busted for perjury, but maybe there wouldn't have been that testimony makes the University look bad, but it protects McQueary's own reputation and helps make Paterno look more like a guy faced with a disturbing but highly ambiguous situation than an affirmative monster.
572: Alex's lovey sleeptime stuffed animal (which I just retrieved from the respite home where he spent last weekend) was a gift from the police officer who removes the kids from their home during a crisis.
And Witt is totally right (as usual) about contacting a victim advocate. I know I have the option of allocating my minuscule state tax refunds to that program, which I always do.
I wonder what the very rightest sequence of actions is.
WWCTD: What Would Coach Taylor Do?
Levi: Hey Taylor, what the hell is all of this?
Coach Taylor: It's State Levi, get used to it.
551: my pater did give my brother a car for his 16th birthday, and is not the world's most together person, and hates and fears the cops with a lifelong passion, and he still would have told me to call the cops. as to what to do with the victim, if he were afraid of the police, I'd take him to the hospital explaining that we needed to make sure he was OK, and then tell the cops while at the hospital and assume they have empathetic cops whose job it is to coax young victims to get help and to get their attacker in a world of trouble. in case it's not clear, I'm also wandering around full of anger and hatred for paterno et al. it's just that I have been in more or less this exact situation (though just groping and ew I don't want to type this fingering) and the reaction of my trusted family friend (join in the fun, no fooling!) affected me badly. that's why it seems like a have a grudge against mcdumbfuck. I understand you all think that was awful and I have your sympathies, you don't need to say it.
that's a thread-killer, sorry. my lame oprah homework said I might go into a "crisis stage" where I was miserable and unable to think of anything else, obviously that has happened. so, sorry to be little suicidal debbie downer all the time; it's supposed to get better. soon, I hope. the bummer is that I never told anyone about trusted family friend (and he might not even remember, having been black-out drunk) so he remains trusted family friend and I have been going right along being nice to him all this time. I even like him! I don't know if I want to alienate everyone, but I've decided I don't need to be polite to him.
oh, and gswift, keep letting those kiddie-rapers stumble and fall while cuffed. because that's how he got those bruises, guys! hm, I ordinarily don't advocate that "the man" start cracking heads, and I hate it when people suggest prison rape as the appropriate punishment (not that anyone here has, but elsewhere it's popular). I'm just making a special exception here, and it warms my heart to think every cop a rapist meets thinks he's scum. I wasn't able to think of them as anything other than agents of the state who might take my brother and sister away when I was younger.
and anyway, this thread had a long, happy life before it got put down at the vet.
That's not a thread-killer, al. In my lights, Unfogged is a surprisingly helpful, occasionally smart, and sometimes even funny comment section.
That you and everyone else hangs out here and continues to bounce ideas off the Mineshaft, even when good blog comment sections have become an artifact of a previous Blogging Age of Glory, remains a delight to us all.
thanks stanley, you are a sweetheart despite your continual puns!!!
I would never have bothered to come blog here if I didn't want a pseud I could use to say stuff I couldn't say otherwise. though with facebook, the walls are getting thin.
I wasn't able to think of them as anything other than agents of the state who might take my brother and sister away when I was younger.
I said in an earlier thread that people are often reluctant to get the police involved in their problems because, well, not everybody's experience of them has been Dixon of Dock Green.
I think the McQueary case is the exact opposite - the guy basically just fell over a serious crime of violence in progress between two members of the public. It wasn't as if...well, you know the details.
I also can't help finding the whole story somehow rather communist, Soviet or East German (especially the sporting context). College VP of Finance who's in charge of the police but isn't actually a policeman, who kinda-sorta assures people that everything has been taken in hand and they shouldn't worry about it = Party Secretary for Youth and Sports sez the funny pills are fine, just leave the file on my desk and I'll see it gets to the Central Committee.
Yeah, I wonder if that's why I am judging McQueary so harshly. The fix was obviously in; it was all headed towards the end of a certain kind of detective novel, and surely McQueary knew the drill: when the locals are dodgy (as they inevitably are) go to the Feds. Or whatever.
Me:
What he wanted to do was pass the buck to Paterno, and that's why he passed the buck to Paterno.
Robert:
And this is bad because?? What [nonheroic] people without power do in moments of crisis is pass the buck to people in power who they reasonably think are authorized to, and capable of, handling it.
Of course, and that's all I'm suggesting he should have done here. He should have passed the buck to the cops. Calling the cops is hardly "heroic."
Paterno is not a person who anyone could reasonably think was authorized and capable of handling this crisis. And even if Paterno were such a person, McQueary didn't tell him about it until the crisis had passed.
Again: The actual crisis McQueary was involved in wasn't about Penn State football, it involved a child being raped. The apparent fact that McQueary chose to interpret it only through the lens of Penn State football makes him properly an object of contempt.
Right. If McQueary turned to Paterno because he thought there was a hard decision to be made, and he didn't feel competent to make it, he's already unreasonable. Because getting to the point where you think "On the one hand, I could rescue this child being raped and see that the rapist is punished. On the other hand, if I do that, it'll have repercussions for the football team. I'm not sure what to do," makes you already a bad person. If you weigh the interests of a ten-year-old being sexually abused against a football program, and think that the question of which is more important is hard enough that you need to pass the buck, the decision to pass the buck itself makes you contemptible.
(Now, if he'd gone to Paterno and through Paterno to the college admin just because he, eccentrically, thought that was the best way of getting a report to law enforcement, that would be fine -- that would just have made him responsible for going directly to law enforcement when it didn't work. But if he thought that whether to report the rape to law enforcement was a judgment call that was over his pay grade, that makes him corrupt.)
588: but if he's thinking that carefully he would have gone the Sgt. Shultz route and seen nothing. No talk with dad, no nothing else. To me, he's in the fuck-up class, well below monster level.
Oh come on. How do you know that he was weighing the consequences of the rape against the consequences for the football program -- that's just an incredibly tendentious way of putting it. (I do think that Paterno did something like this). I think "passing the buck" is the right explanation, but is it really that bizarre that in a situation like this (after the immediate crime) you would seek counsel from a trusted superior, and want to make sure that the superior knew what was going on, before going to the police? In fact, that seems to have been the legal obligation he had a a witness to abuse. If that makes you "corrupt" then hundreds of thousands of witnesses to wrongdoing are corrupt.
In fact, that seems to have been the legal obligation he had a a witness to abuse.
Wait, what? He had a legal obligation to inform a superior before going to the police? I'm confused.
How do you know that he was weighing the consequences of the rape against the consequences for the football program
I don't know that -- you will note that the comment you're responding to begins with the word 'if' and closes with another possible alternative, that he just chose a roundabout way of reporting the crime, which wouldn't have been wrong in itself until the point when he realized that he'd triggered a coverup and didn't do anything to stop it.
My point is that you keep on talking about 'counsel from a trusted superior'. What do you think he needed 'counsel' about, specifically? If the answer is any version of "should I take this to law enforcement or not", that makes him corrupt. I can't see another important question to be answered before making the report to law enforcement -- what important question do you see that a reasonable person would have wanted to pass along to a trusted superior?
My point is that you keep on talking about 'counsel from a trusted superior'. What do you think he needed 'counsel' about, specifically? If the answer is any version of "should I take this to law enforcement or not", that makes him corrupt.
