"...we do not yet know all of the facts in this matter."

At this point, everyone should be aware of the scandal in State College, Pennsylvania. 

Former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was arrested last Saturday for allegedly sexually abusing eight boys over a 15-year period while coaching at Penn State University.

Here's why it's a scandal: Sandusky had retired in 1999, but still used the football facilities for working with young boys.  Apparently that went beyond just football.  In 2002, then graduate assistant Mike McQueary says he witnessed Sandusky having anal sex with a young boy in the shower room of the football building.    McQueary reported to Head Coach Joe Paterno what he saw.  Paterno says that McQueary told him he saw Sandusky "doing something disturbing that was perhaps sexual in nature."  Something tells me McQueary didn't phrase it that way, but the fact remains he told Paterno.  Instead of reporting this to the police, Paterno reported what McQueary told him to Athletic Director Tim Curley.  From what I understand, Sandusky was banned from using the facilities.  Curley did not report anything to the police.

In addition to Sandusky's arrest, two top university officials - Curley and Gary Schultz, the senior vice president for finance and business - have been charged with perjury and failing to report to authorities what they knew of the allegations.  Now, as of a few hours ago, Paterno and University President Graham Spanier have been fired. 

Paterno is a legend at Penn State; he is the all-time winningest coach in NCAA football history, he's coached at Penn State for 46 years as the head coach (though he's been involved with the program for 62 years), and he is the contributor of a $10 Million library on Penn State's campus.  Spanier was a president popular among students and the community, helped to raise the academic prestige at Penn State during his tenure, and was actually one of the longest-serving and highest-paid presidents of a university in the nation.

John Surma Jr., the vice chairman of the board, said, "We thought that because of the difficulties that engulfed our university, and they are grave, that it is necessary to make a change in the leadership to set a course for a new direction."  Before taking questions in the press conference that announced the firing of Paterno and Spanier he continued, "I'd like to remind you that we do not yet know all of the facts in this matter."

And THAT'S where I have my issue.

Let me start by saying, that what Sandusky allegedly did was arguably one of the worst, most despicable, inhumane things you can do to another human being - especially a child.  If convicted, he is a serial pedophile and should have the book thrown at him... and then some.  I say "allegedly" and "if" because he hasn't been convicted yet, and as horrible of a thing as he's accused of doing, he's still an American citizen.  In America, ALL citizens have the right to a trial and due process - they are innocent until proven guilty.  Having said that, since there are witnesses and victims coming forward, it's safe to say that he will be convicted.

Now, McQueary witnessed the sexual assault, so Paterno told him to report it.  It is reported that Paterno also notified the proper hierarchy as well.  Should he have notified the police?  Maybe.  Probably.  But the fact remains he was NOT silent and did NOT hide what he knew.  He told his superiors and directed McQueary to those same superiors.  Could Paterno have done more to make sure more action was taken?  Maybe.  Probably.  Should he have?  Absolutely.  But, again, he was not silent.

In the wake of the allegations, Paterno announced that he would retire at the end of the season, as this seemed to have been coming for a long time now anyway, but would finish the season, including the game against Nebraska this Saturday, November 12.  However, the Board of Trustees fired Paterno on Wednesday, November 9.  From my understanding, this was done via a phone call and they are euphemistically saying he was "relieved of his duties."  Apparently, a legendary coach who has given so much to Penn State through the football program, through his donations and through his time and wisdom - AND was NOT silent about what he knew - doesn't deserve the courtesy of being fired face-to-face.  Now assistant coach McQueary, who WITNESSED the actual events and ALSO did not report anything to police, still retains his job.

Now let me be clear, I do think some kind of action needed to be taken by the University and the Board of Trustees.  My issue is that the Board, admittedly, does not know all the facts and has not completed an investigation to get those facts.  To flat-out fire Paterno is wrong.  He should have been suspended until the investigation was complete.  Same goes for President Spanier.  To fire them both before having all the facts is, in my opinion, presumptive accusatory.  I understand that the University and the Board of Trustees are under scrutiny and pressure to act, but PROPER and FAIR actions must be taken.  Let's remember, it's not like Paterno was the one arrested for committing the acts.  He knew about them - no... he knew SOMETHING about them, and he DID report them.  Everybody seems to act like they know EXACTLY what Paterno knew, EXACTLY what he reported, and EXACTLY what he was told would happen based on what he reported as if they were in the room when everything happened.  We don't know exactly what Paterno knew or to what extent he knew it.

We just.  Don't.  Know.

Look, I'm not saying Paterno should be let off the hook.  If he knew more and didn't report it, or if he reported it and he allowed Curley to brush it off with a slap on the wrist for Sandusky, then yes, he should have taken it to someone else who would listen and take action.  Sexual assault is a serious issue, especially in the case of an adult taking advantage of young boys.  You might even argue that it's worse than murder because the victims have to live with the atrocity that was forced upon them and without the innocence that was stolen from them.  Regardless, that's not what I'm arguing here.

I'm arguing that the Board of Trustees has acted inappropriately by firing a legendary coach and person who did take (some) action because they are under pressure.  I'm arguing that the Board of Trustees should have given Paterno the decency and the courtesy of telling him he was being fired in-person.  I'm arguing that we are treating Paterno like he did nothing about what he knew.

