Gurizada,
Termino o ano de 2011 assim, sem imagem... nda que eu pudesse escolher como melhor foto ou algo assim.
Desejo a todos SAÚDE e PAZ em 2012.
Espero poder estar junto com vcs em 2012.
O Soccer and Soccer trouxe para mim pessoas incríveis, pessoas que confio e partilho momentos tristes e felizes. Sou grato por ter construído com a ajuda de vcs um espaço assim.
Abraços,
Amigo Soccer.
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Thursday, December 29, 2011
How many Republicans does it take to unscrew light bulb efficiency standards?
In a move so trivial and inconsequential many members of congress are too embarrassed to talk about it, and a move which escaped scrutiny by the mass media since it had nothing to do with sex, Republicans in the House, as part of the budget extension deal that averted a government shut down, insisted on including language that eliminated the ban on incandescent light bulbs that was due to go into effect on January 1. The ban the Republicans scuttled was actually part of an energy efficient initiative signed into law by George W. Bush in 2007.
Supposedly this conservative uprising over the ban on incandescent light bulbs began on -- where else -- conservative talk radio who seemed to feel the bulb ban was a threat to personal freedom. And many Republicans in the House agreed..
So Republicans, sensing the threat to our freedoms that the phasing out of incandescent bulbs represented in favor of new energy efficient bulbs, banded together and drew a line in the sand, insisting on language that blocked the energy efficiency standards from going into effect January 1.
This, they claim, was necessary to keep government interference out of the living rooms and light sockets of America and to preserve the freedom of choice they believed was the right of all Americans when it came to light bulbs.
So Republicans and conservatives are fanatically pro choice. When it comes to light bulbs.
They insisted that the government had no business interfering with a person's right to choose an incandescent bulb no matter how inefficient they are. For them it was a matter of principle and how much control the government can and cannot have over a person's life. When it comes to a person's freedom of choice, light bulbs yes, pregnancy no.
The Republican's "keep your government hands off my light bulbs" initiative succeeded, and the energy efficiency standards set to go into effect January 1 have been rescinded. Rescinded even though the major manufacturers of light bulbs began phasing out the incandescent bulbs long ago in anticipation of the 2007 standards going into effect.
So while the country continues to struggle with unemployment, a stagnating economy and huge deficits, Rep. Greg Walden, a Republican from Oregon said about the light bulb issue:
"There are just some issues that grab the public attention. This is one of them. It's going to be dealt with in legislation once and for all".
That's what he said. Really. And this came from a Republican congressman from, of all places, Oregon, the same Oregon where Republicans and conservatives called environmentalists trying to save the forests in Oregon "tree hugger"s. Who knew they would turn out to be light bulb huggers?
Its also hard to know if Republicans were getting pressure from groups on the Christian Right who believe the words in the Bible "let there be light" mean incandescent or those interpreting it to mean a natural right to any light a person wants.
Democrats could have taken the light bulb issue and made Republicans look like idiots while scoring huge political points if they had Democratic political strategists, commentators and elected officials in congress who weren't so busy making themselves look like idiots when it comes to politics.
So the second joke becomes, how many Democrats does it take to cave in to Republican efforts to unscrew efficiency standards? The answer is always the same: three. The same three that are always caving in to something. Pelosi, Reid, and of course, the one man mining disaster himself, the sanctimonious impurist, Barrack Obama.
So now, thanks to the light bulb issue, we now have two new categories of jokes to add to the lexicon - "Republican Jokes", and "Democratic Jokes" . The problem is that most of the country don't think either are very funny. Because the energy standards which would have made light bulbs 30% more efficient, still provided for light bulb choices that were more than adequate.
It's our current choices for president and congress that are inefficient.
