Tim McG

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno. Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK? Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure. I will unilaterally accept your wishes of good luck. Because if I ever see a child attacked or hear a first-hand account from a witness of a child being attacked like that, I will go to the police, not my "boss". I find it reprehensible that you would express an opinion that people who are victims of assault or witnesses to it should have something to fear by speaking to the police. So we're talking about the alleged eye witness now? That is a completly different thing than being a reporter of an allegation. I have seen children attacked in a physically damaging way and I have stepped in and stopped it myself. That is NOT the same thing as hearing an allegation then reporting it to one's superiors. Stay on topic, OK? As do any of us who have reported on child abuse. It sickens me every time I have to make a report....I'm stll haunted by some of the crap I've had to report.

So while it seems plausible (and I suspect this is what Paterno's lawyers will argue) that Paterno did not legally fall under the description of a person required to report child exploitation to PA authorities, based on this section it really seems like a ridiculous stretch to think that the court system is not going to be favorably disposed to someone who: -falls under subsection © as a subordinate rather than sections (a) and (b) as a legally required reporter -goes above and beyond their legal requirement to report by subsequently going over their superiors' heads to report the suspected crime directly to the police -got fired for their trouble -IS JOE PATERNO FOR CHRISSAKES. Do you really think Joe Paterno would have had to worry about getting fired because he went over Schultz/Curley's head about this? I'm not understanding you. Paterno reported the incident. What more can he do? You guys all act as if he was an eye witness to the crime and is covering for a friend. He did what was legally asked of him: Report an allegation. As to wrongful termination...do you have any idea how long it would take to prove something like that? Meanwhile, the poor schmuck who gets canned is out of work and his career ruined. That is why there is a procedure to follow. If I were to go straight to the police over an allegation like this the first thing they would ask is if I reported this to my superiors and did they go to the CPS. That is how it works, folks. I think what people are forgetting is that at the time it was just an accusation. How anyone can find the person completely away from the crime at fault for that crime is beyond any reasonable understanding of the law. The law says the person must report the allegation. It does not say he/she is responsible for the crime itself. The authorities must conduct an investigation, not Paterno. That man is in custody.

Are you kidding? It would be one thing to hold a big press conference and declare Sandusky a pederast, but I find it extremely hard to believe that there are no legal protections for those who bypass their institution's chain of command to report this kind of crime directly to the police. Paterno not only did nothing once it was clear the administration had decided to sweep the whole Sandusky thing under the rug, he appears to be saying Mike McQueary lied to the grand jury about what McQueary specifically told Paterno. Tell you what...when it's your turn to report on something like this you can usurp the chain of command and see what happens to you, OK? Oh and good luck with that law suit the accused will slap you with and the non-support from your boss, CPS and the police because YOU thought you didn't have to follow the legal procedure.

M'kay. Maybe you could do me the favor and research child abuse reporting laws. It might cut down on the aggravation. Cheers.

taken from the liveblog at ONwardState - http://onwardstate.com/2011/11/08/live-blog-penn-state-charges-sandusky-scandal/ That is the legal duty of the authority he reported to call the police...not Paterno. How, then can he be at fault because the people he legally reported to did nothing? Maybe you missed this part of my last post: We are a Nation of Laws and "just following orders" is what the law requires. There is nothing else that can be done within the law by the person doing the reporting. The legal authority to exact repercussion or make an arrest is not within Paterno's legal right to pursue. It is the duty of the authorities to pursue justice. Doesn't the child have the right to privacy? Isn't the offender gauranteed the right to a fair trial? What if the reporting individual is WRONG? Wouldn't that place him/her in a position to be sued or jailed for making false and public accusations ahead of a legal investigation? Did you think this through...? Paterno is required to follow the law, not break it or usurp it. The AD blew this one.

I'm not sure what your point is....but I'll give it a go. Reporting child abuse to one's superiors is EXACTLY what is supposed to happen. It is exactly what Paterno did. It is exactly what the law requires. What did you expect him to do....form a lynch mob? We are a Nation of Laws and "just following orders" is what the law requires. There is nothing else that can be done within the law by the person doing the reporting. The legal authority to exact repercussion or make an arrest is not within Paterno's legal right to pursue. It is the duty of the authorities to pursue justice. Doesn't the child have the right to privacy? Isn't the offender gauranteed the right to a fair trial? What if the reporting individual is WRONG? Wouldn't that place him/her in a position to be sued or jailed for making false and public accusations ahead of a legal investigation? Did you think this through...? So, I'm not getting what your complaint is here.

