Paterno

[Woodruff]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

does the slight improvement that paterno made in millions of lives not outweigh the misery that paterno (partially) allowed to happen in 20 lives? i am not comfortable with this guy suddenly having a legacy of shame because he made a tough decision that many other people would have also made (the decision to keep sandusky's actions a secret)

John, my main point is not that we can compare what constitutes as good and what constitutes as evil. For example, I think most people can agree that Hitler's policies against the Roma people, Jews, homosexuals, etc. were morally wrong (and those who disagree I can reasonably deem as immoral). Nevertheless, my main point is that we can't objectively compare the amount of good and evil across individuals in a form which can be measured (which Utilitarianism presupposes that we can).

And even if we were to use "utiles" (or some mathematical figure) as a base unit for the "amount of good/bad," there still remains the problem of interpersonal comparisons of utility. For example, if we could somehow determine a valid and sound unit of the comparison of good/bad, we run into the problem of justifying robbing you of 80% of your wealth in order to benefit me, Woodruff, GP, and others. See the following SMBC comic:

Click image to enlarge.

(wow, the image doesn't expand. It's 20120403.gif from SMBC.com.) To sum it up, basically, one guy immensely enjoys the good so much over everyone, that it reaches a point where anything which pleases him is acceptable, and anything which displeases is unacceptable.

[john9blue]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

just because our knowledge is too limited to make morality an exact science doesn't mean that it's completely non-quantitative. to say that would be to deny all of value theory.

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

does the slight improvement that paterno made in millions of lives not outweigh the misery that paterno (partially) allowed to happen in 20 lives? i am not comfortable with this guy suddenly having a legacy of shame because he made a tough decision that many other people would have also made (the decision to keep sandusky's actions a secret)

John, my main point is not that we can compare what constitutes as good and what constitutes as evil. For example, I think most people can agree that Hitler's policies against the Roma people, Jews, homosexuals, etc. were morally wrong (and those who disagree I can reasonably deem as immoral). Nevertheless, my main point is that we can't objectively compare the amount of good and evil across individuals in a form which can be measured (which Utilitarianism presupposes that we can).

And even if we were to use "utiles" (or some mathematical figure) as a base unit for the "amount of good/bad," there still remains the problem of interpersonal comparisons of utility. For example, if we could somehow determine a valid and sound unit of the comparison of good/bad, we run into the problem of justifying robbing you of 80% of your wealth in order to benefit me, Woodruff, GP, and others. See the following SMBC comic:

Click image to enlarge.

(wow, the image doesn't expand. It's 20120403.gif from SMBC.com.) To sum it up, basically, one guy immensely enjoys the good so much over everyone, that it reaches a point where anything which pleases him is acceptable, and anything which displeases is unacceptable.

so basically, you disagree with utilitarianism... okay... i guess?

if the redistribution of wealth would cause the most happiness now, and ensure the progression of society (for the happiness of future people), then it would be the best thing to do. unfortunately (as you know) redistribution of wealth in the real world can inhibit progress, due to both lack of motivation and potential for authoritarian abuse, which is why we <3 capitalism

that comic is also dumb because one person's brain cannot produce as many endorphins (or whatever chemicals cause happiness) as even the slightest happiness of many others would produce. plus, people just don't work that way (which is why wealthy people can be miserable, perhaps more so than middle-class people). oh, and what makes one person happy might not make another person happy. smbc has good comics, but that isn't one of them.

[BigBallinStalin]

"if the redistribution of wealth would cause the most happiness now, and ensure the progression of society (for the happiness of future people), then it would be the best thing to do."

So, in order to determine this (without trial-and-error, but ex-ante), and in order to "compare the amount of good that paterno did throughout his life with the amount of evil that he did (even though he didn't actually "do" it) with this incident," you'd need to come up with some unit for comparing good and bad (which is what utilitarianism requires, and which is what you're suggesting from your questions on comparing amounts of good and bad).

Since no such unit exists, and is impossible in my opinion, then I don't see the point of your question.


Then the topic moved to the basis of morality, etc., which was addressed here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=163165&start=120#p3834266


We're now in full circle. What do?

[john9blue]

welp, i've said my piece. if you can compare the morality of two different actions, then that implies that there MUST be a quantitative way to measure morality.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

[BigBallinStalin]

welp, i've said my piece. if you can compare the morality of two different actions, then that implies that there MUST be a quantitative way to measure morality.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

Morality is influenced by reason and emotion. If you could quantify emotions, then sure, the underlined would be true.

