JSngry

Whatever happened to 5 long years or 50,000 miles?

Yeah, once they got on WB and had a budget, they really took advantage... That's quite a bill, right up there w/Hendrix opening for The Monkees! The Free Design...those were Rusty Dedrick's kids, right? HEad about them, but this is my first time knowingly hearing them. Kites are fun! Batshit crazy!

WHOA! Who is THAT? That's pretty damn batshit crazy!

Discounts are for Wal-Mart...and I try to avoid Wal-Mart. And you cannot discount that Paterno had a choice to make about what to do with Sandusky after his resignation. Or are you claiming that acceptance as a volunteer and being granted full, unsupervised access to campus and facilities is legally mandated & not a discretionary act? Not even Wal-Mart sells it that cheap! No, let's just accept that he made a seriously flawed judgement for which he is now being held accountable (or if you like, "being held accountable"), and let it go at that. I've no doubt that if not for the publicity, he'd not be going through this right now. So in that sense, he is in some fashion a "scapegoat". I'm not having any illusions about the purity of intent of the university's actions in all this. Best case scenario - everybody who fucked up gets brought to light and is held accountable. Everybody. Realistic scenario - Full Justice will be Partially Served. But if you really did fuck up - and Paterno really did fuck up - you don't get a Free Pass just because your persecutors are not Pure Of Heart. Life don't work that way.

That's really the most logical explanation, which renders the retaining of full access and privileges all the more negligent. It would have been one thing to just rid yourself completely of the guy but remain totally closed-lipped about the reason why, that's a fully corporate thing to do, bad, but "normal" enough. We have no legal grounds to accuse you further, but you have no legal right to remain anywhere near us. But if you have suspicion enough to get the guy out of your business plans but still keep him around in any and every other way, that's nothing more than a simple failure to grasp basic reality due to god only knows what convoluted delusions... Hey Jerry, you know, we don't think you're morally fit to be the future of Penn State, but, uh...here's the keys to the house and the car. Beer in the fridge, help yourself. Behave yourself now, ok? Good call, guys!

Read it again, Jim: 1998 -- Penn State police and the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare investigate an incident in which the mother of an 11-year-old boy reported that Sandusky had showered with her son and may have had inappropriate conduct with him. In a June 1, 1998, interview with investigators from both agencies, Sandusky admits showering naked with the boy, admitting that it was wrong and promising not to do it again, according to the grand jury report. The district attorney advises investigators that no charges will be filed and the university police chief instructs that the case be closed, according to the testimony included in the grand jury report of the police detective who investigated the incident. Case declared closed in 1998 by DA and University Police Yeah, I got that. Now let's read this again: Being accepted as a volunteer and allowing said volunteer to retain access was an entirely discretionary act on the part of the school, and unless Paterno's role in the school was that of a total pawn, he would have had the ability to veto this. But he and/or they didn't. Why not? Is it standard procedure at Penn State to allow anybody and everybody who retires from a position to retain full access? Did Sandusky threaten to expose other improprieties? Did Paterno & Co, not take the allegation seriously, figured it was a one-time lapse of an otherwise fine fellow and accept his resignation "with regrets"? Was everybody involved in the decision-making process so "old school" in their thinking that child rape was viewed as a "peccadillo" instead of an act of vileness, and gee, sorry you had to go through all this, Jerry, no hard feelings I hope? 1999 was not 1949. The notion of an adult "getting their jollies" with kids was no longer allowed to have any ambiguity attached to it. Paterno & Co, either A) outright refused to believe the accusation, even with an eye-witness account of one of their own; B) believed the accusation but didn't find anything particular wrong with it; or C) believed the accusation, found it repugnant, but still let Sandusky have full, unsupervised (one must assume) access to facilities so as to keep up appearances. A = Irresponsible & naive, B = Repugnant C = Borderline (at best) criminal negligence Under what set of circumstances do the actions of 1999 in the wake of the events of1998 not constitute a fundamental FAIL?

Because, uh, they do that for everybody?

The ending on this one...whoa...but really, the whole thing is above over-the-top yet never falls down (even as it fades wout). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQL7u5Z5Hjk Not just any regular fool can pull this off, stoned and/or tripping or not. Got any more?

wow...risk/reward is pretty damn high on both ends of that one...

So...we can look forward to seeing Beatles records on Verve compilations now, right?

Maybe they did the Bunny Hop with Ray Anthony.

Breakfast at 4 AM after a gig before going home to bed, breakfast at 3 PM after waking up from the gig after which you had breakfast at 4 AM the night before, the most important thing is to eat breakfast as much as possible in order to maintain a shiny coat and a healthy constitution.

TMI!

Even if it's the last meal of the day!

Really, I'm tired of arguing with one guy who thinks that Paterno's getting a raw deal for being held accountable for an injudicious failure to use power and influence that on the one hand he had but on the other hand he shouldn't have been expected to utilize out of fears of micro-managing and/or otherwise causing trouble. Power and influence are only useful if you don't use them in difficult situations, apparently. That may not be the intended argument, but that's all I can get out of it. My fault, no doubt...