1)He could make sure that Sanduasky gets nowhere near the campus and has no association with the school 2) He could CALL THE COPS- this is a very serious crime. 3)He could ask the AD, college President, etc what happened to the allegations against Sandusky 4) He could contact the graduate assistant and see what happened as a result of the allegations 5) Threaten to go public on Sandusky if he doesn't come clean PATERNO DID NONE OF THE ABOVE Sure, he may have done the technical minimum required of him as an employee at Penn State, but he has an obligation as a human being, a father, an adult responsible for young people entrusted to his care to do much more. He failed in that miserably, probably to save face for the college. With all due respect, I don't think you understand how the chain of command works relative to the mandatory reporting of child abuse. Those of us charged with this required duty can only do so much. Paterno did all that he could. Fact is, he cannot hire and fire. He has no legal authority over anyone on or, in this case, off his staff. "Going public" as you say and effectively going over the heads of his superiors can be grounds for termination...his. So I really do not think you realize how the system works in cases such as these. Besides, how do we know what was said or discussed or asked by Paterno? Personally, this sounds more like media scapegoating to me. Or worse, creating controversy where there is none just to get some "drama" for their news agency to print. Either way, Joe Paterno takes the groundless hit. And that is just plain wrong.

OK. The problem is he did what was legally demanded of him. He has no authority beyond that. Besides, we don't know he if did not speak to the offender. Stll, any repercussions are not within his control.

I hope the Phillies choke on it. Why? What can you have against them? Goodie is pissed because Rollins had the nerve, the nerve, to steal 2nd when the Phillies were up by 6 runs in the top of the 6th in SF last summer. Supposedly there's some unwritten rule that only the SF Giants and their fans know about that says you can't steal when leading by 6 runs in the 6th inning. However, he's okay with a pitcher throwing at a batter's head and sees it as a perfectly acceptable form retaliation just as long as it's a SF pitcher doing the throwing and a non SF played getting beaned. Um. Never said it was OK to throw at anyone. What I said was, Cousins needs to eat dirt each and every time he's at bat vs. the Giants. Retaliation for sliding into Posey head first and off line, is IMO completely justified to plunk the SOB....and it is and has always been a part of the game. Being OK and justified are two entirely different concepts. If it was your guy who got nailed like that you'd be plenty pissed. And what that incident has to do with the no-class Phillies is beyond me. On point: I was pissed that their no-class manager dissed one of the best pitching staffs in the Majors in public. That steal was a total in-your-face show of disrespect for the Giants and the ensuing brawl started by the Philly players was a big bunch of bullshit, too. They got squashed out in the playoffs and justice was served...in spades. Look man, if you're going to get it wrong at least tell it right. If I'm going to get it wrong? Sigh. I knew I was going to regret engaging in a discussion w/ you. Okay look, you obviously need a little reminder so here it goes. The Phillies "no class manager" never "dissed" the Giants pitching staff. A reporter asked Manuel if he thought that Cain and Lincecum were great pitchers. He replied that he thought that they were "very, very, very, good" pitchers but not great. How is that a put down/"diss"?? Furthermore, the Giants manager Bruce Bochy backed up Manuel. "I guess what Charlie's point is, is longevity," Bochy said. "He's right. When you call somebody great, they've done it over quite a few years." The brawl was instigated when the SF pitcher(Ramirez) beaned the Phillies batter(Victorino) with the next pitch and the catcher(Eli Whiteside) tossed his mask and started hopping up and down like a prize fighter at the beginning of a bout. Squashed out of the playoffs? The Phillies lost a 5 game series 3 games to 2 following an epic pitching duel that they lost 1-0. How is that being squashed? Beaten yes, but squashed? No. No. The incident started with a clearly designed in-your-face steal with a six run lead against a team with the worst offense in MLB. It was a no-class play called by a no-class manager who said way more than you are posting regarding the Giants' pitching staff. And so far as I know, the Phillies weren't in the WS, so they were squashed out; note I did not say soundly defeated or whipped. That facts back me up so you can misremember it all you like...just attribute what I actually said and not leave out half of it to make your claim. Fair?

What perplexes me is how anyone could even suggest Joe Paterno had anything to do with the cover-up. By law, he reported the incident to his superiors. By law, it is up to them to pursue the issue including contacting authorities. Yet there are those in the media who insist upon saying he needed to do more. What more can he do?

All out of context, Ted. Geez. I can train a monkey to cut-and-paste like you just did. BFD. Isn't it time for you to be in school?

I hope the Phillies choke on it. Why? What can you have against them? Goodie is pissed because Rollins had the nerve, the nerve, to steal 2nd when the Phillies were up by 6 runs in the top of the 6th in SF last summer. Supposedly there's some unwritten rule that only the SF Giants and their fans know about that says you can't steal when leading by 6 runs in the 6th inning. However, he's okay with a pitcher throwing at a batter's head and sees it as a perfectly acceptable form retaliation just as long as it's a SF pitcher doing the throwing and a non SF played getting beaned. Um. Never said it was OK to throw at anyone. What I said was, Cousins needs to eat dirt each and every time he's at bat vs. the Giants. Retaliation for sliding into Posey head first and off line, is IMO completely justified to plunk the SOB....and it is and has always been a part of the game. Being OK and justified are two entirely different concepts. If it was your guy who got nailed like that you'd be plenty pissed. And what that incident has to do with the no-class Phillies is beyond me. On point: I was pissed that their no-class manager dissed one of the best pitching staffs in the Majors in public. That steal was a total in-your-face show of disrespect for the Giants and the ensuing brawl started by the Philly players was a big bunch of bullshit, too. They got squashed out in the playoffs and justice was served...in spades. Look man, if you're going to get it wrong at least tell it right.