If we could run experiments on many people, we could see at what price they're willing to commit something immoral. We could even do a meta-experiment where we could see at what price the experimenters are willing to experiment on people! But still, this aggregate analysis can't describe every individual, (and it's illegal), so... I really can't think of any quantitative way that could measure morality and be applicable to all or even most people.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

I'd agree. I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason. But how is a qualitative basis related to a quantitative one?

[Woodruff]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

just because our knowledge is too limited to make morality an exact science doesn't mean that it's completely non-quantitative. to say that would be to deny all of value theory.

At this point, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my original assertion, which was that "I don't think you can compare the good/evil like that, given what we obviously don't/didn't know about Paterno." (in reference to the simple adding up of good and evil acts)

Nowhere did I say, nor even suggest, that there was no value in comparisons, rather not in "comparisons like that". In fact, I specifically stated "That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions", so I'm really confused as to why you seem to be trying to argue that I would mean the opposite of that.

[PLAYER57832]

welp, i've said my piece. if you can compare the morality of two different actions, then that implies that there MUST be a quantitative way to measure morality.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

Morality is influenced by reason and emotion. If you could quantify emotions, then sure, the underlined would be true.

If we could run experiments on many people, we could see at what price they're willing to commit something immoral. We could even do a meta-experiment where we could see at what price the experimenters are willing to experiment on people! But still, this aggregate analysis can't describe every individual, (and it's illegal), so... I really can't think of any quantitative way that could measure morality and be applicable to all or even most people.

You say "if", but in fact, corporations perform such experiments every day.. when they go ahead and produce products that may prover harmful, or that they know are harmful, but "not too harmful to produce" (in their estimation, based on the profits/expectancy of need, etc.).

Ironically, this incident highlights quite well exactly why private enterprise and "the market" CANNOT be allowed supreme dominance. History shows us that all too often, (in fact, essentially always), people wind up making the "expedient" choice.

This is what I meant by wanting to look beyond Paterno, though I let myself get bogged down in details I really did not want to get into (yes, I was wrong in a lot of what I said about him). by pretending this is about one man who did evil, instead of a system that set up such evil.. that continues to set up the potential for this type of wrong, we do everyone a disservice.

Plain and simply, how is it that ANY university, an insitution built to provide education, to train young adults and adults to become productive members of society, how did it happen to become so very beholden to football that leadership of the university (including Paterno), as well as others in the community could ignore the extreme harm to children. I spread the net wide because even if others were not truly 'aware", it was partially because things were set up without appropriate checks.. people were allowed to be unaware.

And, this is very far from the first time. I heard a sports historian state that you can dig up articles from the early 1900's that could very much be written today. Back then the scandals were different, but the circumstances and response very similar... nor were those isolated incidents.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

I'd agree. I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason. But how is a qualitative basis related to a quantitative one?[/quote]
The problem here is the use of money as if it were equivalent or a measure.

Just as an example, though saxitoxin brought up a lot of real and concrete exampeles, and also neglected a few. Yet, the real question is what is the cost to the loss of education for students that now will not get scholarships, etc. Also, a lot here may not be aware that Penn State has a rather unique funding structure. It is, like most PA colleges, partially funded by tax dollars, but only partially. Contrast that with the UC system funding. (picked because I suspect Saxi is well aware of their structure).

[GreecePwns]

Trust me, 20 students not getting scholarships for football at Penn State for 5 years is not a significant "loss of education."

They can instead divert those resources into actual education, not paying for jocks to come, help make the school a buttload of money and have their grades rigged in order for them to be eligible to do so. 20 merit or financial need based scholarships are infinitely better than 20 sports scholarships. That's a significant gain in education if you ask me.

[BigBallinStalin]

welp, i've said my piece. if you can compare the morality of two different actions, then that implies that there MUST be a quantitative way to measure morality.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

Morality is influenced by reason and emotion. If you could quantify emotions, then sure, the underlined would be true.

If we could run experiments on many people, we could see at what price they're willing to commit something immoral. We could even do a meta-experiment where we could see at what price the experimenters are willing to experiment on people! But still, this aggregate analysis can't describe every individual, (and it's illegal), so... I really can't think of any quantitative way that could measure morality and be applicable to all or even most people.

..................................................

Can you summarize one of your points that you'd like me to address?

