JOE PATERNO MEMORIAL
Man, that guy can write.
Related posts:
Date: January 27, 2012
Categories: Uncategorized
Leave a comment
Comments RSS TrackBack 95 comments
-
Niblick
in January 27th, 2012 @ 11:40Way, way overblown for a football coach. Flying flags at half staff? Really? Did I miss where Paterno cured a disease or helped the cause of humanity? I thought flying flags at half staff was an honor granted to heroic civil servants or national dignitaries?
And to top it off, that idiot Phil Knight has the balls to say that the tragedy wasn’t Paterno’s negligence but the investigation. At a memorial service like that he has to bring up the investigation. This coming from a guy that pays women in sweat shops pennies a week to make his $100+ shoes. That guy has done more to ruin sports than anyone. What a jerk. I never need to be reminded why I spit on that Nike swoosh every time I see it.
-
Cambot
in January 27th, 2012 @ 14:10You nailed it Niblick, especially in reference to the self-serving twaddle served up by Knight. Idtiot.
-
Pitt Alum
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:57All the talk of “lets not forget all the good Paterno did” made me think. If Paterno and the hire-ups at Penn State would do their best at covering up the hideous actions of Sandusky, what else did they cover-up over the years to keep their pristine image?? All those people involved, from the President, to Paterno, to that red head are pathetic…if your are a blind PSU backer just remember, kids lives were ruined and they didn’t have to be if 1 person was willing to go the “extra step”…
-
franji1
in January 29th, 2012 @ 09:40This stuff goes on at EVERY campus. CMU
-
franji1
in January 29th, 2012 @ 09:43This stuff goes on at EVERY campus. CMU covers up stuff, not just Pitt, Penn State. They have to make their criminal stats look good for applicants. I think “campus police” is a crock. Yes, they police the victims to ensure nothing “gets out”.
-
George Washington
in January 31st, 2012 @ 09:37“HIRE-UPS”?
LOL
Preach on, Pitt grad! LMAO!
-
Mike
in January 27th, 2012 @ 12:33No doubt. Gene Collier is one of the best. He can twist a phrase better than any scribe I’ve seen. His yearly columns on the Trite Trophy & bear hunting consistantly make me laugh. We’re very fortunate to have a writer of his caliber in Pittsburgh.
-
Rod Stallion
in January 27th, 2012 @ 12:52I was thinking just the opposite. Collier has to be up there with Peter King when it comes to writer’s who are incapable of maintaining a single coherent thought throughout the entire column. He’s all over the place. Bouchette and Dulac are far better then Collier when it comes to writing.
Plus he has a nasty habit of using one sentence paragraphs like I’m doing now.
That’s sloppy writing. Also he also had a problem back in the early part of the 2000′s (or oughts) of keeping his politics out of his columns. I’ll read the op ed section I want political discourse.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:19Ed and Gerry are reporters. He’s a columnist.
-
colt
in January 27th, 2012 @ 14:38Well said, Mr. Collier. I cannot help but wonder how the victims, and the families of the victims felt as they heard these glowing words of approbation heaped upon the man who, if he would have been more diligent, might have saved a child from sex abuse. I am a life-long Paterno fan – that is until November of 2011. It ended there. Those who object that all the facts are not in need to realize that if we learn nothing else; if the only thing Paterno did is what we KNOW, then that is enough. He was remiss in his duty, to say the least; and children paid the price. I am afraid much more of a cover-up exists than what is known. I am sickened by the whole thing.
Now, to what Niblick wrote above: I will say that even if this scandal never broke; even if we never knew anything about any kind of nefarious activity at Penn State; if Paterno’s record would be immaculate – it is all over the top. What we have witnessed is a farce. He was a football coach, for crying out loud. He did some great things for the university. He never cured a disease or gave his life to live in the jungles of Africa – He is no Livijngston. Question: When Jonas Salk died, were the flgs flown at half staff? What a silly world we live in. Amen, Niblick.
-
Chad Farthouse
in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:23Well said Colt, well said.
-
DormontDirtBag
in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:31Greatest college football coach ever. But you’re right, it was all a waste of time. He should have lived “in the jungles of Africa.” Only then would the accolades have been deserved.
-
colt
in January 27th, 2012 @ 16:51Did not say that at all, Dormont. I did not say we cannot honor people unless they spent their life in Africa. What I said was that it was way over the top. Flags at half staff? You agree with that? Please; give me a break!
-
Bobzilla
in January 27th, 2012 @ 16:40No, Joe Paterno never “cured a disease.” But what he did do was build solid citizens. That’s not my opinion but the opinion of those who spoke at his memorial.
Gene Collier is a wonderful writer.
But he really ought to stick to comedy.
That memorial was intended for The Penn State Family. I doubt very seriously if Gene Collier, ESPN, or any other news outlet was even invited.
Collier has said time and time again that Penn State just doesn’t get it. Obviously, Collier himself is the one who “doesn’t get it.” Joe Paterno was and will continue to be Penn State.
Phil Knight is right.
Gene Collier is wrong.
But that’s OK.
Joe Paterno no longer has to endure the likes of Collier.
RIP, Joe.
-
Kay
in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:06Penn State honored their fallen hero. I was touched by the stories of the men he coached. The journalist who said Joe recruited not him, but his Mom, and made sure he went to church every Sunday, as he had promised. The Sea Hawks full back who said Joe never lied to him, didn’t promise money or cars, just a good education and an honest chance to compete. I am glad I got to watch most of the stream via computer. There is no one in my life, no teacher , that I would have traveled so far to honor. What a tribute to the life of a human being.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 27th, 2012 @ 16:09I don’t know how anybody could watch that and not see that the guy was not like most other football coaches or that he was more than “just a football coach.” Jimmy Johnson and Jackie Sherrill were just football coaches. Michael Robinson left Pro Bowl practice in Hawaii and made the 22 hour round trip flight in order to be there.