I think there are plenty of people who, say, if they learned that an uncle to whom they were very close may be a pedophile, might want to talk the situation over with their parent (the uncle's sibling) before going straight to the police. "This is horrible and we need to deal with it... what's the right approach? Obviously we have to report it, but do we immediately call the cops, or do we find out what sort of treatment programs might be available to get him help, etc.? What are our options?" It's a horrible crime, but it's also someone you both care about.
That's what McQueary did. And it would have appeared to him that the situation subsequently was properly reported to adminstration officials and to campus police.
589: He could have behaved worse than he did. But he was faced with a dilemma. Basic, obvious human decency required that he call the cops. Penn State's football ethos required that he not call the cops.
That's a tough circle to square, and he ultimately sided with Penn State and the coverup, with an ass-covering concession to normal human decency in the form of his report to Paterno. He did what Paterno did - except Paterno didn't actually witness an ongoing rape.
590: I guess ultimately I don't think his subsequent actions can be divorced from his initial decision to not report the crime. And I think his initial decision not to report was reprehensible. I think the motivations that you assign to him after-the-fact were the same ones that applied in real-time, and in real-time, those motivations are noticeably more despicable.
I think there are plenty of people who, say, if they learned that an uncle to whom they were very close may be a pedophile, might want to talk the situation over with their parent (the uncle's sibling) before going straight to the police. ... That's what McQueary did.
Nope. Once you watch someone anally raping a child, it's no longer a question of thinking he "may be a pedophile." And there's also the immediate choice made here to not separate the victim from the rapist.
If you want your analogy to work, you have to watch Uncle Jerry raping someone, let him drive away with the victim, then talked to the victim's mother. When the victim's mother fails to act, you'd then have to not take further steps yourself.
This sort of thing happens - it's not alien to human understanding. Many despicable things are not alien to human understanding. Those things are still despicable.
And it would have appeared to him that the situation subsequently was properly reported to adminstration officials and to campus police.
No, that's absolutely insane. Again, he'd have to be a lunatic to think that an eyewitness report of the rape of a ten-year-old that didn't result in his giving a statement to law enforcement, much less in the arrest of the perpetrator, had been 'properly reported' to law enforcement. He's an adult human being raised in this country and aware of our social norms -- he knew that non-corrupt law-enforcement aggressively investigates and prosecutes credible allegations of child rape.
He could not possibly have believed that his report had been properly handled (after enough time had passed that it was clear that investigation and prosecution were not going to happen -- say a month or two?), unless he believed that it was proper to protect a football program by conniving to allow a child-rapist to continue raping children. If you disagree with this, there's really nothing else productive to argue about.
593 is how I'd answer 592, and I guess also 594. I don't see why you can't see a difference between that initial conversation -- the oh God, this guy is close to us, I need to talk to you and what do we do -- and the conscious decision to "initiate a coverup.".
593: Obviously we have to report it, but do we immediately call the cops, or do we find out what sort of treatment programs might be available to get him help, etc.? What are our options?"
If he came into Paterno's office with "Obviously we have to report it," I wouldn't hold it against him (leaving to one side what he did on that day.) But that's not what happened -- it never was reported to non-corrupt law enforcement.
And there's also the immediate choice made here to not separate the victim from the rapist.
Which I've agreed all along was wrong.
I don't think McQueary (after a few months, when he saw nothing happening) could reasonably have thought that the incident had been "properly" handled by PSU. I do think he very reasonably could have thought that the authorities had made a decision to handle the situation in a particular way, and that he couldn't do much about it without taking on enormous personal risk that might well not pay off.
I don't see why you can't see a difference between that initial conversation -- the oh God, this guy is close to us, I need to talk to you and what do we do -- and the conscious decision to "initiate a coverup.".
Because I don't care when the conscious decision was made; it was made sometime. If he went to Paterno firmly intending to see justice done, and sometime afterwards changed his mind, changing his mind made him contemptible. If he went to Paterno meaning to turn over the decision about going to the cops to Paterno, turning over that decision made him contemptible. At some point not long after the conversations with the administration, he became aware that they were not going to investigate and prosecute. At that point at the latest, he decided to cooperate in the coverup.
To 598, though, immediately after he made the report to Paterno, though, he could very reasonably think the crime had been reported. In fact, if he'd looked up what his obligations were under Pennsylvania protocol, he'd have seen that he had an obligation to report to his superior, who was then responsible for talking to the cops. That's what McQueary did, and he was then interviewed by the guy whose department was responsible for the cops.
I continue to be surprised, Halford, that you're apparently* arguing that child rape is no different from the crimes that "hundreds of thousands of witnesses to wrongdoing" are complicit in covering up every day. As I've said before, my ethics are decidedly situational and also bound by the culture in which I operate. I have, I'm afraid, acted unethically in the past and have also tolerated my friends' and superiors' unethical behavior in some cases. Given that, there is no doubt in my mind that participants in closed systems, like the PSU football program, would feel tremendous pressure to handle a scandalous crime in-house. But what I don't believe is true is that the pressure not to launder dirty linens in public is as great for most decent people, as the societal injunction against raping children or protecting people who rape children. Now, obviously I'm wrong in the case of McQueary and Paterno and many others in this case. But that's what makes them terrible people. As pf said, they had the chance to do the right thing and didn't. They didn't cover up recruiting violations or even embezzlement. They covered up the rape of a child.
* Maybe this isn't what you're arguing? If so, sorry.
No, I don't think he could reasonably have thought it was properly handled by PSU. At some point (certainly years down the line, and probably within a month or so) that not enough was being done to protect the kids in Sandusky's charity. But he could quite reasonably have thought it was properly reported within PSU, including to the head of the campus police.
My response to 596 is basically 504.
I do think he very reasonably could have thought that the authorities had made a decision to handle the situation in a particular way, and that he couldn't do much about it without taking on enormous personal risk that might well not pay off.
Enormous personal risk: losing a job, leaving him as a healthy young man with a national reputation as a football player, a graduate degree, and an affluent family. It would have been unpleasant for him, but the real consequences simply would not have been that bad.
"might well not pay off": You keep saying this, and it makes no sense at all. PSU is a large, corrupt organization, Paterno is a little tin god in Pennsylvania. If McQ couldn't get out of State College to make the report, believing that there was nothing he could do would be sane. But in the real world, the rape of a child is a big, fucking, deal, and there are plenty of accessible authorities not controlled by PSY -- it would have been trivially easy to trigger an investigation by phoning different law enforcement agencies until someone listened, and/or going to the media.
well, now that we're still talking about it realize I was wrong upthread in 579; actually I wanted you all to say, 'jesus al, what the fuck was the matter with these motherfuckers, for real?' in case we're considering how badly people can behave. they can break you off something real proper-like.
And to 601, sure, I get the point that at some point McQueary must have realized that things hadnt been handled correctly, but at that point we're dealing with pretty ordinary behavior and cowardice; he would have had to buck the rest of the PSU system to report the crime, without any assurance that justice would be done. (worth noting here that reports of the grand jury investigation had been circulating since May and were routinely dismissed within PA as a scurrilous attack on JoePa -- a "going to the papers" strategy might well have failed spectacularly.)
But he could quite reasonably have thought it was properly reported within PSU, including to the head of the campus police.
No, he could not have, because PSU had an obligation to report to law enforcement, and he knew that never genuinely happened. (It may or may not have been reported to the campus police -- if it was, the campus police were corrupt and the report was made corruptly, and was not a genuine report.) His knowledge that no investigation happened was sufficient to allow him to be certain that no proper report had been made.
