DuckIII wrote:I guess where you and I differ is that I don't consider the Paterno part damning, and I'm waiting to see it get bad before calling it bad.
Right now, I'd label it as less than ideal with the potential to get bad. Though I realize this is not a popular or politically correct position to take.
I'm not far away from you. I've been getting reamed out on twitter largely for suggesting that the real person who I have a problem with is McQuery, and that it's a shame there is so much media on attention on Paterno because he's the biggest name involved.
I think it was good for the university to separate itself from Paterno. I also think Paterno should have done more [as he acknowledged himself], but it's sad that this story is largely about Paterno and not about Sandusky/McQuery. I think Paterno's lack of action was damning to a degree, but of all the names involved in the story his actions are the least damning of the group.
Sandusky is obviously public enemy #1.
Paterno's superiors had a legal obligation to report the incident and thus are public enemy #2 (IMO).
McQuery was the only one who could actually testify to anything, so he becomes public enemy #3.
Paterno comes in fourth in that chain in that he fulfilled his legal obligation to report the incident and also had no direct evidence he could offer to the police.
Obviously with something this bad you wish that just any one of the people who knew something did more with it, and Paterno is in that group, but if I'm rating wrongness on a scale of 1-10, Paterno gets the lowest score of the group and has gotten the most bad publicity of it.