“Joe preached toughness, hard word and clean competition. Most of all, he had the courage to practice what he preached. Nobody will be able to take away the memories we all shared of a great man…”
My advice, Jerry? Skip the funeral.
–—Former Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky on the passing of Joe Paterno, whose failure to take the necessary steps to prevent Sandusky from sexually molesting young boys (<cough!> allegedly) on and off the Penn State campus scarred the iconic coach’s legacy, not to mention setting up children for a (<cough!> allegedly!) sexual predator’s smorgasbord.
This might be the creepiest tribute in the history of mankind. Why did any reporter ask Sandusky for a statement in the wake of his former boss’s sad end? Who cares what Sandusky thinks about Paterno’s legacy, which Sandusky played a pivotal role in ruining?
Is the man incapable of perceiving the sick irony of his words? “Nobody” can take away the good memories? How about you, Jerry? You betrayed the trust of a friend and mentor, who foolishly allowed himself to believe that what was right in front of him couldn’t possibly be true, not of a colleague, not of a long-time associate that he thought he knew. You exploited his vulnerabilities, whatever they were, for your own revolting compulsions.
But even that stunning statement doesn’t compare with this: “Most of all, he had the courage to practice what he preached.” For that’s exactly what Joe Paterno, in the end, did not have.
It is relatively easy to preach, teach and extol integrity, responsibility, caring, honesty, accountability and courage. What is difficult, and the real test of any human being, is whether he or she can embody these virtues in a crisis, under pressure, when the stakes are high and the welfare of others is at stake, when the nightmare scenarios described in Rudyard Kipling’s “If” become reality. It is too bad that Paterno’s greatest test came when he was elderly and corrupted by his iconic reputation, the accolades that had been showered on him for decades, and his accumulated power….but none of us can choose the moments in our lives when character becomes essential. When that moment came for Joe Paterno, Penn State’s moral exemplar, he blew it.
I don’t want to hear Jerry Sandusky claim otherwise. I don’t want to hear his spin, or attempts to lionize the man he helped destroy. I don’t want to hear Jerry Sandusky at all.
Shut up, Jerry. You’ve done enough damage.
Ethics Alarms 
Can we mark this date as the day that journalism, as a whole, completely lost its way? Can we just seal it off and declare the entire enterprise a lost cause?
I wouldn’t object.
Great post Jack! It really saddens me that Joe’s legacy ended up this way. I wish we didn’t have to hear about that sleazy knucklehead, Jerry, anymore. I’m at my normal point where the media is wasting my time again. I don’t care about the subject anymore. Jerry needs to disappear.
Jerry needs to disappear.
I’d prefer a few updates that look like this:
* Sandusky Charged!
* No Deal for Sandusky!
* Sandusky Testifies, Breaks Down Under Cross
* Sandusky Jury Deliberates for 20 Minutes: Life Sentence
* Sandusky waives all appeals
* Sandusky Sued in Civil Court
* Penn State Covers Civil Suit Verdict that Sandusky Couldn’t Pay
* Sandusky Abducted by Aliens, Says He Was Subjected to Anal Probe
I’ve heard of a list of “Sins That Cry To Heaven For Justice”.
Exploiting vulnerable children should be one of those.
Well, for what it’s worth, I don’t think Jerry Sandusky “destroyed” Joe Paterno any more than Linda Tripp or Monica Lewinsky destroyed Bill Clinton. For those who will remember Paterno, I think he’ll be remembered in a way very similar to how Jack Kennedy is remembered (and to how Clinton will be remembered). Dittos tgt’s preferred updates.
My “sealing off” from “journalism” is already underway for this week: not wasting a split second on SOTU theater – no TV tonight, YAAAYYYY!!!
Quote foul. I didn’t say Sandusky destroyed Paterno. Paterno destroyed himself. Sandusky played a pivotal role in that process.
The fact that people who deserve to be remembered less fondly than they are often get remembered well out of ignorance and skewed priorities is hardly a defense of Paterno. Of course he’ll be remembered for his football record, which has nothing to do with child predators, just like the space program has nothing to do with Kennedy engaging in absurdly risky affairs that would have gotten him impeached if the press hadn’t covered for him. Paterno will NOT, however, be remembered as a moral and ethical exemplar, and that’s how he has set himself up to be remembered.
With Clinton, you’re just wrong. When a President gets impeached, when his only three famous quotes “I didn’t inhale” and “It depends what the definition of ‘is’ is’, and “I did not have sex with that woman!” are examples of deceit, his legacy is brightly and permanently tainted for all time.
This is to appeal the quote foul and my alleged error about Clinton.
On the foul, here is the statement you made that is relevant: “I don’t want to hear his spin, or attempts to lionize the man he helped destroy.”
I took your use of the conclusive verb “destroy” perhaps more literally than you intended – without its being modified by the preceding verb “helped,” and without thought of “helped” (as in “playing a pivotal role in the process”) somehow functioning, or being intended, to indicate that Sandusky did not in any way “destroy” Paterno.
That said, I do agree in hindsight that Paterno dishonored himself. Nevertheless, I still suspect there was a fog of life (like the fog of war) in Paterno’s face at the times when so many of us think Paterno had a chance to do the right thing and blew it – a fog, and Paterno’s actions amidst it, that we detached observers – with our fastidiousness about ethics, and hindsight – may never fully appreciate with the fairness Paterno deserves.
Clinton was impeached in the House and acquitted in the Senate. Since we don’t have a definition, as far as I know, for “partly impeached,” or “half impeached,” but only the knowledge that Clinton was not impeached in both houses of Congress, I think it’s fair either way: one may say he was impeached, while another may say he was not impeached. Neither position is deceitful, nor is either a reflection of being duped. It’s just reality, and a state of confusion stemming from the same.
But more to the point I mean to make: Clinton, like Paterno, despite what either has done, or not done, or been implicated in, will continue to be upheld in history for many traits and actions that people value highly, to the extent of being “lionized” the men (laughing now, as I corrected my spelling after starting to spell “loin[ized]”).
Both Clinton and Paterno tainted? Definitely. But tainted to the point of their taints spoiling the auras of their lionization? (laughing again, this time at something perhaps too obscure [and obscene] to mention) Nope.
Next to last paragraph, next to last line: meant to take out “the men.”
If anyone is confused about “impeached,” they just need to be set straight. “Impeached” is the indictment. Only the House can impeach. The Senate votes on whether to convict. There’s no legitimate confusion: Clinton, like Andrew Johnson, was impeached and acquitted. But he WAS impeached.
I was confused – thanks for clarifying. But I maintain my position.
Reporters’ hindsight 20/20.
How convenient.
Reporters do not find any news anymore, they just hover around like vultures and pick the carcass clean when a man is down.
What drivel.
A self-proclaimed champion of doing the right thing learns (and probably already knew) that an associate is using his foundation for at-risk kids to trap children to rape, and does nothing to stop him for years. What hindsight does it take to identify that as a monstrous breach of human and institutional obligations? When a man is down? He was down because he was accountable for his own conduct and failure to live by his own teachings.
Lining up a string of inapplicable cliches isn’t an argument. In this case, it’s willful blindness, and excusing the inexcusable.