If he went to Paterno firmly intending to see justice done, and sometime afterwards changed his mind, changing his mind made him contemptible. If he went to Paterno meaning to turn over the decision about going to the cops to Paterno, turning over that decision made him contemptible. At some point not long after the conversations with the administration, he became aware that they were not going to investigate and prosecute. At that point at the latest, he decided to cooperate in the coverup.
By this logic, if he'd immediately gone to local police firmly intending to see justice done, and later became aware that they were not going to investigate and prosecute, he'd also be contemptible for cooperating in the coverup. Is that right?
(I don't mean that question to be antagonistic--upthread you'd suggested that maybe in that situation he would have a responsibility to go straight to the press with the story. I'm just trying to understand if that's your position.)
a "going to the papers" strategy might well have failed spectacularly.
Bullshit. It might have been ugly for him, but if there was a person publically claiming to have eyewitnessed the rape of a child, some law enforcement agency would have investigated. 'Failed spectacularly' is completely implausible.
That was me above, of course. And since I'm repeating myself now, Halford, I'll stop after this. But here's one more try:
Child rape isn't the same thing as a NCAA violation. It's not even the same thing as skimming money from the athletic department's till. Speaking, again, as someone whose ethics are decidedly situational and also bound by institutional culture -- I look the other way when people buy iPads with their research money, for example -- I have no problem imagining myself looking the other way if my boss makes a series of improper recruiting calls or visits*, I have a bit of a problem imagining myself looking the other way if my boss embezzles funds to buy a summer house (but I can see a situation** -- an invitation to use the place, for instance -- in which I might do so), but I can't imagine looking the other way if I knew that a child had been raped***. And that's exactly what McQueary and Paterno did.
* The NCAA is totally corrupt, I might tell myself, and the rules are bullshit. Moreover, my boss is a good man, and he knows better than the NCAA.
** The AD is a total incompetent, I might tell myself, and probably a criminal who's just going to make it rain at the local strip club if my boss leaves too much cash in the till. Or I might focus on the fact that my boss made all that money for the university, and it's bullshit that the women's field hockey team is going to spend it. I mean, hell, my boss works 20 hrs./day all year. He deserves a place in Tahoe. The university president has one, doesn't she? And she doesn't work half as hard as my boss.
*** We're not talking about an innocent victim. Moreover, society dictates that child rape is wrong. So, unless you're positing that the systemic injunction (within the PSU football program) against reporting something to authorities outside the community is stronger than the societal injunction against tolerating child rape, I don't follow your argument. But even if you are suggesting that, Paterno helped create that system and McQueary agreed to play by its rules. This makes them both bad people. There are moments when individuals must rise above the cultural sewers in which they swim or reveal themselves as depraved. This case wasn't even close to the line; it wasn't even a slightly tough call. Again, we're talking about the rape of a child. If McQueary or Paterno didn't understand that, they are bad people.
609: Sure. If the local police blow you off, you call the State Police, or the FBI, or the Central Pennsylvania Herald-Star-Tribune-Ledger-Courant. We don't live in a society where it's a plausible result that all the authorities you have access to are so corrupt that they're going to connive in covering up the rape of a child to protect a college football program: a local small town might, but not everyone you can get to.
That would be an understandable excuse in Nazi Germany -- you try to report a crime, you find out that the powers that be aren't interested, and you give up because you know that the powers that be are uniformly corrupt. It's not a reasonable excuse in the 21C US, on an issue of child rape (might be for some types of financial crime, but not for child rape).
I'm not arguing that child rape is no different than any other crime. What I am arguing is that -- leaving aside the decision not to intervene in the moment -- McQ's actions are basically consistent with what an ordinary scared person without a lot of power would do. He goes to his superior, the most powerful guy in town. Who assures him that it will be handled. Then, he talks to the guy who is in charge of the responsible police force. Then, a decision seems to be made. At that point, you need both a large amount of personal courage and a clear sense that what you are doing is likely to result in justice bring done. I don't think McQueary had much in the way of personal courage, and I don't think he knew that justice would be done. Does that make him a coward and a bad person? Sure, I'm fine saying that. Does it make him a monster acting far outside the bounds of ordinary human conduct? No. It takes courage to be
I'm willing to accept that McQueary isnt totally evil through and through.
But, he did a very bad thing. He deserves shame. I would be pissed if he was employed at an institution that I supported. Sure, there are lots of evil bastards everywhere.
Here's the Patriot-News (local paper) explaining why they broke the story in March 2011 (and not sooner). http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/penn_state_child_sex-abuse_sca.html
Their original March 2011 story:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/03/jerry_sandusky_former_penn_sta.html
Patriot News detailed timeline:
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/who_knew_what_about_jerry_sand.html
And finally, Philadelphia Business Journal article about the delayed reaction (from Patriot-News in March 2011 to nationwide news in November):
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/blog/peter-key/2011/11/penn-state-officials-should-have-been.html?page=all
613:
Nobody wants to be in the position. But, if you are, and you blink, then you deserve heaps of shame. A monster? No. But, he could have done more to stop someone else from continuing to savagely abuse young boys. He knew it and let it continue. Maybe not a monster, but a low-life.
The position in 612 is pretty nuts. He sees that the responsible police force is corrupt, so he has an obligation to go to every other police force, trying to get them to believe his eyewitness account, until he finds one that cooperates? While, meanwhile, there's a chance that he both won't be believed and that it will ruin his life? I mean, sure, that's what a courageous person would have done, but a failure to do so is pretty much in ordinary fuckup land.
Does that make him a coward and a bad person? Sure, I'm fine saying that.
We're good, then.
Does it make him a monster acting far outside the bounds of ordinary human conduct? No.
And neither were concentration camp guards -- most probably weren't individually sadists, just people who got put in an unlucky place. You don't have to be a remarkably strange person to be inexcusably evil.
617: You've got a very weird sense of the plausible outcomes here.
611: so you would feel differently if McQueary had walked in on Sanducky violating NCAA rules in the shower? Handing a recruit a large roll of cash, or something similar?
consistent with what an ordinary scared person without a lot of power would do
As I've said before, I'm willing to accept that this is true of an ordinary scared person witnessing embezzlement or even witnessing something truly heinous -- for example, a corporate board's decision to pump toxins into an important aquifer -- because in those cases the prospective victims are abstractions. But in this case, McQueary watched Sandusky raping a young boy. Such an extraordinary outrage should, in every case I believe, trump an individual's ordinary fears. And if it doesn't, the person in question is actually an extraordinary coward or tool or monster.
Anyway, I'm sorry I reentered the discussion. I should have kept my mouth shut. But I do think there's something about the offense in question that is categorically different from ordinary wrongdoing or even extraordinary wrongdoing that doesn't involve a single victim who society deems especially innocent: an actual, right-there-in-front-of-McQueary child, in other words.
To elaborate on 620, those two situations feel completely different to me with respect to the in-the-moment decisionmaking (NCAA violation: going to the coach first may have been the right approach; child rape: he obviously should have intervened and gotten the kid to safety), but after the fact the analysis of his behavior seems pretty much the same in either case. Why wouldn't he be as personally blameworthy for assisting in the coverup of an NCAA recruiting violation, if he became aware that a coverup was occurring?