I have no doubt that you're subject to absurd levels of micro-management in the arena of public educaton. But - You are labor, being managed. Paterno was management, dealing with fellow management.. The only thing that would be "unfortunate" is if you are forming your opinions without a recognition of (or a recognition but also a choice to deny) that most fundamental of differences.

Really? Checking up on people every so often to see if the job is getting done to see if your trust is being validated is micro-managing? "Hey guys...that guy that we think is fucking all these kids, how's that coming? We getting anywhere on that? What do we know, where are we going with this? Let's not drop the ball on this one, ok, too much at stake, let's get it right." That's micro-managing? If you've ever been truly micro-managed, you'd realize just how absurd a statement that is...

I have experienced property theft on multiple occasions, and I have done both, sometimes for the same incident. One time I actually located the thieves before the police did. Not being armed, I did not confront them myself, but I did notify the police as to the perps whereabouts, and kept said location under surveillance until I saw the police arrive and make arrests. That was just for my kid's and one of his friend's bikes, but they had been stolen right out of our front yard in broad daylight, and I for damn sure wasn't going to let that not be resolved! "Letting the suthorities do their job" and "being proactive" are not always mutually exclusive, especially when there's a good chance that "the authorities" are not naturally driven by the initiative to resolve...those who report are well-served by knowing in advance whether or not that is the case.

Something else a good leader does is make sure that those to whom he has delegated authority actually get the job done. Apprently the job here was to sweep the matter under the rug, because that's what got done, and apparently everybody was happy with that until they weren't, which has only been fairly recently. Well then, he really has been a Corporate Stooge all these years, then, which is OK by me. I always suspected as much, although it tends to wear on me how Corporate Stooges are given all this...veneration from other Corporate Stooges (of which, at the end of the day, in some form or fashion, almost all of us end up being). Joe Paterno was an Imaginary Great Man whose "greatness" existed, not due to some innate character traits of his own, due only to the allowances given him and imaged by his institutional Powers That Be. Outside of that, he was good at his job, probably a good husband & father etc. Good for him, but...so are a LOT of people. Can leadership at least be defined by what he did know about a relatively few hours in the past & the direction of his reaction? He reacted like a lower-level manager fearful of his job, not an executive who had the power to issue directives and expect those directives to be followed through to a clearly specified end (well, these days, everybody acts like lower-level managers except when it's time to justify their bonuses...). Which is "ok" (not really, but you know what I mean), but - either the guy had all this power or he didn't. Not a lot of in-between here. If he had it, he really, really did not use it wisely (and yeah, true leaders should look into the future, that's kinda what they're there for. To maintain the staus quo, you only need good administrators, which is a not-exactly-common skill set in and of itself, but ...). And if he didn't have it, then he's really just another chump who got punked out by The System, which is a drag, but not a particularly uncommon one. It's worthy of not too much more than a shrug and an "oh well, that's the way shit goes, happens every day and everywhere". So - did Paterno have the power, or was he a just another cog?

Peeps in a car!

SYNERGY!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBpB2TBIiPY

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation? I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate. We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody. Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge. "Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency. C'mon, Jim. You're reading way too much into what I am saying...besides, that quote was taken out of the context of the discussion regarding why we are willing to cut some slack for the graduate assistant and not for Paterno. I'm not for cutting anybody any slack, nor do I necessarily know that Paterno is guilty of any actual criminal offense. That's for the Pennsylvania authorities to discern, and god be with them as they proceed. What I'm not understanding is how anybody can defend Paterno's actions as those of anything other than a Corporate Stooge, and not see his dismissal as anything other than 100% appropriate, not because of any criminal action, but because of a failure to truly lead in a truly difficult situation (which is a function of being a Great Leader), or more likely, a failure to protect The Brand (which is a function of a Corporate Stooge). If we are in agreement on this much, then we have no quarrel at all.

So...are you conceding that Paterno was not indeed the Great Leader that he has been positioned as all these years? That he has instead been just another corporate figurehead propped up by image to maximize profits? That his primary mission should have been to avoid as much personal involvement as possible, lest the risk be run of getting the brand involved in a very unsavory situation? I mean, it really is an either/or here...either you're a "great leader" or you're not. Looks like Paterno was a great leader in the world of college football, less so in the world of corporate ethics. So, let's call him a "great coach" and stop there, lest we hyperbolate. We see this all the time in business, politics, families, everywhere. Lots of people "lead" when/where it's easy and there's glory and/or drama to be had,but when shit gets truly nasty dirty UGLY, they either back off or run away. And then somebody else steps up and leads, or, as is the case here, nobody leads, and the nasty dirty UGLY stuff just festers until it reaches critical bass and goes BOOM all over everybody. Explain to me how Paterno's actions in this matter in any way equate to being a Great Leader and not just another Corporate Stooge. I don't need to "understand" why he handled it like he did, I do. What I need explained to me is why I should understand it as the actions of anything other than a Corporate Stooge. "Doing what is required by law" and "just following orders" may not be exactly two sides of the same coin, but they are two units of the same currency.