Sunday, December 04, 2011

No real disagreement ....

Since I comment on Jack Kelly every week, I feel compelled to say something about this week's column. But this week Kelly is talking about the Penn State mess, and the failure of leaders there to act. It seems he is basing his column on a sermon given by (what I assume is) his pastor. And frankly, I don't have any major disagreement with what Kelly says in his column.

To me, the only discussion that makes sense is whether McQureary should have physically defended the boy that particular night and then called the cops, or only called cops, University or town. Of course, as we know he did neither, and nobody thinks what he did was adequate. Frankly Joe Paterno should have never been involved, but since he was, he is fair game for what he failed to do as well, as is the athletic director and the University President. As Kelly says, the powerful protected each other and I will add another entity they tried to protect, the all powerful football program. Of course, because of McQreary's, Paterno's and Curley's failusre to act they end up dragging the football program into the scandal.

Kelly takes pains to say that Sandusky and this fellow Bernie Fine are not victims but victimizers. I might be inclined to say the two are somewhat victims, but agree that mostly they are victimizers and that what they did to those boys was far worse than any pain they themselves have experienced. They are the textbook definition of one type of criminal, someone who knows right from wrong but gives into what they know is an illegal sexual impulse.

I remember an interesting discussion/argument between two co-workers (which I involved myself in on the periphery). One is a male Muslim and the other a woman (Christian, I am not sure whether Catholic or Protestant). The woman was complaining about Muslin treatment of women, and the Muslim brought up how the ancient Greek adult males interacted with young boys. The Anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss surveyed as many cultures as he could find and found that the one (and only) taboo he could find across all cultures is incest. Despite that fact, no one in the history of America would make an argument that adult males interacting sexually with male children is in any way acceptable. I have no doubt that Sandusky and Fine knew that, and should have sought therapy or some type of counseling instead of acting on their impulses.

I think we call all agree on (at least) that.


Dayvoe said...

Spelling, Ed. Check your spelling.

It's McQueary not McQureary or McQreary.

And the word failure doesn't usually have an "s" in it.

And it's Muslim not Muslin.


Winding down said...

Ed. Who can we believe?

Bust the thread...liberal media at its best/worst

Normally I pay zero attention to what goofballs say about me, but my wife brought my attention to this piece by one Roy Edroso in the Village Voice, titled “Rightbloggers Declare Former Future President Herman Cain a (What Else?) Victim of Obama, Media.” I was one of the principal conservatives quoted, ostensibly, by Mr. Edroso:

John Hinderaker at Power Line was similarly slippery: “I am angered because people who wanted Herman Cain out of the way got what they wanted,” he wrote.

Actually, I wrote no such thing, as you can see if you follow Mr. Edroso’s link.

Really? Who were they? “I am also angered because I do not believe these accusations would have seen the light of day had he not won the Florida Straw Poll.” So — it was one of the other Republican candidates, then? Which one?

Nope. I didn’t write that either.

“People who spread rumor, innuendo and outright lies have been rewarded for their behavior. The truth no longer matters.” Well, that could be anybody. Got a name?

Sorry. I didn’t write that.

“Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and other GOP candidates can expect far worse if they are in any position to unseat President Obama.” Ah, so it wasn’t the other candidates? But then who –

Sorry if this is getting boring, but I didn’t write that, either.

“What happened to Herman Cain,” Hinderaker finally said, “is what the Democrats intend to do to whoever the Republican nominee turns out to be. They know they can’t win a debate on the economy or on President Obama’s record, so they will do everything they can to distract the voters’ attention from those matters, which should be decisive, and instead turn the focus to the GOP candidate and his or her alleged foibles…”

“Finally” is right! The Village Voice finally quotes something I actually did say. But they go on to comment inappropriately, based on their wrongly attributing all of the preceding quotes to me:

Clever! Hinderaker never actually said Obama did it, but shrewdly ruled out — by innuendo if not by logic — the people who had the most to gain by Cain’s exit, and turned suspicion on Obama, who would be singing Glory Hallelujah if the bumbling Cain were nominated to run against him. As long as the Republican gravy train still runs, Hinderaker will never miss a meal.

This makes no sense, of course. I didn’t say that anyone other than Herman Cain was responsible for Cain’s demise. I warned that the Democrats have every intention of trying to hang on to power by diverting attention from Obama’s failures to the real or alleged eccentricities of the Republican candidate, and therefore the GOP should nominate someone without the glaring weaknesses that came to light during the Cain campaign.

I don’t know who (if anyone) actually wrote the first four quotes that the Voice attributed to me. But it is impossible to take seriously a liberal “journalist” who links to a post, and then attacks it by fabricating four quotes that are nowhere to be found at the link. Is the Village Voice America’s lamest news site? We report, you decide.

Winding down said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Winding down said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Winding down said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Winding down said...

Hinderaker posted the abv at powerlineblog

Winding down said...

This will give some explanation re the context of the PSU situation...

Darth of ancient virtues

Read the piece and the comments .... No confusion

Winding down said...


Heir to the Throne said...

Remember your outrage at "equating a climate scientist with a pedophile" for saying "Penn State would never coverup any misconduct or inappropriate behavior by the people they employ" ?

Deranged Propaganda Cartoonist Pat Oliphant Has a Simple Message for America: Republicans Are Pedophiles:

EdHeath said...

HTTT, actually I agree that the Pat Oliphant cartoon is pretty obnoxious. I think he should apologize for that.

I mean, I see Oliphant's point that Cain knew his own history, and should have known it would come out. But then Newt's history was already out there, yet that doesn't seem to be slowing him down (after all, Clinton got elected with his history). And I remember vaguely suggestions that Paterno should run for Pennsylvania Governor or even President when he retired (before we found out he had no plans to retire ever). But that is not nearly enough to justify Oliphant's cartoon.

Oliphant might have gotten a laugh without the stupid slur by suggesting Jeb Bush as the next person approaching the Republican for President train stop.

EdHeath said...

WD, interestingly the Village Voice made corrections to their story. So, I guess they acknowledged their mistake. I am thinking that this Hinderaker has his on fantasy type view of the world, but I really don't have time to find out.

Winding down said...

1/ good for the correction

2/fantasy yes ..the only explanation

3/ Corzine, Krugman, Friedman ...all in for it our future?