I really do think, LB, that you are dramatically underestimating how easy it is to not be believed when you make even very serious allegations against powerful people. McQueary knew that ultimately it was going to be his word against Sandusky, and possibly his word against Sandusky, Paterno, and the entire PSU administration. It takes a real faith in both the system and your own place in it to be a whistleblower. Which is why I am so insistent on putting much more blame on Paterno (who did have power) than on McQueary (who didn't).
ltimately it was going to be his word against Sandusky,
His word, and the word of the kid who probably could have been found if they'd looked soon enough. And his father, who he reported to from the scene.
and possibly his word against Sandusky, Paterno, and the entire PSU administration.
Not really, because no one can give eyewitness testimony of something not happening. Paterno could, I suppose, have claimed "We always knew McQ was unstable", but it would have been tricky considering that he was a close personal assistant of Paterno's up until the moment of the accusation.
Which is why I am so insistent on putting much more blame on Paterno (who did have power) than on McQueary (who didn't).
The fact that Paterno's contemptible doesn't in any way excuse McQ.
622: because, as I said in my comment, it's pretty easy to imagine rationalizing away NCAA violations as not especially corrupt, particularly given that the NCAA itself is utterly corrupt. Children, in our culture at least, are viewed as the very antithesis of corrupt.
I don't really disagree with 620, but it doesn't have much to do with the after-the-fact conduct. Once the incident is over, and you haven't intervened, you're pretty much faced with the question of what to do next. And McQueary made some effort to figure out what to do, and passed the information to people in power, who then let him know what the result would be. Is that bad? Sure. But is it way out of the ordinary monstrous? No.
But in this case, McQueary watched Sandusky raping a young boy. Such an extraordinary outrage should, in every case I believe, trump an individual's ordinary fears. And if it doesn't, the person in question is actually an extraordinary coward or tool or monster.
The weird thing is, I don't disagree with any of this at all. I think it's totally right, and he should have done something, and he's blameworthy for not having done so. I'm just focusing on the after-the-fact actions. It seems to me that, having made the wrong decision in the moment, he basically made decent (not exemplary, but not especially blameworthy) decisions thereafter. And so I'm perplexed by the people (*cough* LB *cough*, but others too) who see the situation as exactly the opposite, and are willing to forgive his in-the-moment indecision but think he's hideously contemptible for everything that occurred thereafter.
623: and I really think you're seriously underestimating the resonance of charging someone with raping a child. Sure, Paterno was powerful. Sure, Sandusky was too. But if you credibly charged one of those guys with raping a child and the other with covering up the crime, I think you'd be surprised by how quickly they would have been gone. Oh wait, look, we actually have data that supports my contention.
Okay, I've gotta go. Sorry to comment and run. You're all moral monsters, especially LB for not banning you.*
* I am kidding.
Why wouldn't he be as personally blameworthy for assisting in the coverup of an NCAA recruiting violation, if he became aware that a coverup was occurring?
Malum prohibitum versus malum in se. One could not unreasonably believe that NCAA rules were bullshit not worthy of being enforced -- covertly breaking them might make you kind of sleazy, but depending on the context might not be a terrible thing. Protecting a child rapist and allowing him to continue predating isn't a matter of arbitrary rules, it's evil in itself.
Maybe Halford's been spending too much time in Holywood culture where the consensus opinion is that raping a child is bad, but if you make a few really good movies that totally makes up for it.
629.1: You should really look at the timeline. There were literally months in which reports if an actual gran jury investigation were coming out in the local paper, and the general response was to ignore it completely or attack the paper for attacking Sandusky. One set of serious allegations had been completely blown off already, in 1998. It took a multi-year investigation with many victims (who weren't known to McQueary at the time) to blow the case open. Within Penn State itself, no one involved, up to the super-respected Univeristy President, seemed to think it was a big deal. In these circumstances, you can't just say "oh, all McQueary had to do was to say "Sandusky" and "child rape" and he would have been believed and everything would have turned out fine.
And so I'm perplexed by the people (*cough* LB *cough*, but others too) who see the situation as exactly the opposite, and are willing to forgive his in-the-moment indecision
See my 444: I may be working too hard not to be bombastic about the minimum necessary to take command of the situation, and I'm also trying not to assign additional responsibility to him for being a giant, healthy, muscular young man, and I'm trying to allow for the possibility of being so shocked that he was literally not physically in control of his body. But yes, if I stop bending over backward for him, not rescuing the kid in the moment was contemptible.
I was being forgiving of the in-the-moment inaction in a (possibly misguided attempt) to not hold the guy to standards higher than I'd hold anyone else to. If someone was there and said "I should have done something, but I was afraid of the rapist, I ran and called the cops," I might think they were a coward, but a forgivable one (and I might be that much of a coward myself, depending on the apparent level of risk. I don't think I'd, e.g., charge a gun to rescue a kid from being raped.) And I just don't know about the possibility of literally losing physical control of your body as a result of emotional shock.
But if the inaction was literally the result of indecision about what to do, rather than fear or shock, then I'm right with you on condemning it as well.
And to 601, sure, I get the point that at some point McQueary must have realized that things hadnt been handled correctly,
At some point? The point he should have realized that things weren't handled correctly was when he wasn't calling the cops immediately. The next big clue for him was when Paterno didn't raise hell with him for failing to give the police a chance to save that kid.
The problem is, in failing to report, McQueary did the right thing from Penn State's point of view, and I don't think his decision was an accident. I don't think he was the least bit surprised that Paterno didn't chew him out, or suspend him, or whatever would happen in a more normal workplace.
the general response was to ignore it completely or attack the paper for attacking Sandusky.
But of course that was a public response, not a law enforcement response. You can't say law enforcement would have blown off credible public allegations without investigating because they didn't.
627-28: crap, I really do have to run, but I'll just say he made bad decisions all the way down. He should have done more in the moment, should have done more after the fact, should now accept his failures as an adult who was (is?) charged with protecting young people.
That said, yes, Halford, the fact that he witnessed a child being raped should have changed the way he handled things later. He knew or should have suspected that a cover-up was ongoing. He knew for certain that Sandusky remained free and still had access to young boys. Given that, he should have intervened after the fact. He should have pressed the issue, even if doing so might potentially have cost him his job or his standing in the community. This is how we measure people: by examining the decisions they make in difficult rather than easy circumstances.
I wish I had more of a lunch break today to comment, because I think there are a couple of conversations going on at cross-purposes here.
Most significantly, I think, is a fundamental disagreement about what is plausible.
Those of us who have experience of reporting things and not being believed, or reporting serious crimes and watching them be ignored or not pursued by authorities, may find it more plausible to believe that McQ thought he was making a realistic risk assessment in not pushing his report.
In other words, if you think that you report and all hell breaks loose (arrest of offender, news headlines, other victims coming forward), that's one thing. But if you think that you report and a slow churn of avoidance kicks in, you assess differently.
I'm with the people who say you report, you report quickly, you report in detail, you report to the people who can do something about it and you keep pushing until someone takes it seriously.
But in my own life I have been privy to cases where young people attempted to report serious assaults (not sexual) and were not believed, were publicly shamed, and adults who attempted to stand up with them were personally and financially attacked. It took months and months of impassioned work by dozens of people (and a few sympathetic reporters who were being driven by their own personal biases) to get anyone to take it seriously.
And that was when the authorities had nowhere near the financial and reputation issues at stake that PSU did.
So, inexcusable: Yes.
Horrific: Yes.
Would I want any adult encountering such as situation to scream to all the world? Yes.