Marc Rubin
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Panel on The Impact of Sports Collective Bargaining on Labor Relations in Society
While perusing the program for the upcoming American Economic Association annual meeting (Jan. 6-8) in Chicago, I noticed an interesting panel devoted to sports collective bargaining. Details are below:The Impact of Sports Collective Bargaining on Labor Relations in Society (Workshop) (J1) (Panel Discussion)
Panel Moderator: Gabriel Gershenfeld, Cleveland Indians, and Michael Wasser (American Rights at Work)
DeMaurice Smith (NFL Players Association) Sports Collective Bargaining: Sports Labor Perspective
Rob Manfred (Major League Baseball) Sports Collective Bargaining: Sports Management Perspective
Arlene Holt-Baker (AFL-CIO) Impact of Sports Collective Bargaining on Labor in America
Martin Mulloy (Ford Motor Company) Impact of Sports Collective Bargaining on Management in America
Saturday, December 24, 2011
New Sports Illustrated column: Floyd Mayweather, Jr. sentenced to 90 days in jail
Here's my new SI.com column on Floyd Mayweather pleading guilty to reduced charges for battering his ex-girlfriend. He'll get 90 days in jail; originally was facing 34 years in prison.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Statutes of limitations, child sexual assault, and asking the wrong question
Child sexual assault has become the hot topic in the sports-and-law overlap, with allegations against several college football and basketball coaches, AAU officials, and most recently, a Hall of Fame sports writer Bill Conlin of the Philadelphia Daily News. One unifying theme is that many of these cases cannot be prosecuted because the statute of limitations has run on most of these cases (for example, Conlin's alleged assaults all occurred in the 1970s). So a frequently asked question--I was asked it in a radio interview last week and Slate's Jessica Grose raises it again--is why we have statutes of limitations for child sexual assault cases.
But I think that is the wrong question to ask.
On one hand, the answer is easy. We have statutes of limitations in sexual abuse cases for the same reasons we have statutes of limitations for every other crime (except murder, more on that below): Evidence and people disappear and memories fade or change or become distorted, thus we worry about the reliability of any result based on such stale evidence. Jessica interviews my former colleague Aya Gruber (now at Colorado), who argues that this is especially true in a case such as child sexual assault (and perhaps all sexual assault), where the key--and sometimes only--evidence is the victim's testimony. We also believe in a right to repose, or "rest easy," that at some point a person should be able to no longer fear prosecution and get on with his life and his affairs.
Murder long has not been subject to statutes of limitations because society has made a value judgment--murder is the most heinous crime, the ultimate criminal wrong, and that heinousness outweighs the procedural concerns for unreliable judgments and the substantive concerns for alleged perpetrator's right to repose. A good argument can be made that child sexual assault is as or more heinous than murder,* thus we should strike the same balance. And that is what many states have done, eliminating limitations (as some states have done) or making them extraordinarily long and/or tolling them until the child reaches majority. For example, Pennsylvania now can prosecute a case until the child victim turns 50, meaning a limitations period of anywhere from 33 to 50 years, depending on the child's age at the time of the assault. An even better argument can be made that the old limitations periods in effect in the '70s, '80s, and '90s were woefully short (Pennsylvania was 5 years for anything involving penetration and 2 years for inappropriate touching) and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the crime and the psychology of how child victims respond.**
But thinking about whether there should be a statute of limitations for child sexual assault, or how long it should be, is the wrong question in considering the prosecution or non-prosecution of the current cases of interest. We are stuck with the reality that there is a statute of limitations for these crimes, that at the time of most of most of these crimes that limitations period was really short, and therefore the statutes have run on these cases and prosecution is barred. In 2003, SCOTUS held in Stogner v. California that the prohibition on ex post facto laws prohibited states from applying newly lenghtened limitations periods to crimes that occurred under an older limitations and that now are time-barred under that former limitations period. The 5-4 majority placed an extended limitations period in the second category, as a law that makes a crime greater than it was at the time of its commission. Most states statutorily avoid any possible ex post facto concerns by only applying these newly extended periods prospectively. Thus, what prevents prosecution of Sandusky, Conlin, et al., is not the statute of limiattions as much as the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws.
* I distinctly remember a class session in Stephen Presser's American Legal History at Northwestern, in which we debated whether adult rape was more heinous than murder, with a majority of the class believing it was, because the victim lives with the effects of the crime forever. We can multiply that for child victims.
** Although what is interesting about Conlin's case is that many of the victims went to their parents and some of the parents confronted Conlin, who allegedly cried when confronted. But no one, not even the adults, ever went to the police.
But I think that is the wrong question to ask.
On one hand, the answer is easy. We have statutes of limitations in sexual abuse cases for the same reasons we have statutes of limitations for every other crime (except murder, more on that below): Evidence and people disappear and memories fade or change or become distorted, thus we worry about the reliability of any result based on such stale evidence. Jessica interviews my former colleague Aya Gruber (now at Colorado), who argues that this is especially true in a case such as child sexual assault (and perhaps all sexual assault), where the key--and sometimes only--evidence is the victim's testimony. We also believe in a right to repose, or "rest easy," that at some point a person should be able to no longer fear prosecution and get on with his life and his affairs.