It's heartbreaking.  Everything about this is heartbreaking.  The fact that those children were victimized the way they were; the fact that Paterno's legacy is now forever tarnished; the fact that SEVERAL people failed to take further action to seek justice.  I'm not a Penn State fan.  I've never been a fan of Joe Paterno.  But I've always admired what he's done for Penn State, both academically and athletically.  It's sad that his legacy will now be about this horrible tragedy instead of all the incredible things he's done for others in his life.

We'll all know the truth soon enough.  And I can only hope that when we do, Paterno's name is cleared as much as it can be.  In the meantime, we need to realize that this matter is bigger than a coach, a football season, or a program.  It's about the sexual assault that 8 boys suffered at the hands of a pedophile... and bringing them some sense of justice and closure.

But for now, we do not yet know all of the facts in this matter.

Integrity from a Politician?

President Obama says it's over.

The President announced that the US will pull all remaining troops from Iraq by the end of the year.

Most would call this a good thing.  Conservatives disagree.  They (apparently) see this as a "consequential failure," as Republican Senator John McCain put it, because of increasing/always-present tensions/hostility with Iran.  The 2012 Republican Presidential-hopeful Mitt Romney said, "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government."  The concern is that by leaving Iraq we are giving Iran exactly what they want - a defenseless Iraq.

However, Obama is only keeping promises.  Obama promised all of us that he'd end the war and bring our troops home.  We also promised the Iraqi government in a signed agreement in 2008 that we would pull our troops from their country by December 2011.  This was an agreement signed under President George W. Bush... not President Obama.  Now conservatives are criticizing Obama for upholding the agreement that Republican President Bush made.

This reminds me of how conservatives blamed the crumbling economy, due to the outsourcing of American jobs overseas, on former President Bill Clinton, who signed NAFTA into effect and opened the door for such possibilities.  However, NAFTA was the brain-child of George H. W. Bush, who Americans voted out of office before he could pass it.  Clinton signed NAFTA into effect as a courtesy; at the time, the country wanted it and it was simply the right thing to do.  Had NAFTA not developed so many negative side effects, conservatives would have no problem reminding America that it was "the baby" of a Republican President.  But that's not convenient for conservatives in this case, is it?

But I digress...

So, Obama is showing the integrity of his word to our country and to Iraq by bringing our troops home to their families... and this is a grave mistake?  Surprisingly enough, the voice of reason has come from Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner.  Boehner urged the President to "continue engaging with the Iraqi government in a way that ensures our hard-fought gains translate into long-term success."  I think a resounding "duh" works well here, but seriously, he's being rational.  He continued, "While I'm concerned that a full withdrawal could jeopardize those gains, I'm hopeful that both countries will work together to guarantee that a free and democratic Iraq remains a strong and stable partner for the United States in the Middle East."

And that, I believe, is the bigger point here.  The United States is supposed to be a world leader.  Being a leader means acting like it.  That means exuding integrity and empowering others.  We helped liberate Iraq, regardless of the debate in America as to whether or not we should have been there in the first place.  We helped clean up and rebuild.  We stayed to keep the peace, as oxymoronic as that may seem.  We gave them our word that we'd leave.  Now we're keeping a promise with an Iraqi government that wants the chance to shape its own future.

Some conservatives say that it shouldn't matter what the agreement was or what Iraq wants, they aren't equipped to do this on their own right now; they're not ready.  As Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, the United States was still "keeping a real close eye on Iran" and would be "well equipped" to do so even after the withdrawal.

I agree.  We've already sacrificed over 4,000 soldiers to this war.  We've already signed an agreement.  We've already promised our troops and their families.  It's time to be the leader we claim to be and give Iraq the opportunity to stand on its own.  It's time to have a little integrity again.  It's time to be the same "greatest country on Earth" I was told we were when I was a kid.

Obama may not be the greatest president we've ever had, but he's not a miserable failure like the last guy was.  I appreciate that Obama's doing what he said he'd do.  Integrity from a politician.

Wow.

Oh, irony...

Define Irony: The reaction to the "Occupy" movement.

Conservatives are big proponents of defense and "support our troops who defend our freedoms," so much so that pouring considerable amounts of money of the budget into national defense is a common practice among conservatives/republicans. One of those freedoms our troops defend, however, is the entire First Amendment, which not only prevents the making of laws that abridge the freedom of speech, but also laws which "interfere with the right to peaceably assemble" and laws that "prohibit the petition for a governmental redress of grievances." In other words, we all have the right to peaceably assemble in order to protest a redress of grievances... to stand up for those things which we believe in the most. 

 Liberals exercise this right (more often than conservatives, it seems), and conservatives get pissed, annoyed, outraged - whatever - and tell those protesters to sit down and shut up... even though, right or wrong in their protest, they have a constitutional right to do so. And those people, conservatives or whoever they may be, have that freedom of speech to say that they think the protesters should shut up. But the point I'm making is... isn't it ironic that, essentially, conservatives are pissed because liberals are simply exercising the rights that conservatives so strongly believe a fight is worth funding?

I guess what I'm saying is, you get whatcha pay for.

Thoughts?