But can I understand why people get scared and think they won't get believed or it won't get taken seriously? Sure I can.
That's why we have to practice on the small and medium-stakes things, so when we're faced with the terrifying high-stakes we can make the right choice.
635 -- except when they did, in 1998.
And except when they similarly blow off reports elsewhere, like the case where the FBI routinely failed to follow up on child molestation allegations against a newscaster, which itself led to a whistleblower case (the article is linked somewhere above, I'm on a phone now).
think they won't get believed or it won't get taken seriously?
I just want to quibble with this small bit. In the actual situation under discussion 'won't get believed' isn't impossible. 'It won't get taken seriously' is impossible -- if you've got an eyewitness to the rape of a child, the options are coverup or prosecution. There isn't any plausible way to say 'It happened, but it wasn't any big thing.'
In most circumstances, minimization is going to be an option, but not here.
638: They investigated much lesser allegations -- inappropriate washing, not rape.
637 is very good and clarifying, and I agree with it 100%.
From McQueary's point of view, all he has to think is that be wouldn't be believed and that an investigation would lead nowhere. Which isn't at all implausible.
Just in case anybody is counting 637 votes.
Once the incident is over, and you haven't intervened, you're pretty much faced with the question of what to do next.
Once you've decided not to intervene, you've already made the decision - you're not intervening. It would have been pretty difficult for McQueary to suddenly decide that child rape was a matter for the police, given his decision to keep it hush-hush in the first place. And, of course, that would only become more difficult as time went on, as he became even more complicit.
I just want to quibble with this small bit. In the actual situation under discussion 'won't get believed' isn't impossible. 'It won't get taken seriously' is impossible
Isn't "not taken seriously" exactly what happened to McQueary? From the perspective of the person reporting the incident, the report being subject to a "cover up" and the report not being taken seriously aren't meaningfully distinguishable outcomes. As far as we know, no one disbelieved McQueary.
The distinction is whether it has to be kept secret or not. If nobody prosecutes, but it's all right for people to talk about the fact that it happened, it's not being taken seriously. If in order to avoid prosecutions, it has to be a secret, that's a coverup. The way Dominique Strauss-Kahn harassed subordinates wasn't taken seriously, but it wasn't covered up, everyone knew about it. Child rape has to be covered up if it's not going to be prosecuted.
Right, but from McQuearys viewpoint, who cares about this distinction? All he knows is that there's a real chance that his report will go nowhere and do nothing except ruin his life. And I agree, it's moments like that that test character, but it's pretty human to not want to press the issue further.
Isn't "not taken seriously" exactly what happened to McQueary?
It was certainly taken seriously. It got all the way up to the university president.
As you can see, I'm struggling with some of the language here. Likewise, when people say that McQueary didn't act "correctly" in failing to call the cops, that's only from one point of view. In fact, every single person McQueary went to ratified his initial decision to withhold the the information the cops needed to rescue that child. He behaved exactly correctly, according to his father, Paterno and the rest.
Was McQueary surprised by that? Seems unlikely to me. If he had believed he wasn't part of a corrupt organization, I think he would have done the normal human thing and called the cops.
Sure, 637 is right. But if you get caught abetting a violent and corrupt system, it's right and appropriate that you should be vilified.
Right, but from McQuearys viewpoint, who cares about this distinction?
Because he knows that anyone he tells it to will, if they believe him, either take it seriously or participate in the coverup. If he can convince one person with the power to take action who isn't part of the coverup that he's telling the truth, he wins -- this isn't something that can be blown off as no big deal.
I think 648 is useful, thanks. For one thing, you're right that McQueary was probably aware this was a coverup in the sense you're describing, in that I very highly doubt he felt free to tell everyone who ever mentioned Sanducky's name in conversation with him: "That man's a monster--I saw him raping a little boy in the shower in 2002. I don't know why he isn't behind bars."
Sanducky
I swear I've typed this correctly every time, and that's, what, the third or fourth time it's come out that way? I think there's something wrong with my keyboard.
637 to 651. Again, I think you have a fairly naive view of what it takes to be a whistleblower.
And I'll take your accusations of naivete seriously when you tell me about an incident where an eyewitness went public with a plausible (like, no space aliens) account of a child rape and no one did anything about it.
And I'll take your accusations of naivete seriously when you tell me about an incident where an eyewitness went public with a plausible (like, no space aliens) account of a child rape and no one did anything about it.
Not exactly responsive, but disturbingly close to being responsive.
Penn State in 1998? The FBI incident above? Those are only the two I've mentioned in the thread. I could give you some gnarly Alameida style personal anecdotes, if you'd like, but they're not personal to me and that's kind of betraying confidences. Cops don't do that much all the time.
656: Sorry, I should have specified that I was talking about "In the modern US." You're right, it is horrible that there are child sex slaves in Cambodia, but it doesn't have much to do with how people would react to an eyewitness account of a man raping a child in Pennsylvania.
Penn State in 1998?
Not a rape -- ambiguous conduct in the shower that made a kid uncomfortable. And it's not true that nothing was done; nothing effective was done, but there was an investigation.
I can't find the link to the FBI story you're talking about, but if it qualifies as "an eyewitness account of a child rape" and no investigation was undertaken, I will eat my left shoe.
655: Before an eyewitness can take something public, they have to get somebody from the media to take them seriously. I agree that if something got to the public, something would probably happen. But it isn't as if a single, ordinary person can make something "public" without a great deal of effort and a high chance of failure.
When I was a law clerk we had a case involving an ex-Sherriff's deputy who was routinely raping his 13 year old stepdaughter. As I recall the facts, it was reported by family members to the cops for years, but they never had much to go on, and it took the daughter deciding to not be complicit, years later, for a prosecution to get going.
As I recall the facts, it was reported by family members to the cops for years, but they never had much to go on, and it took the daughter deciding to not be complicit, years later, for a prosecution to get going.
So, no eyewitness evidence, not much to go on?
In terms of media reports, if you read the links above, the paper investigating the case knew about rumors of incidents as early as 2009, but didn't go public until March, 2011 when they knew that there was a grand jury investigation and had themselves conducted a further investigation. It's not like any paper would have just reprinted McQueary's allegation.
660: Or, you know, someone with a website. Or with access to Sandusky's Facebook page. Or a Xerox machine.
In terms of media reports, if you read the links above, the paper investigating the case knew about rumors of incidents as early as 2009, but didn't go public until March, 2011 when they knew that there was a grand jury investigation and had themselves conducted a further investigation. It's not like any paper would have just reprinted McQueary's allegation.
But they would have called the school for comment. And the police for an explanation of why there was no investigation. With a story like McQueary's, if the school didn't establish that he was malicious or delusional, the fact that no investigation had taken place would have been a story in itself.
You also seem to be confusing "would have undertaken an investigation" and "would have instituted a prosecution that protected McQueary and achieved justice." If an investigation started, and went nowhere (as might have been very likely) that's just as ineffective at actually doing anything as no investigation at all.
665: Yes, coverups are possible if people collude to cover things up. They're not possible if they don't.
and went nowhere (as might have been very likely)
With an eyewitness who saw the rape, and a limited number of kids who might have been the victim? Nothing's impossible, but calling it 'very likely' that it would have petered out is silly. What happened in 1998, where the DA seems to have decided that the incident happened but wasn't worth prosecuting, wouldn't have been a possibility. Either the rape happened or it didn't.
