Discussion in 'The Watering Hole' started by GaryAyala, Jul 18, 2012.
Up or Down?
Down. Statues are for those of honor.
I say down. Living near Philly, damn near EVERYONE I know has or had some connection to Penn State and it seems that public opinion even around here is pretty well turned against his sainthood. Despite the initial defensiveness on the part of many, the evidence in the Freeh report is just waaaaaay too compelling to ignore. A really really sad chapter. Hell, as sad BOOK - its a lot more than a chapter.
I heard they're just planning to turn the statue to look the other way ...
Im using this one all day, already used it twice with great fan fare.
As far as the statue, take it down. To much controversy.
Penn State grad here. Was in school for one of their championships and met Paterno a few times.
My opinion: Take it down, and melt it down. Re-purpose it in to something positive. I'd also like to see Penn State shut down the football program for at least a few years.
While the magnitude of this event surprises me, the fact that the football culture ran unchecked with no regard for anything but the Brand really does not. Even as a naive kid with much more focus on girls and beer than most everything else it was clear that Penn State was an insular little kingdom that operated under it's own rules.
From a photography standpoint, I've been considering making the hour and a half drive to State College specifically to shoot the statue before it is gone. My concern is that I'd just end up with some typical looking shots of a statue and it wouldn't be worth the effort. If I shoot it I want to able to convey some sense of menace or evil. Any ideas?? I did think of tying a blindfold on it, but I imagine the campus cops would throw me in jail for that. I think they are still looking for me for some events that took place in the late 1980s...
I think this issues should go way beyond the statue. Remove any or all persons involved currently employed by Penn State. Protecting football program was culture it was not just one man. Every one got swept up in it. Hell even that janitor was too scared to say something because he saw it happen. The whole damn importance of Humanity needs to be instituted again. I always try to attach the source first then worry about everything else. Otherwise all this fighting is just moot.
Once the culture changes, moving the statue will be a lot easier decision.
I'm with playak47. The statue is becoming a symbol of what is wrong and disturbing in the whole story. Its an institution intended to foster the growth of young minds... and much like many institutions in our country... corrupted by power, influence, and most importantly wealth.
I personally feel that all those who played a part in enabling the predator are just as accountable. One could even argue that Sandusky was a mentally disturbed man.... but what about the others? What is their excuse?
Heck.. as someone already posted... melt it down and turn it into something positive. A reminder for those who were victimized.
Statue has to come down. Name off the library too. Very sad, but this man should not be celebrated.
I listen to ESPN radio a lot, and I was complaining to my wife that for weeks now, they haven't talked about much other than Paterno. She replied that the more exposure it gets, maybe the less likely something like this will happen again somewhere else. If that's the case, I hope they talk about this on the radio for a long time to come.
I'm pretty sure those who were victimized don't need or want a reminder.
And surely there are better ways to spend money to help stop child abuse?
I'm closely connected to PSU. I have three degrees from Penn State. My wife, sister, brother, brother-in-law, and sister-in law are all alumni. My father retired last year after about 30 years as an engineering professor. I grew up 12 miles from campus.
I've read the Freeh Report, including examining the evidence he used to draw his conclusions. It's far from being as clear cut and damning as people make it out to be. It certainly documents a series of events where a group of people exercised extremely poor judgement, but there is little evidence to support the motives Freeh assigns to the people involved. Because of ongoing legal matters, he couldn't even talk to any of the people directly involved. After reviewing millions of e-mails and interviewing 400+ people, the only evidence Freeh could find that connects Paterno to the decision not to file a report with Dept. of Welfare is ONE e-mail where he is mentioned in the 3rd person. There was no evidence of a sinister plot to conceal and hide information to protect PSU, in fact there's no evidence they ever discussed the impact to the school or the football program. So, regardless of what people write in attention grabbing headlines, I do not believe we know the whole story, and perhaps we never will.
To the original question: Regardless of whether or not I think Paterno is being judged fairly by the media and the public, I do think the statue needs to be removed. It's too much of a distraction, a stupid thing for people to fight over when there are soooo many more important things to do.
I expect the statue will be moved indoors to the Penn State All-Sports museum which is at the stadium. It's the only idea i've heard that would make everyone reasonably satisfied.
One bit of irony is that by most accounts, Paterno himself HATED the statue. I never much liked it either.
Laugh it up, but I find it difficult to find humor in any of this sad affair.
I would suggest that if ESPN is your information source you're getting a whole lot of opinions and very little facts.
The library is named after Paterno and his wife Sue, who was the fundraising chairperson. Are you saying PSU should shun his whole family and all of their accomplishments?
Leave the statue up, Joe isn't the villain, Sandusky is. I guess it's pretty easy to fling mud at a dead man.
It is difficult to try to find humor in this sad affair, but I tried. :smile:
Maybe it's just me and my not=so-young age, but I assume that we don't get the whole story in every story that makes it to the headlines. But aren't we at least sure that: (1) JoePa knows what happened; and (2) nothing was done?
Or am I reading the news wrong?
I'm listening to ESPN to hear about sports. My news comes from a variety of newspapers' online sites. I get that this is a difficult situation for you and a lot of people at Penn State, but I disagree with you about the evidence. I looked at the Freeh report too, and it is beyond dispute that McQueary reported an incident of Sandusky being sexual with a young boy directly to Paterno in 2001. Being in a position of power, Paterno should have made sure that report was properly disclosed to child welfare and investigated by the police.
I do not think that Joe Paterno should be publicly celebrated in any way. If there is no compelling evidence that Sue Paterno was involved in allowing the abuse to occur, and I make no assumption that she was, then I don't see any problem with renaming the library after her alone.
You are reading it dead right.
Steve, if you have that level of intimacy with Penn State I would think it didn't take the Freeh report, or any recent news, to show you that Paterno had significant influence over many things beyond his team.
You can't disconnect the football program from fundraising, which is what Spanier was always all about, and you certainly can't disconnect Paterno from the football program.
You are surely right that we don't know all the facts and probably never will. When do we? I don't have any doubt that Paterno knew what was going on and did nothing to stop it. Take that with a grain of salt though, because 9 months ago I was equally sure that Paterno was one of the few "good guys" in college football and that he wouldn't put football above what is right.
What we don't know is: Whether Paterno knew that his actions were insufficient, and that nothing was done. We don't know that any of the people involved made decisions in the interests of protecting the school or the football program.
Don't get me wrong, I am deeply disturbed that the people involved (Paterno included) even thought twice about it before calling the police. But surely there is a difference between misjudging a situation and intentionally plotting to cover up child abuse? My issue is that the press is pushing the "sinister plot" theory because it helps generate advertising revenue, not because there's evidence to support it.
Separate names with a comma.