Murder long has not been subject to statutes of limitations because society has made a value judgment--murder is the most heinous crime, the ultimate criminal wrong, and that heinousness outweighs the procedural concerns for unreliable judgments and the substantive concerns for alleged perpetrator's right to repose. A good argument can be made that child sexual assault is as or more heinous than murder,* thus we should strike the same balance. And that is what many states have done, eliminating limitations (as some states have done) or making them extraordinarily long and/or tolling them until the child reaches majority. For example, Pennsylvania now can prosecute a case until the child victim turns 50, meaning a limitations period of anywhere from 33 to 50 years, depending on the child's age at the time of the assault. An even better argument can be made that the old limitations periods in effect in the '70s, '80s, and '90s were woefully short (Pennsylvania was 5 years for anything involving penetration and 2 years for inappropriate touching) and based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the crime and the psychology of how child victims respond.**
But thinking about whether there should be a statute of limitations for child sexual assault, or how long it should be, is the wrong question in considering the prosecution or non-prosecution of the current cases of interest. We are stuck with the reality that there is a statute of limitations for these crimes, that at the time of most of most of these crimes that limitations period was really short, and therefore the statutes have run on these cases and prosecution is barred. In 2003, SCOTUS held in Stogner v. California that the prohibition on ex post facto laws prohibited states from applying newly lenghtened limitations periods to crimes that occurred under an older limitations and that now are time-barred under that former limitations period. The 5-4 majority placed an extended limitations period in the second category, as a law that makes a crime greater than it was at the time of its commission. Most states statutorily avoid any possible ex post facto concerns by only applying these newly extended periods prospectively. Thus, what prevents prosecution of Sandusky, Conlin, et al., is not the statute of limiattions as much as the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws.
* I distinctly remember a class session in Stephen Presser's American Legal History at Northwestern, in which we debated whether adult rape was more heinous than murder, with a majority of the class believing it was, because the victim lives with the effects of the crime forever. We can multiply that for child victims.
** Although what is interesting about Conlin's case is that many of the victims went to their parents and some of the parents confronted Conlin, who allegedly cried when confronted. But no one, not even the adults, ever went to the police.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
New Sports Illustrated column: What Sam Hurd's arrest means for the NFL
I have a new column for SI.com on Sam Hurd's arrest on drug charges and his alleged list of clients, who reportedly include NFL players. Hope you can check it out.
Update: on Saturday morning, I was interviewed on CBS The Early Show. CBS News anchor Russ Mitchell asked me about Sam Hurd's drug arrest, the alleged list of list of NFL players he sold to, and what it all means for the NFL.
Update: on Saturday morning, I was interviewed on CBS The Early Show. CBS News anchor Russ Mitchell asked me about Sam Hurd's drug arrest, the alleged list of list of NFL players he sold to, and what it all means for the NFL.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Introducing the Great Lakes Sports and Entertainment Law Academy
Great Lakes Sports and Entertainment Law Academy
May 14 – June 3, 2012
A joint program of: Center for Law, Technology, and the Arts, Case Western Reserve University School of Law and Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, Cleveland State University
The law schools of Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland State University are pleased to introduce the Great Lakes Sports & Entertainment Law Academy, an exciting new summer program for law school students that will begin in May of 2012. The Academy will be located in Cleveland, Ohio, home to three professional sports franchises and thriving arts and musical institutions. The product of a unique collaboration between the law schools of Cleveland State University and Case Western University, the Academy has partnered with several local and national sports and entertainment franchises, as well as local educational and cultural institutions, to offer students an intense, three-week, interdisciplinary classroom and experiential learning opportunity.
A special feature of the program is the chance for students to secure a limited number of externships at various high-profile sports and entertainment organizations.