[john9blue]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

just because our knowledge is too limited to make morality an exact science doesn't mean that it's completely non-quantitative. to say that would be to deny all of value theory.

At this point, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my original assertion, which was that "I don't think you can compare the good/evil like that, given what we obviously don't/didn't know about Paterno." (in reference to the simple adding up of good and evil acts)

Nowhere did I say, nor even suggest, that there was no value in comparisons, rather not in "comparisons like that". In fact, I specifically stated "That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions", so I'm really confused as to why you seem to be trying to argue that I would mean the opposite of that.

your post that i quoted made it seem like you considered evaluating morality in a quantitative way to be futile or worthless. misinterpretation, i guess.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

I'd agree. I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason. But how is a qualitative basis related to a quantitative one?

i meant "quantitative"

[Woodruff]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

just because our knowledge is too limited to make morality an exact science doesn't mean that it's completely non-quantitative. to say that would be to deny all of value theory.

At this point, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my original assertion, which was that "I don't think you can compare the good/evil like that, given what we obviously don't/didn't know about Paterno." (in reference to the simple adding up of good and evil acts)

Nowhere did I say, nor even suggest, that there was no value in comparisons, rather not in "comparisons like that". In fact, I specifically stated "That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions", so I'm really confused as to why you seem to be trying to argue that I would mean the opposite of that.

your post that i quoted made it seem like you considered evaluating morality in a quantitative way to be futile or worthless. misinterpretation, i guess.

To try to evaluated it as if it were something that could be specifically enumerated is futile/worthless, yes. To try to evaluate on a generality basis is not. I thought I was fairly clear about that.

[john9blue]

@ woody and bbs: if we can't compare good and evil, then what is the basis for morality? how are we supposed to make tough decisions with pros and cons?

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

just because our knowledge is too limited to make morality an exact science doesn't mean that it's completely non-quantitative. to say that would be to deny all of value theory.

At this point, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my original assertion, which was that "I don't think you can compare the good/evil like that, given what we obviously don't/didn't know about Paterno." (in reference to the simple adding up of good and evil acts)

Nowhere did I say, nor even suggest, that there was no value in comparisons, rather not in "comparisons like that". In fact, I specifically stated "That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions", so I'm really confused as to why you seem to be trying to argue that I would mean the opposite of that.

your post that i quoted made it seem like you considered evaluating morality in a quantitative way to be futile or worthless. misinterpretation, i guess.

To try to evaluated it as if it were something that could be specifically enumerated is futile/worthless, yes. To try to evaluate on a generality basis is not. I thought I was fairly clear about that.

when we evaluate a moral action, we try to be as precise as our time/energy/knowledge allow us to be. there is no clear boundary between "general" and "specific"

[Woodruff]

I can't speak for BBS, but here is my response..."good and evil" don't just add up like some sort of numerology. You can't assign hard numbers to something that is ambiguous (and morality certainly can be). That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions.

just because our knowledge is too limited to make morality an exact science doesn't mean that it's completely non-quantitative. to say that would be to deny all of value theory.

At this point, you don't seem to be disagreeing with my original assertion, which was that "I don't think you can compare the good/evil like that, given what we obviously don't/didn't know about Paterno." (in reference to the simple adding up of good and evil acts)

Nowhere did I say, nor even suggest, that there was no value in comparisons, rather not in "comparisons like that". In fact, I specifically stated "That doesn't at all mean that you can't weigh good and evil when trying to make decisions", so I'm really confused as to why you seem to be trying to argue that I would mean the opposite of that.

your post that i quoted made it seem like you considered evaluating morality in a quantitative way to be futile or worthless. misinterpretation, i guess.

To try to evaluated it as if it were something that could be specifically enumerated is futile/worthless, yes. To try to evaluate on a generality basis is not. I thought I was fairly clear about that.

when we evaluate a moral action, we try to be as precise as our time/energy/knowledge allow us to be. there is no clear boundary between "general" and "specific"

No, we really don't (at least, not most people). We're lazy and we make very quick general summations. And while there may be no clear boundary between "general" and "specific" (after all...how specific do you want to be?), there is a very large difference between the terms "general" and "specific".

[BigBallinStalin]

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

I'd agree. I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason. But how is a qualitative basis related to a quantitative one?

i meant "quantitative"

Ah, well then, "Morality is influenced by reason and emotion. If you could quantify emotions, then sure, the underlined would be true. (underlined: something about making quantitative comparisons of the 'good' and 'bad.')