-
bald guy
in January 27th, 2012 @ 20:05Yes, very good article.
The scandal at Penn State is an important part of the Paterno legacy. But, there are so many other parts. I’ve been impressed with him for decades, long before I came to PA. I especially loved the way he stressed academics and so many of his players graduated.
My first memory of Paterno was when I was in high school, living in the Panama Canal Zone. Back then, the Canal Zone didn’t get live games on TV, so I listened to all sporting events on the Armed Forces Radio station. In the 1969 Orange Bowl game against Kansas, Penn State scored a touchdown with 15 seconds left. That left PSU one point behind. The extra point would tie the game, and of course there was no overtime back then.
But, Paterno went for the win. Sadly, the pass was incomplete. But wait! Penalty. Kansas had 12 men on the field. Penn State went for it again, and a run scored the winning 2-point conversion.
I loved that game. I loved that Paterno went for the win.
Paterno was not perfect. But he cannot be judged solely on the scandal.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:05I didn’t have any strong opinions about Paterno but I always had that “too good to be true” suspicion. Then I covered the 1986 mythical national championship in Arizona. I saw the Miami team in their fatigues and their players who had no class –especially Vinny Testaverde — and then I saw how the Penn State players handled themselves. Miami was dismissive of Penn State and those players thought there was no way they were going to lose and Paterno’s players beat them by knocking the shit out of them. From that day on I appreciated Paterno and knew that he was NOT like most coaches.
-
bald guy
in January 28th, 2012 @ 05:13I was living in Ft. Lauderdale at the time of that game. But, being an FSU alum, I was no Miami fan. I was so happy to see them humiliated by Penn State.
-
Mike V
in February 1st, 2012 @ 18:05Strange view of reality. Penn State got their asses kicked that day and the only reason they won was Testaverde threw 5 ints. Let’s not live in a fantasy land about what went on that night on the field. PSU got their asses kicked and somehow won.
Miami had 445 total yards to PSU’s 162.
Miami had 22 first downs compared to 8 by PSU.
Joe Pa should have sent a thank you to Testaverde after that game for the gift national championship he handed to him.
-
John Steigerwald
in February 1st, 2012 @ 23:36I was there that night. I don’t care what the yardage was. Penn State kicked Miami’s ass. Early in the game Testaverde’s receivers were getting lit up coming over the middle. They dropped a couple of passes and it was obvious Penn State had rattled them. Before the first half was over, they were arguing with each other on the sidelines. Testaverde made his usual contributions to a losing effort –he was always really good at that. I remember turning to the guy sitting next to me in the press box that night, pointing to the Miami receivers yelling at each other on the sidelines and saying, “this game is over.” That was also when I came to appreciate Paterno. The difference between the quality of kids on his team and the flaming assholes on Miami’s team was stunning.
-
Mike V
in February 2nd, 2012 @ 08:05Ah, the old I was there and you weren’t so you can’t understand what really happened argument.
They were so rattled they put up 445 yards of offense? Amazing.
PSU’s offense was so pounding and physically dominating it racked up a whopping 162 yards of offense.
It’s ok to say that PSU got their asses kick and still won the game. A lot of teams have won games in that manner in the past and they will win like that in the future.
-
John Steigerwald
in February 2nd, 2012 @ 09:37I was there. You weren’t. You obviously don’t know what really happened.
-
Mike V
in February 2nd, 2012 @ 12:01I can watch reruns on TV and see what happened.
-
John Steigerwald
in February 2nd, 2012 @ 14:01Penn State’s secondary smacked Miami’s receivers in the mouth in the first quarter and theu were done. That contributed greatly to Vinny’s performance.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:30Michael Robinson made the Pro Bowl? Jesus Christ. The list of players who DIDN’T make it must be a hell of a lot shorter than the ones who did.
-
Ochotexto
in January 27th, 2012 @ 15:10I found the guy from Nike speaking apalling. He’s all that’s wrong with college sports. The greed is already starting to screw it up.
And speaking of child abuse., how many sweat shops does he have ?
Evidently the family “knew” and “approved” of him speaking. Got to wonder about that ?
-
John Steigerwald
in January 27th, 2012 @ 16:06Those “sweat shops” feed lots of people who would otherwise go hungry. I spent a week in Nicaragua a few years ago. A dollar would buy you 100 pesos. Our bus driver, who was a respectable guy and drove a perfectly nice bus, was making $160 a month. When you hear that, the few dollars a day that the people get for making shoes is put into perspective. The cheap labor helps Nike make lots of shoes. Lots of people make money designing, delivering and selling Nike shoes in America. My main memory from my trip there was all the little kids sent out into the streets by their families to beg. Little 3 and 4 year old girls coming up to you with their hand out. They were still living in the shells of building from the 1972 earthquake. If NIke stopped using “sweat shops” that would not be good news for the people who have been sweating. Keep in mind that the Democrats did everything they could to keep the communist government in control there back in the late 80s and early 90s.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:57Good call John, justify the sweatshops that exploit children and poor people in the name of unholy capitalism…..but of course in the end its as always. The Democrats fault! Your a peach.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:35Some “job creator.”