Following the three weeks of coursework, up to fifteen students will have the opportunity to participate in highly selective externships. The externships are for three credits and last for nine weeks (approximately 20 hours per week). The anticipated externships, which begin on June 4, 2012, are sponsored by various high-profile sports and entertainment institutions, including:
Cleveland Browns;
SPIRE Institute;
Lake County Captains;
Vuguru Studios;
Horizon League;
Mid-American Conference;
Cleveland State University/Nelligan Sports Marketing Agency;
Greater Cleveland Film Commission
Application deadline: February 15, 2012
Externship application/writing deadline: February 15, 2012
Courses at the 2012 Academy
Courses take place at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, 2121 Euclid Avenue, LB 138, Cleveland, Ohio 44115-2214
- Representing the Professional Athlete
- Negotiation Strategies in Sports Management
- Representing the Musical Artist
- Entertainment Law: Film and Television
Faculty
Peter A. Carfagna, Co-Director of the Academy, is Chairman/CEO of Magis, LLC, a privately owned sports marketing, management and investment company, including family ownership of the Lake County Captains, Cleveland Indians Class A Affiliate. He is a professor at Harvard Law, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
Mark Avsec is partner and Vice-Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, LLP. Before becoming a lawyer, Professor Avsec earned a living as a studio musician, producer and award-winning songwriter.
David Shall is Head of Business Operations & General Counsel at Vuguru LLC, a pioneer in multi-platform programming and content.
All students who satisfactorily complete six credit hours of coursework will receive a certificate of completion. Up to 15 students will be selected for an externship through a separate application process, a competitive writing submission in response to a Sports Law Problem, available at this web address beginning December 15, 2011.
For further information:
Professor Craig A. Nard, Co-Director, Great Lakes Sports and Entertainment Law Academy
Phone: (216) 368-6348
E-mail: craig.nard@case.edu
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Dr. Jonathan Dranov puts final nail in media coffin regarding Joe Paterno.
No one knows if Joe Paterno will sue Sean Gregory, Time Magazine, Jason Whitlock at Foxsports.com, Jemele Hill, the Philadelphia Daily News and almost every commentator covering college football at ESPN for libel and defamation. Money wouldn't be the motive. All the money could be donated to children's causes and scholarships to the Penn State School of Journalism for any journalism student signing a pledge to not become an incompetent, mob-brained idiot when they go out into the real world. But if Joe Paterno had an open and shut case before against the news media (and he did), that case is now sealed shut completely against the media.
The last nail in the news media's coffin was hammered in a few days ago by Dr. Jonathan Dranov, a family friend of Mike McQueary who also testified in front of the grand jury.
Most people following the events at Penn State already know that Dr. Dranov stated publicly and in his grand jury testimony, that Mike McQueary gave him a totally different account of what he saw in the showers at Penn State than what he testified to in his grand jury testimony.
According to Dr. Dranov, McQueary told him that as he approached the showers, he "heard the shower running" and saw a young boy poke his head out around the corner of the stall, then saw a male adult arm pull the boy back. He then says he saw Sandusky wrapped in a towel leave the shower with the boy.
Dr. Dranov testified to the grand jury that he asked McQueary three times if he had seen any sexual activity between the boy and Sandusky and all three times McQueary answered "no".
Based on McQueary's answers Dr. Dranov advised him not to go to the police but to report what he saw to Joe Paterno. For the record the Philadelphia Daily News has not run a picture of Dr. Dranov on the front page with the word "Shame". And Jay Bilas at ESPN has not demanded that Dr. Dranov lose his license for "failing to do enough". And I have not heard Stuart Scott on ESPN say of Dr. Dranov, "doesn't he get it"?
While Joe Paterno said from the beginning that he was never told any of the things by McQueary that McQueary told the grand jury, Paterno was not given the opportunity to say exactly what he was told. Penn State canceled Paterno's press conference where he was going to tell what he knew.
Without knowing what McQueary told him but knowing that Paterno had said he wasn't told details or specifics of what McQueary saw, the press simply invented and fabricated what Paterno knew, or just as bad, assumed it, then accused Paterno of not "reporting it" or "doing enough" based on their fabrications, and demanded he be dismissed because of it.
Now with Dr. Dranov's statement, it is a certainty that McQueary never told Paterno anything more in substance than he told Dr. Dranov. If Dr. Dranov advised him to go to Paterno and not the police based on what McQueary told him, it is not possible that in going to Paterno he would have given him a different and more specific account of what he saw.
Dr. Dranov's statement and grand jury testimony makes a few more things clear as well for those too factually and logically challenged to have not seen this from the beginning: Mike McQueary, as Joe Paterno said in his first statement never told him anything about any sexual contact involving Sandusky and a young boy and it's clear from what McQueary told Dr. Dranov, that he was much too uncomfortable to give anyone, Dr. Dranov or Joe Paterno, the whole story about what he had seen. Until he testified to the grand jury.