And

" I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason, but how can these be" quantified?

I don't think it's possible--barring experiments involving prices and immoral decisions, which would still be limited in accuracy.

[john9blue]

Ah, well then, "Morality is influenced by reason and emotion. If you could quantify emotions, then sure, the underlined would be true. (underlined: something about making quantitative comparisons of the 'good' and 'bad.')

And

" I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason, but how can these be" quantified?

I don't think it's possible--barring experiments involving prices and immoral decisions, which would still be limited in accuracy.

i can quantify emotions.

i am mildly happy now. yesterday sucked. wednesday was a very good day.

my happiness yesterday < my happiness today < my happiness on wednesday

or, more scientifically, you can quantify the chemicals in the brain like i was talking about earlier

[BigBallinStalin]

Ah, well then, "Morality is influenced by reason and emotion. If you could quantify emotions, then sure, the underlined would be true. (underlined: something about making quantitative comparisons of the 'good' and 'bad.')

And

" I can use a qualitative basis, which can be vague and depends on the circumstances and my imagination/emotions and knowledge/reason, but how can these be" quantified?

I don't think it's possible--barring experiments involving prices and immoral decisions, which would still be limited in accuracy.

i can quantify emotions.

i am mildly happy now. yesterday sucked. wednesday was a very good day.

That's not quantitative.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative

Basically, you need a unit of measurement.

But, I can see where you're going with this. If you beef up the questions, you can extrapolate the results into something quantifiable, but the results are still qualitative.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness# ... _happiness
But there's some serious criticism against this--one of which is that the data of their tests is useful for cross-country comparisons, or comparing across large groups of people, but it's still limited in what it means--especially in the case of causes. It's too vague, but can be used for making correlations, (e.g. higher economic freedom is positively correlated with happiness--using an aggregated population. Less economic freedom is positively correlated with less happy populations).


...but this isn't only the problem (see *).

my happiness yesterday < my happiness today < my happiness on wednesday

This is a comparison based on qualitative data, and it overlooks the main issue, which was comparing the amount of good and bad (thus requiring a quantifiable unit of analysis), and then applying that across all individuals.

or, more scientifically, you can quantify the chemicals in the brain like i was talking about earlier

Even if we could measure the change in the quantity of endorphins (or happy-causing brain chemicals/exchanges), then you'd have to explain how a change in the quantity of endorphins is related to the good or bad of a moral action--is happiness all that matters? Again, if so, and so far, that's what you're positing, then the SMBC-esque example becomes relevant:

"Nothing makes me happier than having people abide by my every command. My endorphin meters surpass all others whenever people do as I say. Therefore, do as I say. It's the morally best thing to do."* *(see below)

*Then you have to deal with the subjective nature of morality. Then you'd have to deal with interpersonal comparisons of utility happiness in relation to the benefits/costs gained/lost across individuals from a moral action.


If you can do all that, then you'll get a Nobel in at least three social sciences and two physical/natural sciences, and probably a handshake with the current president of the United States.

[PLAYER57832]

compare the amount of good that paterno did throughout his life with the amount of evil that he did (even though he didn't actually "do" it) with this incident.

then ask yourself whether you really think the punishment is deserved (a punishment on all penn state fans)

i swear this world is full of fucking sadists

This punishment has nothing at all to do with justice, because it doesn't affect justice. This punishment has everything to do with "looking like they're taking a stand because of the overwhelmingly disgusting nature of the offense".

Justice in this case is being handled by the courts. This is a criminal matter, which makes it appropriate for the courts to handle. This is not at all an athletic department matter (it simply happened to occur in an athletic department), and so the NCAA should have no purview over it. That's why this ruling by the NCAA is ludicrous.

That being said, I don't think you can compare the good/evil like that, given what we obviously don't/didn't know about Paterno.

I am not sure I buy this, because if the institution had not built up Paterno and the football program as it had, then things could well have gone differently.

BUT... I am not sure that taking town the Penn State program will truly impact this hero=perfect="we have to defend ourselves from any accusations lest the 'program' be hurt".. idiocy.

Overall, I find a lot of the reactions here hypocritic.

I'm curious where you think I'm being hypocritical. (While realizing that you're not necessarily talking about me.)

I was not talking about you.