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:41If Nike stopped using sweat shops they could put a LOT of Americans back to work. But this is how capitalism works. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it to be honest. I just think it’s hypocritical to say that people like Phil Knight should be given further tax breaks because they are the job creators. What a bunch of bullshit. Those tax breaks go in his pockets (and to make a few thousand different Ducks uniforms) just like the savings he has from employing people in poverty overseas instead of the millions of Americans right here in his company’s home country that are ready to work.
So screw it, I hope they jack his rate to 45% or higher if he’s going to send his money overseas like that, all while people are clamoring for bigger tax BREAKS so he can get back to creating jobs. Efficient use of a mouth that has two sides.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:11He couldn’t make the shoes for the same cost over here. The price of the shoes would go up. Fewer shoes would be sold and that would mean fewer jobs. The jobs that he gives to people in dirt poor countries save their lives. When was the last time anybody asked the people working in those “sweat shops” if they’d be happier if Nike left town? You honestly don’t believe that Nike has created thousands if not millions of jobs in this country? You can’t compare what the people making shoes in South America make to what people in similar jobs make here. You’re talking about countries where the average income is a couple thousand dollars a year –tops. If Nike has to pay them what they pay Americans –nobody gets the jobs. I had kids begging me for dimes on the streets of Managua. I talked to their parents and they told me that it was their only income. The guy would kill for a job that paid him 10 bucks a day. Of course these people are living in countries where the federal government promises to do everything for them.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:19John, explain to me why I should care about the impact a job has in South America while we have 9& unemployment here. Sure costs MIGHT go up, but not drastically because they wouldn’t want to price themselves out of the shoe store where Reeboks and Adidas are sold 6 inches to the left. Cut into the profit margin if you want to be one of these patriotic “job creators.” Nike would still sell enough shoes to wrap around the planet a few times every year.
I tire of the rhetoric about how we need to give more money to job creators when they are taking the money and sending the jobs overseas. If you provide a good product or service, it is NOT hard to be economically viable in this country. Nike would march on just fine and another few thousand people could get back to work MAKING something in this country again.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:41If you don’t care about the impact a job has in South America than why do you care if they are working in “sweat shops?” I thought Nike was evil for making these people work for such low wages. Now you say you don’t care about the impact. Which is it? The point is that those “sweat shops” allow companies to make their products more cheaply. Believe it or not, they’re in business to be as profitable as possible. Once those shoes are made in South America, they have to be shipped back to America and shipped around America on American trucks driven by Americans. They have to go to stores where Americans will sell them. You assume that if the shoes weren’t made cheaply in South America that they would be made here at a higher cost. They would not be made at all. And, by the way, nobody is forcing anybody to pay the ridiculous prices that Nike charges for some shoes. There are a lot cheaper shoes on the market and I’m going to bet that not too many of them have “Made in America” on the label.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:55Sorry, I should have said POSITIVE impact because that is what I meant. I didn’t bring up anything about the conditions of the sweat shops or the wages, that was other posters. I simply said those are jobs that Americans could have and it is the unemployment rate has been a huge talking point for awhile now. You seem to think those jobs wouldn’t exist here – who would make the shoes then?
Look, I get the whole corporations are out to make a profit thing, I do. They are out for themselves and no one else and that is perfectly OK and perfectly legal. But it is the right that holds the people who run those companies up as patriotic job creators, and that is as bullshit as saying Obama is a terrorist Muslim, or that the lady sticking a finger in the President’s face is the one who feels “threatened”, or pretending that Ronald Reagan didn’t raise taxes 11 times.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 28th, 2012 @ 15:37Maybe the price of shoes would stay the same and NIKE’s profit margin would go down and old mister CEO would have to learn how to get by on $1 million per year instead of $25 million! Sir do you really not understand this? Are you really that clueless to economics 101?
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 20:10What do you know about running an international billion dollar business?
Meanwhile, it’s not just conservatives who understand that “sweatshops” are good –and they were saying it in the 90s:
“Now some of the nation’s leading economists, with solid liberal and academic credentials, are offering a much broader, more principled rationale. Economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs of Harvard and Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say that low-wage plants making clothing and shoes for foreign markets are an essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing countries.
Mr. Sachs, a leading adviser and shock therapist to nations like Bolivia, Russia and Poland, is now working on the toughest cases of all, the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. He is just back from Malawi, where malaria afflicts almost all its 13 million people and AIDS affects 1 in 10; the lake that provided much of the country’s nourishment is fished out.
When asked during a recent Harvard panel discussion whether there were too many sweatshops in such places, Mr. Sachs answered facetiously. ”My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few,” he said.”
That’s courtesy of the that right wing rag The New York Times.
And I may not have any credibility when it comes to understanding the economy, but Walter Williams is the former head of the Economics Department at George Mason University. He might have a “clue.”
“Let’s look at a bit of job-loss history. Anthony B. Bradley, a research fellow at the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Acton Institute, has written an article on the subject, “Productivity and the Ice Man: Understanding Outsourcing.” Citing the work of Forrester Research Inc., a technology research firm, Bradley says, “Of the 2.7 million jobs lost over the past three years, only 300,000 have resulted from outsourcing.” Job losses and job gains have always been a part of our history.
Let’s look at some of the history of job loss described in Bradley’s article. We might also ponder whether measures should have been taken to save these jobs. In 1858, Lyman Blake patented a shoemaking machine that ultimately destroyed jobs hand making shoes. In 1919, General Motors started selling Frigidaire. As Bradley says, “This ‘electric ice box’ wiped out a whole set of occupations, including ice-box manufacturers, ice gatherers, and the manufacturers of the tools and equipment needed to handle large blocks of ice.”