McQueary's grand jury account is undoubtedly the correct account. It is highly unlikely McQueary would have fabricated what he saw to a grand jury. But now, for those who foolishly swallowed the initial press accounts and believed what they read and heard and not Joe Paterno, there is corroborating evidence that McQueary did not relay exactly what he saw, or thought he saw, whether to Dr. Dranov or Joe Paterno.
What impact it will have on the legal proceedings involving Curley and Schultz remain to be seen. If they were told the same thing by McQueary that he told Paterno and Dranov, it will be hard to prosecute someone for not reporting a crime they were never told about in the first place.
But as it relates to Joe Paterno, and those who unthinkly swallowed the nonsense the media was peddlng there is a lot of soul searching that needs to be done, though its always hard for people to admit they were made fools of. And among those that need to do the soul searching are the Penn State trustees and two U.S. senators from Pennsylvania.
Paterno was the media cash cow in all this. His name and picture were seen more than twice as much as Jerry Sandusky's. He became the story and all as a result of of incompetence, dishonesty and greed and of course the phony facade of protecting children if you dont think it was phony try finding a media outlet demanding the resignation of the Pope over the institutional child abuse committed by priests with the knowledge of the Pope and other higher ups in the church heirarchy.)
As has been said here before, this is bigger than Joe Paterno. The country is poorer because of a news media with no journalistic standards, populated by incompetents on every level and motivated by nothing except profits and self interest. Which makes these journalists, the way they practice journalism, and those who believe what they sell a real threat to democracy and American values. In other countries in other times it was called propaganda. And it was very effective.
In Joe Paterno's case we saw journalists like Sean Gregory at Time magazine, Jason Whitlock, Jemele Hill and others report as fact things they knew for a fact they didn't know, and then pontificate about these things, for the sake of a big story as if they inhabited some delusional moral high ground. This time it was Joe Paterno who suffered the temporary consequences. But unless something is done about the media we will all suffer greater consequences. In fact a case can be made that just about all the problems the country has now and has had for the last 15 years can be traced to a news media too incompetent and too cowardly to do the job the Founders envisioned for the news media when they wrote the first amendment. Because the media will not hold politicans accountable for anything if they think it's not in their self interest.and when it comes to government accountablity, self interest for the media is money and access. And they wont endanger either one. For anything.
Committing immoral acts in the name of morality is nothing new. It's what mobs do whether its the Salem Witch Trials or the modern day news media. The media do it all the time. They did it to Richard Jewel in 1996 when without a shred of evidence, labeled him the Olympic Bomber and made his life hell for three months. Jewel ended up suing and settled out of court for tens of millions from NBC, Tom Brokaw, CNN, the Atlanta Constitution and others. But it didnt solve the bigger problem.
The bigger problem is the media's lack of standards which is on display every day whether its politics or policy or "scandals" that arent really scandals. They will inflate anything they think will bring in a bigger audience and generate more revenue even if they have to diminsh and set aside the things that really matter. They are afraid to report the truth about anything if they think it will cause a backlash that will hurt their bottom line. But they will lie and distort if they think it will make money and they can get away with it. And with the lies they told about Joe Paterno, they believed, in their uniquely sanctimonious way, they could get away with it
The out of control, dishonest media frenzy involving Joe Paterno was as much an abuse of the first amendment as Sandusky's alleged abuse of children. And just as vile. And unfortunately for the country a lot more frequent. But maybe this time, if enough people get angry, it will be time for some real accountablity for the news media and there will be demands that wrongs and injustices be made right.
A libel and defamation suit by Joe Paterno against certain news outlets would be absolutely patriotic. But that is solely for Joe Paterno and his family and his lawyers to decide. But there are other things people can do if they are outraged enough to demand accountability. And there will be more to say about what those things might be, in the future.
UPDATE 11:32 p.m. 12/15/2011. Finally there is some specificity to what Joe Paterno was told by Mike McQueary and what Paterno's reaction was and what he did. Paterno's previously sealed grand jury testimony was read along with testimony from the stand by Mike McQueary about what he had told Paterno. And in all cases it convicts the mainstream news media of the gross abuse, lying, incompetence, dishonesty and distortion they displayed from the beginning when they not only didnt know the facts of what Paterno knew and what he did, they knew they didnt know the facts and fabricated lies anyway.