664: Nobody reads 99.9% of the individually created web pages. Sandusky can delete stuff from his Facebook page. He can probably get you banned from Facebook for accusing him of pedophilia. The only people I have heard of who use a Xerox to spread information are white supremacists and people who lose a cat.
Uh, what? Even right now, the only reason why prosecution is possible is that victims have come forward. If the police go to Sandusky and find the kid, and the kid says, oh no, he misinterpreted, nothing happened, things go nowhere. Oh, I forgot, teenage rape victims never protect their rapists and always tell the cops exactly what happened.
Also, it's a matter of probabilities. If McQ had good, solid, reason to believe that there was no authority out there that could take action who would believe him or would care if they did (I've been bringing up Nazi Germany), I could accept that as an excuse for inaction.
What you're pointing at is vague possibilities that maybe the next person he spoke to might not leap into effective action, so why bother trying? And that's no excuse; in the modern US, the normal law enforcement response to an eyewitness account of a child rape is to investigate and prosecute, and McQ was responsible for making an effort to report to a normally behaving law enforcement agency. It's possible that everyone he found to talk to might have been a bunch of corrupt, incompetent fuckups. But the odds of that happening aren't high enough to justify his giving up without making an attempt.
668: The point is that it's problematic to claim that, hey, nobody would just ignore allegations of child rape. Lots of people made precisely those allegations against lots of different priests and it was often handled the same way that Sandusky's case was. "After looking into Father McFeely's situation, we've taken away his keys to the church and transferred him elsewhere."
672 to 671: The possibility that the victim might not cooperate does absolutely nothing to excuse McQ from doing what he could have to trigger an investigation and prosecution. If he's human, he has a responsibility to do what he can in that sort of situation, not to do what he can't. What he can do is get the report to a non-corrupt law enforcement agency with the capacity to investigate it -- the fact that locking Sandusky up wouldn't be a certainty at that point doesn't relieve him of an iota of responsibility.
Lots of people made precisely those allegations against lots of different priests
And lots of people didn't go to the police with those allegations. They mistakenly trusted the church to keep children safe from accused priests, and mostly had some reason to believe that was happening. It's hard to talk about the priest sex-abuse cases generally, because each one is a specific story with particular people who knew particular things, but generally you had people who were participating in a coverup, some completely culpably and some on the basis of incomplete knowledge of what action was being taken, not outsiders with full knowledge who just didn't do anything.
I can see that one way I'm talking past people here is that I haven't accepted the idea that McQueary's initial response can somehow be severed from his later responses.
If McQueary had been running to a phone to call the cops, hit his head and fallen unconscious until the next day, then you could sever his initial failure to report from his subsequent actions, and you could judge those later actions by themselves.
But that's not what happened. McQueary made a decision upfront that he wasn't going to go to the proper authorities. His subsequent decisions to participate in the ongoing coverup sprung from that initial decision not to report. And his initial decision not to report was pretty obviously motivated by the same concerns as his subsequent decisions.
So once we start out with "leaving aside that initial decision," I can't really participate properly. I reject that as a premise for a conversation about McQueary or Penn State, though I can see how it could be an interesting premise for a discussion of whistleblowing in general.
Yeah, I agree that's what he should have done, but the fact that the reporting might well have gone nowhere and achieved nothing (other than destroying McQueary's life and reputation) is precisely why whistleblowing is hard, and why I accused you of being a bit naive about what it takes to be a whistleblower against powerful people.
676: I mostly agree with this -- the putting aside the initial decision not to go straight to the cops is something I've been doing for the sake of argument.
McFeely's
Pittsburgh's own Mr. McFeely.
677: You know, even if it hadn't led to a conviction, it'd probably have made it a lot harder for Sandusky to have continued predation. There has to be a number of not-quite-substantiated accusations of molesting children after which people stop letting you care for them; this number is probably higher than it should be, but whatever it is, two is closer to it than one.
676: I mostly agree with this -- the putting aside the initial decision not to go straight to the cops is something I've been doing for the sake of argument.
Uh, what? Even right now, the only reason why prosecution is possible is that victims have come forward.
This is incorrect. Prosecution without a victim coming forward is perfectly possible. We know this, because that's what is happening with McQueary's victim.
670: This is a side issue -- it's not important to the main argument. But I really do think that the internet has made this sort of whistleblowing, where you'd be willing to make the accusations publicly, much easier; there are just a whole lot more people who are one or two degrees of separation from real media these days. Start spamming blogs with your story, and enough would pick it up that the fact that you were telling the story would break for real pretty fast.
682: Right, a victim coming forward triggered the investigation, but isn't necessary for all the prosecutions. McQueary's incident is being prosecuted now on no more than McQueary's testimony; an impassioned explanation for the victim that nothing had happened and McQueary was insane might have stopped it, but a simple failure of the victim to testify wouldn't have.
No way they prosecute with no physical evidence and the victim not testifying solely on the basis of McQueary's report without all the other incidents. No way.
676: I'd call my brother the lawyer before the police, D.A.'s office, or the media. The legal system might not be complicated and loaded with boobytraps for you who live in it but that's not the case for others. I know enough to be wary, not enough to navigate alone.
676: I'd call my brother the lawyer before the police, D.A.'s office, or the media. The legal system might not be complicated and loaded with boobytraps for you who live in it but that's not the case for others. I know enough to be wary, not enough to navigate alone.
683: Not without some hook to convince them your story was different from the other rumors circulating on the internet. If you can't convince the police (and I don't know how hard he tried as there are conflicting reports) or other officials, you will face a hard time getting attention.
Not without some hook to convince them your story was different from the other rumors circulating on the internet.
Seriously, "I, an identifiable person with a verifiable job where I could have seen what I'm reporting, eyewitnessed a rape. I reported it to X authorities and they took no action," isn't a rumor. It's a lie or the truth, not a third-hand report of what people are saying. You might need to contact a fair number of people before someone investigated, but it's much easier to find people in a position to investigate now than it ever was before.
683
I think this couldn't be more wrong. Bob could tell us that he personally murdered hundreds in cold blood and fed them to his dog and no one would blink. People are savvy enough to know that sensational unsourced allegations on blogs are not to be believed.
683
Or to take an empirical tack, how many crimes have been successfully investigated and prosecuted based on a tip from a blog (or Facebook or Wikipedia or whatever internet form you choose)?
The legal system might not be complicated and loaded with boobytraps for you who live in it
Ahem. I realize this is an emotional topic, but I think it's out of bounds to suggest that I'm a lawyer.
I'd call my brother the lawyer before the police, D.A.'s office, or the media.
I mentioned recently that I witnessed a kidnapping once. I called the cops. Lots of other people called the cops.
Suppose I'd recognized the kidnapper? Suppose he was a powerful former deputy mayor. If I had waited a day, and even then only reported it to the mayor, I would be accused of instigating and participating in a coverup. What possible other explanation would I have for my behavior?
691: What do you mean 'unsourced' if you're the eyewitness source with a real job and a real phone number?
It isn't a rumor until you do the "I, an identifiable person" part. That leaves you very exposed. You would eventually convince someone to investigate, but they might investigate you for libel or slander if nobody could find that boy or another victim or a witness.
So you're saying that people regularly go on blogs and say "My name is Xxxx Xxxx, my job is xxx, my phone number is xxx, and I just witnessed a crime."?
692: None that I'm aware of, but think of something like what Radley Balko did for Corey Maye? Attracted enough attention to a story that people in a position to act took action.