Auto manufacturers use thousands of robots for tasks that people used to do such as spot welding, painting, machine loading, parts transfer and assembly. Robots have replaced thousands of workers in electronic assembly and mounting microchips on circuit boards, reports Bradley.
We could probably think of hundreds of jobs that either don’t exist or exist in far fewer numbers than in the past — jobs such as elevator operator, TV repairman and coal deliveryman. “Creative destruction” is a discovery process where we find ways to produce goods and services more cheaply. That in turn makes us all richer.
That same principle applies when it’s outsourcing serving as the engine for creative destruction. Daniel W. Drezner, assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago, discusses outsourcing in “The Outsourcing Bogeyman” (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004). Professor Drezner reports that for every dollar spent on outsourcing to India, the United States reaps between $1.12 and $1.14 in benefits. Why? U.S. firms save money and become more profitable, benefiting shareholders and increasing returns on investment. In the process, U.S. workers are reallocated to more competitive, mostly better-paying jobs.
Drezner also points out that large software companies such as Microsoft and Oracle have increased outsourcing and used the savings for investment and larger domestic payrolls. Nationally, 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs between 1999 and 2003, but more than 115,000 computer software engineers found higher-paying jobs during that same period. By the way, when outsourcing doesn’t work, companies backtrack, as have Dell and Lehman Brothers, which have moved some of their call centers back to the United States from India because of customer complaints.
The last election campaign featured great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, but it has little to do with outsourcing and a lot to do with technological innovation — and it’s a worldwide phenomenon. During the seven years from 1995 through 2002, Drezner notes, U.S. manufacturing employment fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing jobs fell by 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, and Brazil lost 20 percent. But guess what. Globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. Technological progress is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs.
What should a person do when innovation or international trade costs him his job? Do what the iceman did when Frigidaire cost him his job. Instead of calling on Congress to enact job protectionist measures, he did what was necessary to find another job.”
-
Cambot
in January 29th, 2012 @ 00:08I think we’re getting a bit off topic here.
-
Chad Farthouse
in January 28th, 2012 @ 22:52http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-16-2012/fear-factory
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 23:34I’m guessing you’re a Paul Krugman fan. He and other liberal economists say what we refer to as sweatshops are actually the first step toward advancing beyond third world status. You and Stewart make the same mistake. You look at 31 cents and hour and compare it to the United States. These are people who would be eating mudpies for breakfast if not for those jobs. If you’re making three dollars a day working in a shoe factory in a place where most people are making nothing working nowhere, you’re doing pretty well.
***********************************************************************************************************************“Now some of the nation’s leading economists, with solid liberal and academic credentials, are offering a much broader, more principled rationale. Economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs of Harvard and Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say that low-wage plants making clothing and shoes for foreign markets are an essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing countries.
Mr. Sachs, a leading adviser and shock therapist to nations like Bolivia, Russia and Poland, is now working on the toughest cases of all, the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. He is just back from Malawi, where malaria afflicts almost all its 13 million people and AIDS affects 1 in 10; the lake that provided much of the country’s nourishment is fished out.
When asked during a recent Harvard panel discussion whether there were too many sweatshops in such places, Mr. Sachs answered facetiously. ”My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few,” he said.”
That’s courtesy of the that right wing rag The New York Times.
And I may not have any credibility when it comes to understanding the economy, but Walter Williams is the former head of the Economics Department at George Mason University. He might have a “clue.”
“Let’s look at a bit of job-loss history. Anthony B. Bradley, a research fellow at the Grand Rapids, Mich.-based Acton Institute, has written an article on the subject, “Productivity and the Ice Man: Understanding Outsourcing.” Citing the work of Forrester Research Inc., a technology research firm, Bradley says, “Of the 2.7 million jobs lost over the past three years, only 300,000 have resulted from outsourcing.” Job losses and job gains have always been a part of our history.
Let’s look at some of the history of job loss described in Bradley’s article. We might also ponder whether measures should have been taken to save these jobs. In 1858, Lyman Blake patented a shoemaking machine that ultimately destroyed jobs hand making shoes. In 1919, General Motors started selling Frigidaire. As Bradley says, “This ‘electric ice box’ wiped out a whole set of occupations, including ice-box manufacturers, ice gatherers, and the manufacturers of the tools and equipment needed to handle large blocks of ice.”
Auto manufacturers use thousands of robots for tasks that people used to do such as spot welding, painting, machine loading, parts transfer and assembly. Robots have replaced thousands of workers in electronic assembly and mounting microchips on circuit boards, reports Bradley.
We could probably think of hundreds of jobs that either don’t exist or exist in far fewer numbers than in the past — jobs such as elevator operator, TV repairman and coal deliveryman. “Creative destruction” is a discovery process where we find ways to produce goods and services more cheaply. That in turn makes us all richer.
That same principle applies when it’s outsourcing serving as the engine for creative destruction. Daniel W. Drezner, assistant professor of political science at the University of Chicago, discusses outsourcing in “The Outsourcing Bogeyman” (Foreign Affairs, May/June 2004). Professor Drezner reports that for every dollar spent on outsourcing to India, the United States reaps between $1.12 and $1.14 in benefits. Why? U.S. firms save money and become more profitable, benefiting shareholders and increasing returns on investment. In the process, U.S. workers are reallocated to more competitive, mostly better-paying jobs.