According to the Sporting News account of what happened in the hearing for Curley and Schultz, "McQueary testified on Friday that he did not go into graphic detail with Paterno about what he had witnessed out of respect for Paterno". This jibes with Paterno's first and only public statement that he was never told any of the things McQueary told the grand jury about what he saw.
According to Paterno's grand jury testimony Paterno took what he thought was the appropriate action when he told Curley.
“I figured Tim would handle it appropriately,” Paterno told the grand jury. He added: “I didn’t push Mike…because he was very upset. I knew Mike was upset, and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster. Monday, I talked to my boss, Tim Curley, by phone, saying, 'Hey we got a problem' and I explained the problem to him,"
Eventually Paterno did meet with Schultz the overseer of the Penn State police with McQueary present.
So now we can substantiate the only facts that had been out there from the beginning, facts which the mass media ignored. McQueary made it clear that he did not go into graphic detail about what he had seen in the shower. Paterno made clear that he knew that McQueary felt "some kind of inappropriate action" had taken place with Sandusky and a boy.
Paterno called his boss, Tim Curley to tell him what he knew on Monday after he met with McQueary. In one of the most spectacular displays of hypocrisy ever seen, ESPN, one of the loudest voices in criticizing Paterno for "not doing enough", had an audiotape containing admisssions of child sexual abuse related to Bernie Fine and did nothing, called no one, reported it to no one, alerted no one, and never even revealed the existance of the tape for ten years.
Sean Gregory's lie in Time magazine in early November that "Joe Paterno knew a ten year old boy was anally raped in a shower and didnt report it" when he had not a shred of evidence or testimony to support it, speaks for itself.
McQueary's statements on the witness stand involving his own activity, badly damage his credibility as I point out in a response in the comments section since he contradicts himself repeatedly.
What the testimony of Paterno and McQueary will mean to Curley and Schultz at trial remains to be seen. But it convicts the mainstream media on all counts of lying, distorting, and sanctimonious self-serving incompetence What remains to be seen is exactly what the sentence against the media will be. For those who still want to swallow whole the nonsense they push, it will probably be intellectual diabetes.
UPDATED: 12/21/2011: WHAT BOBBY BOWDEN SAYS HE WOULD HAVE DONE
Former Florida State head coach Bobby Bowden decided, for reasons known only to him, to once again weigh in on Joe Paterno and the results are both headshakingly funny and mind numblingly dumb by both Bowden and the media. Both Bowden and the media characterized Bowden's remarks as "how Bowden would have handled the Sandusky matter differently".
Here is what Bowden said:
“I’ve tried to think what I would do,” Bowden said, “if one of my coaches had come to me and told me what happened. I would have gone to that guy (Sandusky), asked him if it was true and I would have told him to get away from here and don’t EVER come back. And then I would have gone to the police. I think that’s what I would have done.”
Wait a second. Aside from the utter waste of time of going to Sandusky "to ask if it were true" isnt this exactly what Joe Paterno did? How is this Bowden "handling it differently"? Instead of wasting his time going to Sandusky Paterno went to Tim Curley the Penn State AD and the upshot was Curley made sure Sandusky was no longer allowed on Penn State grounds. And then Paterno went to Gary Schultz administrative head of Penn State campus police, the law enforcement agency with jurisdication.
Aside from Bowden's useless histronicis of telling Sandusky to never darken his door again, Paterno did pretty much what Bowden said he'd do only, just like on the football field, Paterno did it a little better.
Unfortunately the radio hosts were too busy fawning over Bowden to pretend they were actual journalists so they never asked Bowden what he would have done in his fantasy if , when he asked Sandusky if it were true, Sandusky had denied it. Which is why its always a good idea for people to keep their noses out of other people's business and not pass judgement when they arent standing in the same shoes. Bowden calling what he would do "handling it differently" is not just laughable but embarrassing epecially since his fantasy is predicated on Sandusky doubling over in contrition and confessing all so that Bowden can deliver his exit line. Bowden sounded like he was having the kind of fantasy people have of telling off their bosses.
Only a news media both morally and journalistically bankrupt, and so dumb its painful, could have characterized what Bowden said as "doing it differently". And given Bowden's statement of what he would have done compared to what Paterno actually did, and the media's subsequent treatment of Paterno, one can only wait and see if the Philadephia Daily News will put Bowden's picture on the front page with the word "Shame". Not likely but the list of people who deserve it is growing.
Marc Rubin
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Copyright Marc Rubin 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