697: That's kind of my point. You need to convince somebody who, like Balko, has an audience before you can get any hope of action.
What Moby said. Either you identify yourself, in which case, why the internet and not the cops? Why open yourself to accusations of libel? Or you don't, in which case no one will (or should) believe you.
695: Sure. This is the kind of thing that would work if you were genuinely willing to go public, not if you were being hedgy about it. I'm not really applying this to the Penn State case specifically, given that there's no indication that McQ tried to go public in any less weird way.
696: No, that would be a stupid thing to say, which is why I didn't say it. I'm claiming it would work, if you had a story to break and were having trouble finding someone to listen to you -- it's easier to make a big enough stink to attract some kind of attention now than it used to be.
698: The point is that there are a lot more Balkos out there, and they're easier to get to, than paid media, but they're big enough to bridge to paid media (Balko actually gets paid these days, I think, but didn't used to). Fuck, convincing Unfogged could probably get a story out there if it were a real story with a source who wanted to go public; we're a degree or so from real media people. And there's a million little blogs that are as close as we are to media people.
I'm not arguing against "easier." I'm arguing against "easy."
Either you identify yourself, in which case, why the internet and not the cops? Why open yourself to accusations of libel?
This came up in the context of what you do if the local cops and local media aren't listening -- my only point was that it's easier to get around local gatekeepers than it used to be.
Perhaps McQueary might have been motivated to go to all that trouble later, as he witnessed Sandusky in the company of yet another young boy on the sidelines. He had several opportunities to see such a thing, and any one of them might have given him reason to reflect.
672
Also, it's a matter of probabilities. If McQ had good, solid, reason to believe that there was no authority out there that could take action who would believe him or would care if they did (I've been bringing up Nazi Germany), I could accept that as an excuse for inaction.
I've been agreeing with you and disagreeing with Halford as I've been reading along with this, LB, but you know, people at Penn State protested in support of Paterno a few days ago when this became big news. Perhaps a comparison between Penn State fans and Nazis is more fair than it seems at first glance. (I ban myself.)
Perhaps a comparison between Penn State fans and Nazis is more fair than it seems at first glance.
The behavior of Penn State fans is entirely understandable, taken in context, and entirely repugnant.
705 gets it exactly right. LB, I assume you are aware that since Paterno's ouster, McQueary has reported recieving a barrage of threats (and vandalism of his home, etc.), not from people upset that he didn't do more intervene in 2002, but from people who view him as responsible for the downfall of 'Joe Pa'.
(I ban myself.)
Well, now that you've opened the door on this, I'll remind people about Reagan and the Bitburg cemetery.
Reagan chose to pay a public visit to a spot where some SS soldiers were among those buried. Said Reagan in his own defense:
"These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those, the average age is about 18. I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps"[4]
I can't find the cartoon where Doonesbury riffs on this, but as I remember it, he has Reagan delivering that last sentence, then following up with, "You know, when you think about it, even Hitler himself was a vict---" before he's interrupted by an aide.
Yes, there are big nasty systems that enforce despicable behavior, and I believe that McQueary was in such a system. Too bad. If you defend despicable systems, part of the deal is that your reputation is damaged among decent people.
Let me just recommend this article again on McQueary, which is really very good.
709: I'll be interested to see if McQueary endorses this idea that he failed to report to the proper authorities in a timely fashion because he was too traumatized. I'll be even more interested when McQueary's father talks about the trauma that led him to advise his son to not call the cops.
Me, I don't buy it.
Holy shit! This aspect of the discussion is still going on? Let me just say that as the person who post the link up in 329 to the McQueary e-mail story, I had no thought that it would re-open the exhaustive examination of the state of McQueary's soul based on very limited information. I will reiterate the two points I thought pertinent:
1) Just how sketchy the info in the Grand Jury report was about actions/inactions in the moment.
and
2) The legal situation where the "extremely credible" witness is out there feeling the need float new spin/information that is potentially in conflict with the Grand Jury report (and/or his testimony--we don't know).
I'm not seeing much to (2); like, you're wondering if the whole case is going to collapse? He's only a witness to one out of eight victims, and none of his waffling goes to the events he witnessed, just to what he did afterwards.
Also, professionally I will say that it's premature to say that he's issuing statements that are in conflict with his testimony if we don't have a transcript of the testimony to look at. There can be a lot of drift in a summary.
711, 712: McQueary said he talked to a cop about the matter at some point. That's the only thing that even appears to contradict the grand jury report. If he didn't talk to a cop in a formal setting, and didn't do so in real-time, there's no particular reason for that to be in the grand jury report. The Grand Jury said there was never a police investigation, and I don't think McQueary's statement contradicts that.
Otherwise, McQueary's statements are entirely consistent with the grand jury report. We already knew he spoke with VP Schultz 10 days later, and we could have reasonably guessed that Sandusky stopped raping the child when he saw McQueary.
693: I'm in L.A. I have not seen nor read anything since well before I moved out here that gives me any confidence TPTB are interested in any sort of fair and impartial justice. If I saw a crime going down wherein I recognized someone powerful as either perp or victim I'd get lawyered up instantly. I'm not bringing a nail file to a gun-fight.
An auto accident, plain old mugging, or the like? Sure, I'd call 911, and indeed have.
Not thinking the case was going to collapse.
Allegedly witnessed just to be precise.
Never mind on the other stuff, did not really think there was a big discussion to be had there. The real surprise was the continuing energy about the fine gradations in the self-evident moral failings of Mr. McQueary.
I tried to talk about cows, but that didn't last long.
Sounds like the first line of Cattle Rustlin' Blues.
I shoulda called them kine,
Before the rustlers came.
Oh, I shoulda called them kine
Before the rustlers came,
Now I ain't got no cattle,
Things won't never be the same.
You can't say law enforcement would have blown off credible public allegations without investigating because they didn't.
635 -- except when they did, in 1998.
Not quite. The police did exactly they should have in '98 and did a thorough multi agency investigation that not taken action upon by a possibly shady DA.
679: Pittsburgh's own Mr. McFeely.
Who happens to lives on the street right behind our house. And now that I think about it, whose son babysat for our kids a time or two many years back.
A book that has either just come out or is coming out very soon which appaers to be quite relevant to some of the themes of the whole PSU mess: The Dark Side of Sports: Exposing the Sexual Culture of Collegiate and Professional Athletes (Sport Culture Society Vol 9) The column from the local paper where I learned about; columnist, Gene Collier, is a generally thoughtful (and often very funny) guy
Pappas' work primarily examines the ways athletes target women, who, he says, are far more commonly abused in the athletic culture than children, but the enabling factors for both crimes are more or less constant, pervasive, perhaps endemic.
"Certain things in the Sandusky case appear commonly," Pappas said. "Things were not addressed. People looked the other way. When you're looking the other way and you don't know what your athletes are doing, then you can say, 'I didn't know,' and you're telling the truth.
hey, where's my cookie? von wafer seems like a likely cookie-giver-outer. I mean, it could be chocolate wafers or those delicious italian ones, quadratini. I want someone to say my family friend is despicable. and honestly, should I just walk out of the room when he comes in, without explanation? I certainly feel I'm not obliged to be nice to him, but in real life I'll probably never do anything about it. I'm lame like that. weak. my sister would never put up with that shit. I could tell her but the whole problem is it's her dad, and so she feels guilty about it (even though that's nonsensical.) report from narnia is that I'm feeling better but disassociative. not caring about things. but getting shit done!
going to the bank like a motherfucking adult. but starving myself out of paranoia that atypical anti-psychotics will make me fat. can fit in my favorite size 4 dress! I realize this is crazy and I promise I don't judge other people this way, only me. "nice job, fork grabber!"