The hypocrisy is that there is a lot of thinking that private enterprise is the cure-all. Yet, that is exactly what led to the problems in Penn State. The school is funding very little by the state, depends therefore heavily upon football (including the fact that a LOT of its donations come as a result of football, either directly or indirectly from alumni, etc.).

This is a big part of my issue with targeting Paterno specifically.
My issue with Spanier is hypocrisy as well.. I heard him specifically lecture on child abuse issues 11 years ago, when talking to a meeting of childcare providers. Paterno has never done that. He has always been about football and Penn State. However, if the Freeh report is true, then he knew enough for any decent human being to have done more. --- Yet, I would say Paterno was a "decent human being", so what led him to take the actions he did? The answer is pressure of economics, the significance of the football program to the school and community. I don't agree with his decision, but believe he was trying to take the good of the many over the good of a few. AND.. that is the problem with such huge amounts of money. All too often that is the exact decision, exact equation that is made. Many considered him stellar because he actually considered real academics and, though imperfectly, the character of his team members. In retrospect, why is that such an outstanding act? Why is that not simply the standard that we not just shoot for, but actually achieve?

Again, the answer is "money". Foot ball brings in far more money than most academics. However, when there are large research dollars involved, then we see similar issues, ranging from people who falsify data or simply don't pursue questions that really ought to have been asked.

[PLAYER57832]

welp, i've said my piece. if you can compare the morality of two different actions, then that implies that there MUST be a quantitative way to measure morality.

would you agree that bill gates giving billions to charity is better than hitler causing millions of people to die? if so, how can you make that comparison without a qualitative basis?

I agree with you, but if you look at it strictly
objectively, the truth is that you have to have a LOT more information.

For example, what charity... of course, if the "charity" were the KKK, then of the answer would be "maybe not". Even eliminating "stupid/obvious" selections, let's say the charity were the Roman Catholic church. A homosexual might see that as causing harm perhaps coming to equal that of Hitler. And, no, I am not truly exaggerating though I myself do not see the Roman Catholic church as close to Hitler. Looking back at times before Hitler, you see that Jews were not treated badly, but that there always were undercurrents of anger and hatred against them. So is it now with homosexuals, except that many feel outright attacks and even anger are justified. How much more of a push will more people need to take that further?

Also, let's talk science fiction. Let's say that within those 1 million were someone far, far worse than Hitler.. someone who was killed, and a far, far greater tragedy averted. That could be said to be irrelevant because its not something we could ever know and certainly is not an idea I think any of us would conscience acting upon. However, there are, in truth cultures that more or less take that kind of attitude... the attitude, for example, that preventing someoone from dying makes you responsible for any actions that person does afterward. Maybe that kind of morality is actually greater than our "western" or "judeo-Christian" morality in a world where evil exists, in a world where we don't truly understand the nature and causes of evil enough to prevent it.

[AndyDufresne]

Trees now line the stadium and in the place where his statue once stood: http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/28/3 ... te-of.html


--Andy

[PLAYER57832]

Several former Penn State Players are taking out ads decrying the Freeh report, saying it leaped to conclusions.

I say... all this focus on Paterno is just a smokescreen to divert attention from real, endemic problems that need fixing.. and not just at Penn State.

[GreecePwns]

That many universities have become fronts for money-making collegiate sports teams to line the pockets of its executives?

There are many respectable schools out there that field top sports teams in basketball or football, such as Stanford or Duke, and I applaud them. But some of these top-tier sports schools are rather crappy actual schools.

[PLAYER57832]

That many universities have become fronts for money-making collegiate sports teams to line the pockets of its executives?

There are many respectable schools out there that field top sports teams in basketball or football, such as Stanford or Duke, and I applaud them. But some of these top-tier sports schools are rather crappy actual schools.

Even at the top schools, the power is distorted by the money coming from certain programs. But, I would not limit it even to sports. There is always a question of bias in research when corporations are funding research, for example. Penn State/ deep well fracking is a good example of that, as well.

[natty dread]

Joe Paterno is an anagram for Rape One Jot.

[saxitoxin]

Several former Penn State Players are taking out ads decrying the Freeh report, saying it leaped to conclusions.

oh no

I say... all this focus on Paterno is just a smokescreen to divert attention from real, endemic problems that need fixing.. and not just at Penn State.

I've become an expert at reading between the lines of Player's posts, so allow me to translate ...

"CORPORATIONS!!!!!!"