Drezner also points out that large software companies such as Microsoft and Oracle have increased outsourcing and used the savings for investment and larger domestic payrolls. Nationally, 70,000 computer programmers lost their jobs between 1999 and 2003, but more than 115,000 computer software engineers found higher-paying jobs during that same period. By the way, when outsourcing doesn’t work, companies backtrack, as have Dell and Lehman Brothers, which have moved some of their call centers back to the United States from India because of customer complaints.
The last election campaign featured great angst over the loss of manufacturing jobs. The number of U.S. manufacturing jobs has fallen, but it has little to do with outsourcing and a lot to do with technological innovation — and it’s a worldwide phenomenon. During the seven years from 1995 through 2002, Drezner notes, U.S. manufacturing employment fell by 11 percent. Globally, manufacturing jobs fell by 11 percent. China lost 15 percent of its manufacturing jobs, and Brazil lost 20 percent. But guess what. Globally, manufacturing output rose by 30 percent during the same period. Technological progress is the primary cause for the decrease in manufacturing jobs.
What should a person do when innovation or international trade costs him his job? Do what the iceman did when Frigidaire cost him his job. Instead of calling on Congress to enact job protectionist measures, he did what was necessary to find another job.”
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 29th, 2012 @ 00:00America still enjoys the highest standard of living in the world by far, but if we continue to give corporations and foreign governments access to our vast markets with these FREE trade agreements then we have only one way to go.
Down!
Why do we burden employers at home with laws and regulations, but not demand the same from those we give access to?This is simply killing our manufacturing base and hurting our own people. What about human rights, is it ethical for us to allow NIKE or any one of thousands of other big corporations to exploit children in 3rd world countries for the sake of that corporation having a better bottom line? Or for the sake of us having cheaper products? I think we as Americans ought to demand a higher standard of human dignity and respect around the world.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 29th, 2012 @ 00:07Did you read what those economists said? They’re not being exploited any more than any other employer is exploited by an employee. Whoever pays your salary is exploiting your need to eat and pay a mortgage. That’s how the economy works.
-
Dan
in January 29th, 2012 @ 11:00This will be my last word on the topic since it’s getting ridiculous, but I can’t believe you’re sitting championing the wages the kids in the sweatshops are earning. So the standard for good pay is just barely enough money to keep you and your family alive for another day? Nevermind that the kids are working instead of being in school?
The articles were being a bit facetious when they were written. The one possible benefit does not outweigh the 10 concrete negatives of the sweatshops.
Anyways, like I said, Phil Knight is a top 1% patriotic “job creator”….in Sri Lanka!
-
John Steigerwald
in January 29th, 2012 @ 11:42Who called Knight patriotic? The point is even liberal economists say that those countries need more sweat shops. You demonize them and refuse to accept the fact that, if a bus driver is making $160 a month, someone working in a shoe factory making $100 a month is not being exploited any more than the bus driver is.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 29th, 2012 @ 15:06I’m not being “exploited” if I’m making a living wage.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 29th, 2012 @ 20:21A living wage depends on where you live. In this case it is a living wage and the alternative is NO wage.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 29th, 2012 @ 21:39So what happened to your gripe about the Democrats failing to shut down the sweat shops when they had the chance? My you seem to have a poisoned mind, you steer a post about Joe Paterno’s memorial service into another anti Obama/ anti Democrat rant about sweat shops. I would think I guy who has been blessed as you have would have better things to do with his time than sit around all day stewing about these topics.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:49I don’t know what you’re talking about. I didn’t steer anything. Someone ripped Knight for operating sweat shops. I pointed out the misconception about sweatshops. And, honest, I don’t stew.
-
Mike V
in January 31st, 2012 @ 22:14How much does it cost in labor to make a pair of shoes? If a person in a Third World country makes a pair of shoes an hour at $.25/hr. and a person in the US makes it at $25/hr inclusive of labor and benefits, the cost of the pair of shoes goes up $21.75/pair (my guess is it is a lot lower). If someone is buying a $200 pair of shoes, do they care if it is all of the sudden $221.75 per pair. I doubt it.
The argument really isn’t about the plight of the poor worker in a third world country John thinks should make $.25/hr and be happy. It is about the fact that Americans think it is OK for that person to make $.25/hr. Why can’t we all be honest and admit as long as we don’t have to think about it, we really don’t care what other make.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 31st, 2012 @ 23:44I don’t think they SHOULD be happy. I know they ARE happy to make whatever they’re making compared to zeeeeeero.
-
Bobzilla
in January 27th, 2012 @ 18:04Keep wondering, Ochotexto. Joe Paterno was to State College and all points in between what Art Rooney Sr. was to Pittsburgh… Revered, loved, respected and appreciated.
I saw something the other day that was quite interesting. Someone said that the difference between Bear Bryant and Joe Paterno was that in Alabama, Bryant walked on water … in State College, Paterno walked among the people.
Paterno even had his phone number listed in the State College phone book. Just an “average Joe” living the good life in rural Central Pennsylvania.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:13We won’t know what he knew and when he knew it as far as the Sandusky scandal is concerned until the trial — if ever , but his reputation has been damaged. We just don’t know by how much yet. But it’s insane to suggest that this guy was just another football coach. Guy Junker told a story on our talk show today that impressed me. He was fired by FSN and Paterno sent him a handwritten letter asking if there was anything he could do. He offered to help him get a job teaching journalism and when Guy said that the job didn’t pay him enough to allow him to move there, Parerno said he would talk to the AD about getting him a job in the marketing department that he could combine with the teaching job. Guy ended up getting an offer from ESPN Radio but you would have a hard time convincing him that Paterno was just another football coach.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:51In 1972 Joe Paterno accepted an offer to coach the New England Patriots for 4 years/$1.3 million, after a few days he changed his mind and decided to stay at Penn State. He explained his decision this way.