Thanks, guys! It was a great day and my birthday gift was two tickets to this weekend's Niners game! Woo, hoo!

Good news! For my birthday, my wife got me two tickets to this Sunday's Niners vs. Giants game It's on TV so look for me...I'll be the one wearing the Niners hat. I'll wave.

You beat me to it, Jim: Giants acquire Melky Cabrera, send lefty Jonathan Sanchez to Royals link So, we wait and see if that works out for the Giants. Apparently, Volgelsong is staying in the rotation.

Bad comparison, Brad. The Yankees are a media oriented team in a huge market; fans everywhere. The Mets have a a relatively small market share with very little media exposure unless you watch ESPN 24-7-365. Just talk. I figure Jonathan Sanchez or Madison Bumgarner would be trade bait long before Lincecum.

Hear, hear. Well said, Jim.

I hope the Phillies choke on it.

Jealous are we...? I dunno. The Central Coast Wineries of California just might change your mind. Just sayin'

Sorry for the duplicate thread...didn't see this one. Rest in Peace, Mr. Rooney.

Although I know he was 92, this is very sad news. I just can't imagine the news world without Andy Rooney. Former '60 Minutes' commentator Andy Rooney dies By DAVID BAUDER - AP Television Writer ..NEW YORK (AP) — Andy Rooney so dreaded the day he had to end his signature "60 Minutes" commentaries about life's large and small absurdities that he kept going until he was 92 years old. Even then, he said he wasn't retiring. Writers never retire. But his life after the end of "A Few Minutes With Andy Rooney" was short: He died Friday night, according to CBS, only a month after delivering his 1,097th and final televised commentary. Rooney had gone to the hospital for an undisclosed surgery, but major complications developed and he never recovered. "Andy always said he wanted to work until the day he died, and he managed to do it, save the last few weeks in the hospital," said his "60 Minutes" colleague, correspondent Steve Kroft. Rooney talked on "60 Minutes" about what was in the news, and his opinions occasionally got him in trouble. But he was just as likely to discuss the old clothes in his closet, why air travel had become unpleasant and why banks needed to have important-sounding names. Rooney won one of his four Emmy Awards for a piece on whether there was a real Mrs. Smith who made Mrs. Smith's Pies. As it turned out, there was no Mrs. Smith. "I obviously have a knack for getting on paper what a lot of people have thought and didn't realize they thought," Rooney once said. "And they say, 'Hey, yeah!' And they like that." Looking for something new to punctuate its weekly broadcast, "60 Minutes" aired its first Rooney commentary on July 2, 1978. He complained about people who keep track of how many people die in car accidents on holiday weekends. In fact, he said, the Fourth of July is "one of the safest weekends of the year to be going someplace." More than three decades later, he was railing about how unpleasant air travel had become. "Let's make a statement to the airlines just to get their attention," he said. "We'll pick a week next year and we'll all agree not to go anywhere for seven days." In early 2009, as he was about to turn 90, Rooney looked ahead to President Barack Obama's upcoming inauguration with a look at past inaugurations. He told viewers that Calvin Coolidge's 1925 swearing-in was the first to be broadcast on radio, adding, "That may have been the most interesting thing Coolidge ever did." "Words cannot adequately express Andy's contribution to the world of journalism and the impact he made — as a colleague and a friend — upon everybody at CBS," said Leslie Moonves, CBS Corp. president and CEO. Jeff Fager, CBS News chairman and "60 Minutes" executive producer, said "it's hard to imagine not having Andy around. He loved his life and he lived it on his own terms. We will miss him very much." For his final essay, Rooney said that he'd live a life luckier than most. "I wish I could do this forever. I can't, though," he said. He said he probably hadn't said anything on "60 Minutes" that most of his viewers didn't already know or hadn't thought. "That's what a writer does," he said. "A writer's job is to tell the truth." True to his occasional crotchety nature, though, he complained about being famous or bothered by fans. His last wish from fans: If you see him in a restaurant, just let him eat his dinner. Rooney was a freelance writer in 1949 when he encountered CBS radio star Arthur Godfrey in an elevator and — with the bluntness millions of people learned about later — told him his show could use better writing. Godfrey hired him and by 1953, when he moved to TV, Rooney was his only writer. He wrote for CBS' Garry Moore during the early 1960s before settling into a partnership with Harry Reasoner at CBS News. Given a challenge to write on any topic, he wrote "An Essay on Doors" in 1964, and continued with contemplations on bridges, chairs and women. "The best work I ever did," Rooney said. "But nobody knows I can do it or ever did it. Nobody knows that I'm a writer and producer. They