Refuting every lame argument this Penn State alum brings forth won't convince even the most starry-eyed faithful. Let me preface my comments with a few caveats:
1) I think the whole NCAA thing was overkill and Paterno never should have been stripped of his victories
2) I also think that the fact remains that Paterno was a virtual god on campus there and if anybody could have done something more than wasn't done, it was him.
3) By the same token, a full-scale investigation was not his responsibility - what WAS, however, he still fell short
4) Two extremes need to be avoided here, the notion that nothing anyone from Penn St says has any merit (Horne is correct about this) and the opposite extreme
With those caveats in place, let me hit a few of the ridiculous points here that Kevin Horne, Penn State alum and blogger, raises.
1) Straw man central argument
Horne builds his entire argument around a dubious premise that doesn't even amount to a hill of beans. He goes after the notion of Paterno being involved in a cover-up and somehow thinks that if he can prove Paterno was not ACTIVELY involved in a cover-up then Paterno acted correctly. But such an argument misses the entire point - Paterno didn't have to be involved in a cover-up to still bear a maximum level of responsibility for NOT stopping it. Paterno reigned over his campus as Coach Bryant did his back in the day and as other iconic coaches have done before. Paterno was probably the last of such coaches because it is doubtful any successful college coach that reaches legendary status will ever coach thirty years at the same school ever again. Paterno's inactivity here reminds me a lot of a certain chief of staff several decades ago who convinced the press he was "in charge" and on top of every situation. Then a scandal erupted and the same chief of staff who had spent two years trying to convince everyone what a big deal he was and how in charge he was tried to insist he had no idea or power to be able to stop what happened. The very claim fell on deaf ears because he'd spent so long building that rep. Likewise, Paterno may never have sought the moniker "St Joe," but the argument about how morally superior Paterno's way was and his insulting of Jackie Sherrill created the noose that hung him. Say what you will about Sherrill and his record of NCAA investigation but no children were harmed as a result of Sherrill's passivity (although
a bull was in 1992).
2) Propagandic factual errors
Let me just list a few and keep in mind I didn't even bother to sit down and think in depth about it, these are just things that were pretty obvious to me on the surface
a) Surely you know that Mike McQueary’s eyewitness testimony, which is the key element in determining what Paterno knew and when he knew it, has been all over the place each time he’s given it
Actually, there's NOTHING CONTRADICTORY there at all like Horne suggests. Words like "the account differs" doesn't change the fact that the only thing different is the DETAILS. Added details that do not contradict do not constitute a contradiction. McQueary told some details under oath BECAUSE HE HAD TO and didn't tell the first person the details because they embarrassed him. Yet there's no doubt that McQueary reported it and that it was clear what he was reporting. This objection is so frivolous that Horne ought to be embarrassed making it - which suggests he's agenda-setting and not setting the record straight.
b) Surely you know that McQueary claims he was never sexually graphic with Paterno when he initially reported the incident
So now I'm supposed to believe that McQueary told Paterno that Sandusky was in the shower with a boy and Paterno was so apathetic (or searching for his Cialis) that he didn't even bother to ASK what exactly he was being told and THEN......he reported something to the higher authorities at PSU. I mean, this guy is making Paterno look WORSE. If Paterno didn't know what it was then why did he bother to report it at all? And that leads to another fallacy Horne has here, his attempt at having it both ways (more on this in a moment).
C) that he actually played in golf tournaments for Sandusky’s charity multiple times after the shower incident
If you click on the link, however, it never says that. It says McQueary was REGISTERED to play in tournaments - it doesn't say anything more. Maybe he did it, maybe somebody else registered him because they knew McQueary liked golf. This is irrelevant anyway except to try and smear McQueary, but Horne has already botched it by suggesting McQueary's story changed when it didn't.
Of course, Paterno's words on it all would be interesting
IF HE EVER HAD ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT IT!!!!![/B]
3) His attack on Louis Freeh is interesting but...
Horne then aims his guns at Louis Freeh. He basically tries a version of the old argument that says if a person is not virgin clean then you cannot trust anything about that person. He brings up a number of problems with Freeh heading the FBI under the Clinton Administration. Fair enough. But watch how this can be turned right back around on him.
4) Character witnesses
Horne then starts bringing forth sacred cows to line up on his side. This reminds me so much of a theological argument in seminary where both students start citing all the big name scholars who agree with their position as if that actually proves anything at all. So he calls forth Bob Costas, Frank Fina (the Sandusky prosecutor) and Richard Thornburgh, former PA Governor and AG of the USA under Bush 41.
But it is also OBVIOUS that Horne is gambling on nobody actually clicking his arguments by link because if you do, you find that he uses Fina again only in straw man fashion. Fina denied Paterno was actively involved in a cover-up - but Fina ALSO SAID (on that very link to Horne's blog) that Paterno DID NOT DO ENOUGH, and he quotes Paterno as saying the same thing. Not doing enough is still grounds for dismissal. Just drop the whole cover-up argument altogether.
But it gets REALLY interesting when he brings forth Thornburgh because remember all those links attacking Louis Freeh for conflict of interest and other things? Well, if you Google dick thornburgh scandal you find some interesting points like
Thornbugh was involved in the WH negotations with Exxon over the Valdez oil spill despite the conflict of interest of owning stock in Exxon
BCCI Scandal
I'm not taking sides here, I'm just pointing out anyone can play this stupid little game.
And isn't that really the point of propaganda? But what of truth?
Here's a simple truth for you. If Joe Paterno was as innocent as everyone is now wanting to pretend then why did he offer to resign on November 8, 2011 at the end of the season? Paterno could have practiced on Sunday and showed up Monday morning at an ESPN press conference and seized the initiative and answered the questions. His failure to do so pretty much proves what everyone suspects whether they agree with the idea of a cover-up or not.
And that's the bottom line.
