I see what you did there. Shaymeful.
Respectfully, I disagree. The author and others are bent on blaming Paterno for Sandusky's actions. Even your own comment wants to make Paterno a "partner" in Sandusky's alleged child molestation. The question I want answered is why does the author want to put Paterno's hands on the victims--metaphorically speaking. I think it is easy enough to question Posnanski but we should also question this author's motivation and his own perspective. Is he simply looking for pageviews? Looking to be the ascerbic internet writer? Wants to take potshots at the "establishment"? He has as much of an agenda as the writer he criticizes.
There still would have been a Sandusky scandal in 1998 or 2002 or 2000-whenever regardless of Paterno's actions. The media wouldn't allow it any other way. And, let's be accurate when discussing Paterno's actions--it was not neglect because if it had been he would have been charged with a crime. Could he have done more? It sure seems like it but there are questions of fact that have yet to be resolved. Moreover, by my understanding Sandusky was not part of Paterno's "organization" in 2002 and I don't recall the 1998 incident ever being reported to Paterno (I may be wrong about this but I can't recall that fact ever being stated and only people saying "he couldn't have not known" which is a pretty big assumption). What this author and many others are bent on doing is blaming Joe Paterno for Jerry Sandusky, when Jerry Sandusky's alleged acts are his own and not anybody else's.
There's no Joe Paterno story without Jerry Sandusky, and there's no Jerry Sandusky scandal without Joe Paterno.
Uh, no. Jerry Sandusky was allegedly molesting kids with or without the existence of Joe Paterno. There would have been at some point a Jerry Sandusky scandal regardless of Paterno's actions in 2002. It was simply a matter of when.
Uh, no. Jerry Sandusky was allegedly molesting kids with or without the existence of Joe Paterno. There would have been at some point a Jerry Sandusky scandal regardless of Paterno's actions in 2002. It was simply a matter of when.
So "right" you are.
This list is incomplete without an entry for a piece written by Carles. Any piece.
Doing away with the female host makes sense when women find these debates repellent.
How, exactly, does this prove that Mr. Pujols doesn't care about the money?
It's not about resubmitting to the league, it's about actually getting to the trade proposal past the owner's desk. In this case, the owner being ostensibly the NBA.
Mesozoicloma.
Not exactly sure that pursuing an aggressive legal strategy defending your client is the same as "a man with a history of engaging in cover-ups." In fact, because the issues were litigated in many courts of law I would think his actions would be the exact opposite of a cover-up.
This goal happened right in front of me at the game. Absolutely spectacular. The ball came back to Nagbe and everybody rose screaming to shoot it and the result was incredible.
I think Deadspin missed the funny tweet from the Prodigious Head of a Prodigous Quarterback.
[newsfeed.time.com]
[newsfeed.time.com]
Damn. Gas is 30 cents cheaper wherever he is compared to where I live.
She's a PE teacher. Or was. That's sports related.
So the point is that the argument doesn't matter just getting the attention? Lovely. I guess the old adage that any press is good press lives on.
It's missing a hamster.
This isn't helping Cragg's job prospects at tWWL.
Counterpoint.