“So in a couple of years, maybe we’d have gone to the super bowl. So what? Here I have an opportunity to affect the lives of a lot of young people and not just on my football team. I’m not kidding myself that that would be true at the professional level.”
At the time he turned down the 4years/$1.3 million…..he was making $35,000 a year at Penn State.
How many of us would turn down a 1,000 percent pay raise for the sake of trying to have a positive impact on the lives of others?
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:43Not that it wasn’t noble, but the guy wasn’t exact working the cash register at Target. There was a hell of a future at either position.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:04The point is that 99% of the coaches in the country would have taken the Patriots job in a heartbeat.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:21That’s YOUR point and one with which I agree with 100%, but the point I was addressing was the question posed at the end of Jesus’ post.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 28th, 2012 @ 15:41Yes, very noble indeed!
-
HGWT
in January 27th, 2012 @ 18:33I like it when Gene is on “The Nightly Sports Call”. Very funny man, plus I learned a new word, “lachrymose”. He sure knows some fancy words.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:08I haven’t watched that show for a total of an hour since I left there over 4 years ago but I happened to land on it a couple of nights ago and saw Bob and gene trying to have an intelligent conversation with some really stupid Steelers fans. It reminded me of how glad I am that I’m not sitting in that chair anymore.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 27th, 2012 @ 23:55Sir, you seem to leave every job you’ve ever had with a bad taste in your mouth. Is there a reason for this? I seem to have a similar, as yet un diagnosed, condition.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:24I’ve left two jobs in the last 27 years. I had a bad taste for local news at least 5 years before I left. Most of my former fellow employees tell me how lucky I was to get out. It stopped being fin circa 1995. Anybody who’s been around long enough to remember what it once was, agrees with me. I didn’t have a bad taste when I left KDKA Radio. Other than that, you’re right on the money.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 28th, 2012 @ 15:49Fair enough, I haven’t watched 15 minutes of local news in the past 15 years, it is a joke. I last recall sitting down to watch the news and seeing endless stories about some lady raising iguana’s in turtle creek, or the poor kid who got his lemonade stand shut down in Garfield, on the hot days we interview the guys laying tar in pot holes, on the cold days we interview the snow plow driver, and you always make the viewer watch 8 commercials before showing him he entire clip (which was actually 3 seconds longer than the teaser clip) of the monster truck going out of control. Sensationalism and BS….but I guess that’s what happens when you need to fill the 5:00 to 7:00 slot with NEWS????
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 19:524 to 7….and 10 and 11 and morning and noon.
-
Bobzilla
in January 28th, 2012 @ 05:21The problem with Collier since the Sandusky scandal broke is that he wants to be the judge, jury and executioner. He isn’t alone. But before someone is fired, the facts, all of the facts, should first be known.
The grand jury report is NOT factual. It is a one-sided version of a several-sided story. This rush to judgment by the media and Penn State trustees is going to come back and bit everyone, including Collier, on the ass.
I can’t help but think about the Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson’s trials. The media had those two cases all figured out … until a jury saw all the facts.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:12I just love the irony of OJ’s situation, the jerk is lucky enough to beat billion to one odds and get away with a double homicide, and now he rots in prison for stealing football cards. Tell me there’s not a God in heaven.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 13:47There was no eyeball witness in either the Simpson or Anthony trials. There are several witnesses and LIVING victims in this one. Horrible comparison on your part. What do you think is going to come out and save Jerry Sandusky? His only hope is to smear every witness beyond repair in what will be only the second most revolting thing he’s ever done.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:03Who doesn’t think OJ and Anthony are guilty?
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 14:25He was talking about how a jury acquitted Anthony and OJ in their trials, and I simply pointed out that neither trial had an eyeball witness (the most important piece of evidence in a criminal trial) and this one has several.
Bob, how is the grand jury report not factual???
-
Bobzilla
in January 28th, 2012 @ 23:45The prosecutors have TWO impartial eyewitnesses: A former janitor, who is currently in a nursing home, suffering from dementia; and Mike McQueary, who has changed his story repeatedly.
The prosecutors conducted the grand jury report, for the purpose of casting Sandusky in the worst possible light, so that he would be, you know, prosecuted.
All grand jury reports always are heavily slanted against the accused, which is the reason for defense attorneys, trials, evidence, judges, jurors, verdicts, etc., etc. etc.
Prosecutors always talk a big game right before kickoff…
-
Dan
in January 29th, 2012 @ 11:04That’s a giant leap from calling it “not factual.” Plus, you’re excluding all the victims as witnesses….they aren’t dead. They will testify.
I think you’re vastly overrating how much Mike McQueary may have “changed his story.” A grand jury report is not a transcription of everyone’s testimony word for word. You need to wait for a lot more information to come out before you can determine whether or not McQueary changed his story.
-
Bobzilla
in January 29th, 2012 @ 16:50A grand jury investigation of any kind is INCOMPLETE. Thus, there are trials to sort out the facts. Pretty simple. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty…
Prosecutors are notorious for stomping on people’s rights, which usually results in failure to win cases. After the Casey Anthony trial, former prosecutor-turned-TV host Nancy Grace wanted the jury to be shot at sunrise for, in her opinion, being wrong.
If, as you suggest, I “need” to wait for more information about McQueary, how come you don’t need to wait? Just wondering.
-
Dan
in January 30th, 2012 @ 11:34I didn’t say it was complete, I argued with your stance that it was not factual. By stating that the grand jury report was not factual, you are calling it categorically false. That is what non factual means. You have no way of knowing if it is or isn’t.