I was just catching up and thought, "'I understand you all think that was awful and I have your sympathies, you don't need to say it,' I think not."
Your family friend is indeed truly despicable, and that is some fucked up shit.
And, oh man, it's not just any family friend but your sister's dad? You guys really got dealt a horrific set of loathsome men to prey on your unprotected youths.
What foxy said. And now I am again confused about your family tree. Frankly, I'm pissed off at your mom (then). I know she is different now, but she abandoned you kids.
Meanwhile someone is speaking up about an assistant basketball coach at Syracuse. The reaction is interesting. The coach says, "The university investigated this, the university talked to the people he said to talk to; none of them corroborated it."
The self-investigation is primo.
I'm also very pissed off at those men. You'd have every right to cut him.
726: Wow, Boeheim (Syracuse coach) takes the arrogant asshole to 11.
Boeheim also said that it seemed "a little suspicious" that Davis's relative decided to speak to ESPN in the wake of the Penn State allegations.
"I believe they are looking for money," Boeheim told ESPN. "I believe they saw what happened at Penn State and they are using ESPN to get money. That is what I believe."
Who are these men? Who are these men?
630
... Protecting a child rapist and allowing him to continue predating isn't a matter of arbitrary rules, it's evil in itself.
Age of consent laws are arbitrary rules.
578: Could not help reading that as:
Brendon: Hey Coach McGuirk, what the hell is all of this?
Coach McGuirk: It's middle school State Brendon, get used to it.
thanks guys, not your fault at all--I said I didn't want a cookie of validation but then I changed my mind. my mom remarried after she divorced my dad, to my abusive asshole step-dad, with whom she had my sister.
I just got out of therapy and my psychiatrist asked me did I think my step-dad ever molested my sister and I was kind of--doy, why didn't I wonder that? she was so little and she's his own daughter! but a dude who tortures kittens, who knows, right? I can't express fully how badly I want that not to have happened. I really don't think so.
these pills make me feel weird, honestly. I think I'm taking too many kinds of medicine. oh well. pleasant trees flashing by along the window of the cab. like the song "the passenger" by iggy pop, one of my all-time-fave songs. I'm not suicidal though, so yay for that!
when I said the problem is my sister's dad I mean generally because he was the abuser, I should have put it in the past tense. he sensibly killed himself. asshole family friend is still around...
"the passenger" by iggy pop, one of my all-time fave songs.
Seconded. ("the bright and hollow sky" - just perfect.)
what's the over and under on whether shearer wants the age of consent lowered?
Age of consent laws are arbitrary rules.
Oh come on, James. You can have a sensible discussion on where to arbitrarily put the age of consent in the mid-teens, and a sensible discussion about not penalising two 14-year-olds for having sex with each other if that age is set higher, but this is about 10-year-olds for crying out loud.
Shearer likes starting fights. I'm reasonably sure that if the conversation goes that way, it'll develop that all he meant was that whether the age of consent is 16 or 18 is an arbitrary decision, and it can be perfectly reasonable to differ about that. But by saying something anodyne like that in the context of a conversation about molesting ten and eleven year-olds, he can draw a whole bunch of outrage and feel good about people abusing him for no reason when he wasn't saying anything wrong.
Al, IJWTS that what this "family friend" did was actually evil. It sounds too like he has never acknowledged the wrong he did you and apologised, whereas your mother has both expressed and shown regret for passively letting stuff happen. He is not owed any civility.
728: Boeheim ... Boheim. Where have I heard that name recently? Oh yeah, let's link the Baylor scandal story one more time.
To recap: Baylor player receives money from Baylor coach. Baylor player dies. Coach wants to spread word that dead player was a drug dealer. Assistant coach Abar Rouse won't stand for it, records coach discussing the plot.
Boheim weighs in on the moral issues involved. He's pissed off ... at Rouse:
Many coaches, including Hall of Famers Jim Boeheim and Mike Krzyzewski, have said that Rouse had crossed the line.
Bigtime college sports is an incredible cesspool, and everyone knows this. That is, everyone except McQueary, whose decision to not call the cops was motivated by ... something other than a willingness to let Paterno cover up the crime.
737: Shearer likes starting fights
I imagine him doing a fist-pump at his computer whenever he comes up with one of his technically correct yet inflammatory little digs. Sadly, a lot of conservative pundits and media use the same gambit to derail much of the political narrative in the country.
The Syracuse allegation hits close to home for me, since I'm a huge Syracuse b-ball fan and a big admirer of Jim Boeheim. As I understand it the allegation was investigated by both police and the university in 2003 and they could find no corroboration, including from any of the witnesses named by the victim. Also, the victim claims Boeheim saw (possibly innocent but highly suggestive) interactions that Boeheim says he did not see. Now the victim's step-brother has stepped forward as a corroborator.
If the victim is lying and the case was thoroughly investigated 8 years ago then I can see why Boeheim would be angry. If he's confident based on his own knowledge and a previous thorough investigation of the case that there's nothing there, I don't think it's out of line to call the victim a liar. If there is something there...well, that's a whole other thing. The police have reopened the investigation so we'll see.
Need a better formulation than 'call the victim a liar' since of course if the guy is a liar he is not a victim.
ive always like the word prosecutrix as well. Just the sound of it.
Bérubé's semi-defense of Paterno in the NYT is disappointing. "He gave us money! He seemed to share our values!"
That part is similar to his comments at CT earlier in the week (also 127 & 139 late in the thread). I think you characterize it too harshly. The odd part to me was where it basically turns into a bit of internal political maneuvering for the faculty against the administration.
The odd part to me was where it basically turns into a bit of internal political maneuvering for the faculty against the administration.
My theory, and it's just a theory, is that he ran out of putting-a-human-face-on-PSU material and believed that he had to pivot to policy prescriptions.
It does seem like the kind of thing -- and you see this a lot in, for instance, books on global warming -- where it seems like a shame to say "yup, shit sucks. This is no good. Dunno what to tell you." without offering a suggestion, no matter how half-assed, that could potentially make things better.
750: I will say this for academia and academic freedom, as someone well-entrenched within the corporate world*, the thought of publicly commenting on a scandal, much less advocating a position on the resulting internal politics, of my employer on the pages of the NYT (or even putting up a blog post like yours on the pepper spray incident) is mind-boggling. I guess tenure helps ...
*But I am, of course, there by choice, as management takes frequent opportunity to remind me and my colleagues.
Conversely, I think the lack of public accountability of private corporations to be the biggest social problem of our age.
That is more of a political or economic problem. The biggest social problem is the stupid writing on "Power Rangers."
The writing on the English language Power Rangers shows sometimes reaches Ed Wood level surreal badness.
Apparently the English language versions are about 50% reshot and rewritten from the Japanese versions. They keep all the special effects sequences and scenes where everyone has face-obscuring costumes and then write and shoot a new story line around those scenes using largely white actors.
an hispanic
Is this a typo? It's hilarious either way.
Apparently, a few PSU faculty including MB are scheduled to appear on Rock Center this Monday. (Although I assume things like that are always in danger of getting booted by more pressing events.) Rock Center is the venue on which Sandusky gave his nutso interview last week.