think I'm this guy on television." He became such a part of the culture that comic Joe Piscopo satirized Rooney's squeaky voice with the refrain, "Did you ever wonder ..." Rooney never started any of his essays that way. For many years, "60 Minutes" improbably was the most popular program on television and a dose of Rooney was what people came to expect for a knowing smile on the night before they had to go back to work. Rooney left CBS in 1970 when it refused to air his angry essay about the Vietnam War. He went on TV for the first time, reading the essay on PBS and winning a Writers Guild of America award for it. He returned to CBS three years later as a writer and producer of specials. Notable among them was the 1975 "Mr. Rooney Goes to Washington," whose lighthearted but serious look at government won him a Peabody Award for excellence in broadcasting. His words sometimes landed Rooney in hot water. CBS suspended him for three months in 1990 for making racist remarks in an interview, which he denied. Rooney, who was arrested in Florida while in the Army in the 1940s for refusing to leave a seat among blacks on a bus, was hurt deeply by the charge of racism. Gay rights groups were mad, during the AIDS epidemic, when Rooney mentioned homosexual unions in saying "many of the ills which kill us are self-induced." Indians protested when Rooney suggested Native Americans who made money from casinos weren't doing enough to help their own people. The Associated Press learned the danger of getting on Rooney's cranky side. In 1996, AP Television Writer Frazier Moore wrote a column suggesting it was time for Rooney to retire. On Rooney's next "60 Minutes" appearance, he invited those who disagreed to make their opinions known. The AP switchboard was flooded by some 7,000 phone calls and countless postcards were sent to the AP mail room. "Your piece made me mad," Rooney told Moore two years later. "One of my major shortcomings — I'm vindictive. I don't know why that is. Even in petty things in my life I tend to strike back. It's a lot more pleasurable a sensation than feeling threatened."He was one of television's few voices to strongly oppose the war in Iraq after the George W. Bush administration launched it in 2002. After the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, he said he was chastened by its quick fall but didn't regret his "60 Minutes" commentaries. "I'm in a position of feeling secure enough so that I can say what I think is right and if so many people think it's wrong that I get fired, well, I've got enough to eat," Rooney said at the time. Andrew Aitken Rooney was born on Jan. 14, 1919, in Albany, N.Y., and worked as a copy boy on the Albany Knickerbocker News while in high school. College at Colgate University was cut short by World War II, when Rooney worked for Stars and Stripes. With another former Stars and Stripes staffer, Oram C. Hutton, Rooney wrote four books about the war. They included the 1947 book, "Their Conqueror's Peace: A Report to the American Stockholders," documenting offenses against the Germans by occupying forces. Rooney and his wife, Marguerite, were married for 62 years before she died of heart failure in 2004. They had four children and lived in New York, with homes in Rowayton, Conn., and upstate New York. Daughter Emily Rooney is a former executive producer of ABC's "World News Tonight." Brian was a longtime ABC News correspondent, Ellen a photographer and Martha Fishel is chief of the public service division of the U.S. National Library of Medicine. Services will be private, and it's anticipated CBS News will hold a public memorial later, Brian Rooney said Saturday. source: AP News article Rest in Peace, Mr. Rooney.

I saw him win #300 against my Giants. A happy/sad day at the ballpark. That's a very memorable image! I saw a special on the Marichal-Roseboro incident. Not only did they become friends, but didn't Roseboro speak in favor of Marichal being inducted into the HOF? Something like that. You know, Marichal was even a Dodger at the end of his career. We don't talk about that Dodger stuff.

True dat. And don't get me wrong, Marichal was one great pitcher. But when I go to the ballpark and walk by his statue, all those negative feelings come streaming back. I wish it wasn't so. Ah, think instead of that game where him and Spahn each pitched, what was it, 300 innings apiece? I mean, GEE-sus, who would even TRY to do that today, much less get it done, much less not miss their next turn? No argument here, Jim.

I thought the same thing, Jon. But I guess the article wanted to focus only on Matty. BTW...I got to see all of the Alou brothers [Jesus, Matty and Felipe] play together on the same Giants team and I got to watch as Felipe Alou managed Moises when he was with the Giants. And, not that it matters, I got to see the Orioles [and in Baltimore against the Angels] when Cal Ripken Sr. managed Cal Jr. and his brother Billy. I love this game

Sad news, indeed. I already posted this in the Hot Stove thread, but it certainly bears repeating here. Thanks for posting that, Russell.