My original point was taking you to task for comparing Sandusky to the OJ and Anthony trials. There were no witnesses to the crime in those trials and the victims were dead. There is a living eyeball witness in this trial, Mike McQueary, and several living victims. They’re not anything alike except that the trials will be followed nationwide.
-
Bobzilla
in January 30th, 2012 @ 15:41Dan: Your reading skills need some work. Good luck with that.
-
Is Jesus a Democrat or a Republican?
in January 28th, 2012 @ 15:51OJ and Anthony?
-
JustAnotherBloke
in January 28th, 2012 @ 00:13I do think that your vocabulary should be expanded and exercised regularly, but too many times Mr. Colliers words seem forced and, at least for me, get in the way of what he’s trying to convey. I still read him most of the time, and enjoy many of his columns.
There are times, though, when I’ll get halfway into the article and just drop it because the vocabulary is interrupting the flow.
I do enjoy his yearly awarding of the Trite Trophy. quite a few chuckles in those columns.
I think he’s also trying his hand at stand-up comedy. I saw a few clips of him somewhere – perhaps on You Tube. Not too bad.
I also liked his work on “The Chief”.
Finally, getting to the topic of this post, without passing judgement on anything or anyone else, I was surprised at the speaking abilities of Jimmy Cefalo. I guess I really hadn’t followed him after his pro days were over, but I see he’s had a nice career in the media. He certainly is magnetic and has excellent timing.
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 10:38I agree with your take on Collier’s writing style. While this is a good column, sometimes I feel he’s trying to prove how smart he is instead of just writing.
I prefer Ron Cook and Smizik (when he was a columnist) to Collier. His style does seem forced at times, and because of that I’ve stopped reading Collier altogether.
-
Bobzilla
in January 28th, 2012 @ 12:55The interesting thing about Cefalo is that after his playing days with the Miami Dolphins, he became a Miami sportscaster. For the National Championship game in 1986, he was part of NBC’s broadcasting crew, along with Bob Griese and Charlie Jones. Both Griese and Cefalo openly rooted for the Hurricanes, which made Penn State’s victory all the more sweeter…
-
Dan
in January 28th, 2012 @ 10:53In my mind, Joe was overall a good and decent man who made a very big mistake in the Sandusky situation. Unfortunately, that will (and should) be a part of his legacy.
I’ve seen on another blog where people who dare think Joe made a mistake are labeled as haters. Joe was a good man, not a perfect one, and he’s as open to criticism as anyone else. Just because you believe someone acted inappropriately doesn’t mean you hate them. Have we grown that sensitive to disagreeing with someone?
I didn’t follow the memorial service, but can anyone explain why Phil Knight was even there? Was he a close friend of Joe’s?
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 12:56He says he was and he was INVITED to speak.
-
Pat
in January 28th, 2012 @ 16:44Phil Knight was the most powerful man in State College on Thursday. Nike subsidizes college athletics. Nike pays everyone. EVERYONE. When he asked “Who is the real trustee at Penn State?” few realize that he was actually speaking of himself as the applause rained down. The guy is Darth Vader on steroids with a Nike swoosh.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m cool with the way he described the Paterno situation. He said something that needed to be said publicly. The venom spewing around Paterno will now die down in the media. No one wants to square off with this guy. Less venom is a good thing. Knight had to come to the defense of his long time valued employee, if for nothing else to let the rest of his coaches/employees know that he has their back.
That being said, Knight’s comments are unprecedented. Nothing personal, strictly business. The Nike must flow. It is just as a PSU grad it is hard to hear what needed to be said from him in particular.
-
colt
in January 28th, 2012 @ 20:07John, more than once you have made the point that Paterno was not just another coach. I think that everyone agrees with that. My original point was to agree with Niblick, and then expand upon what he said. It is not that, as a footbal coach, he did not do great things, beyond what most other coaches have done. We all know that and are glad to agee with you about that. But, the fact remains, what has transpired after his death is over the top. But our culture tends to do that. (As you would agree, even Babe Ruth can be over-rated.) Flying flags at half staff across the Commonwealth is too much. I find it hard to believe that you do not agree with me on this.
Also, I still maintain that Joe could have probably protected little children from abuse. But he did not. Even Mr. Paterno admitted that he could have done more. That admission speaks volumes. If even one child was sexually abused on that campus after Paterno was told what transpired in (I think) 2002, then Paterno must bear some of the responsibility. If he would have simply followed up when he continued to see Sandusky using the facilities; if he would have simply gone to the proper person and said that he was disturbed that an alleged child molester is still on campus …who knows!
Others are contending that he cannot be judged by this one incident. True. But when a person does something to mar their reputation, it depends on what that thing is as to whether or not it colors everything else. I doubt very much that all of the posters who are emphasizing the good over the bad would have the same attitude if the one abused was their own child or grandchild.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 23:19I actually agree with most of what you’re saying….especially about flying the flag at half staff. That’s been overdone to the point that it has almost lost it’s meaning. And I agree that if he knew of the child abuse and looked the other way, it trumps everything else that he did when it comes to his final legacy. But if he had abused the kids himself, it wouldn’t have changed the fact that he did a lot of good and that college football would have been better off if there were more coaches like him.
-
Pat
in January 29th, 2012 @ 13:03Colt, Paterno was the only person affiliated with PSU that expressed any remorse about the situation. Would any decent man do less? It is not an admission of guilt. You are only choosing to interpret it that way.
For example, “With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I would never have read your post. I should have done more.” Have I taken responsiblity of the contents of your post? Obviously, no. I is just that I saw it and felt a responsibilty to respond if for nothing else to show that the vast majority of the PSU family aren’t the heartless bastards that popular rhetoric portrays us as.
If you want to use a Glenn Beck blackboard instead of a brain, that is your business.
-
colt
in January 29th, 2012 @ 13:59You know, Pat, I was actually enyong reading your post. It was well- thought out and intelligently expressed. Then you just had to throw in a personal attack, didn’t you?
-
Pat
in January 29th, 2012 @ 22:00Only if you use a Glenn Beck blackboard. See what I did there?
-
Bobzilla
in January 30th, 2012 @ 03:12Colt: Far be it for me to speak for Joe Paterno, or even Scott Paterno (who was actually speaking for Joe in the days after his dismissal as head coach), but I think what Joe actually meant to say was that he would’ve done more had he actually known more…
By all accounts, McQueary was vague in his description of the alleged incident. McQueary, according to the reports I’ve heard and read, never used the word “rape” to Paterno. He told Paterno that he saw Sandusky in a shower “horsing around” with a kid. As odd, strange and sick as that sounds, a grown man naked with a young boy in a shower is not illegal.
The media (especially Collier and Mike Lupica) have made Paterno look like someone who was standing watch outside the shower while Sandusky was having his way with an innocent child. That kind of nonsense has got to stop.
-
Ochotexto
in January 28th, 2012 @ 20:27Phil Knight didn’t belong at that service. He took the “cheap pop” ovation for lauding JoPa for he had a built in audience. Somehow it doesn’t surprise me you love sweatshops JS. Did they have a Nike swoosh on the casket or how about on the priest’s vestments ? Pitiful !
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 23:16“Now some of the nation’s leading economists, with solid liberal and academic credentials, are offering a much broader, more principled rationale. Economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs of Harvard and Paul Krugman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology say that low-wage plants making clothing and shoes for foreign markets are an essential first step toward modern prosperity in developing countries.
Mr. Sachs, a leading adviser and shock therapist to nations like Bolivia, Russia and Poland, is now working on the toughest cases of all, the economies of sub-Saharan Africa. He is just back from Malawi, where malaria afflicts almost all its 13 million people and AIDS affects 1 in 10; the lake that provided much of the country’s nourishment is fished out.
When asked during a recent Harvard panel discussion whether there were too many sweatshops in such places, Mr. Sachs answered facetiously. ”My concern is not that there are too many sweatshops but that there are too few,” he said.”
That’s courtesy of the that right wing rag The New York Times.
Knight was INVITED by the Paterno family. No one is forced to buy Nike shoes and nobody is forced to watch college football. I don’t think NIke ruined college sports. I think colleges ruined college sports.
-
Ken
in January 31st, 2012 @ 06:59It’s a “cheap pop” to laud someone at their own memorial service?
-
Chad Farthouse
in January 28th, 2012 @ 23:08Maybe this will lead people to realize that all people are human and sometimes make mistakes. Of course Paterno did a lot of good in his life. He also dropped the ball in a HUGE way when it mattered most. Everyone makes mistakes, some are definitely worse than others, but mistakes are inevitable. This makes me think of Ted Kennedy. He was a man that did a lot of good in this world (in my opinion), that also made a horrible mistake when it counted most. I wonder if the same people that defend Paterno, would also call Kennedy a slimy murderer?
-
John Steigerwald
in January 28th, 2012 @ 23:22Kennedy actually committed a terrible act –probably manslaughter. That’s a million miles away from not reporting one. Come to think of it, Kennedy actually did both. And, if Paterno were 40 years old, I don’t think anybody would be considering him a a good choice for President. I get what you’re saying, Chad, but that’s a really bad comparison.
-
colt
in January 29th, 2012 @ 06:31It is impossible to disagree with the supposition that all people make mistakes. I would hate to have my mistakes counted; you would have to put away the tablets and get a good size computer to tabulate them all. But, Chad, what Ted kenedy did is not usually looked at as a “mistake,” though it certainly was. Usually when we discuss leaving a young lady in a car to die, the word “crime” is used. And, you must admit, that if you or I would have done the exact same thing as Ted did, we would have done serious jail time, and we certainly would not have held on to our jobs.
Not long after Mr. Kenedy left Mary Jo to die in that car, Reader’s Digest did a long article explaining exactly what happened. I saved that magazine; over thirty years later, I still have it. It is a clear indictment of a man who thought more of his own career than the life of this poor girl.
If you ever get a chance, try to get that story and read it. You will never see Ted kenedy in a good light again. And ask yourself this question: “Would I admire Ted if that was my daughter (sister, cousin, whomever) on that car.” All the evidence shows that Mary Jo could have been saved from drowning; he left her to die.
-
John Steigerwald
in January 29th, 2012 @ 09:44I don’t think she drowned. She suffocated from being in the car.
-
colt
in January 30th, 2012 @ 14:16you’re right.
-
Ken
in January 30th, 2012 @ 14:03Paterno could have handled the whole thing better, but he still did nothing wrong.
He admitted in that WaPost interview that he was “overwhelmed” and felt inadequate in that situation. So, once in 61 years he doesn’t know what to do. So, he reported it to his superiors.
If those superiors, one of whom happened to oversee the university police, had done their jobs, Sandusky would have been arrested. Paterno probably would have been lauded for quick action and doing the right thing in reporting it. But because his superiors didn’t take action after he promptly reported the issue to them, he’s been attacked because his superiors failed to do their job.