Joe Paterno Has Lung Cancer

Sad news for Joe Paterno. As if this month hasn't been bad enough, his son says he has been diagnosed with a treatable form of lung cancer.

I'm sending good thoughts his way. Hopefully the media will focus on the more important aspect of the story -- Sandusky -- and give the Paternos some privacy to deal with this terrible illness.

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | Mercedes Benz Manager Victim of Alabama Immigration Law >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can we all, please, agree? (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 06:45:22 PM EST
    EVERYONE'S heart goes out to the children of molestation

    EVERYONE is sick to the stomach at the thought of their pain

    EVERYONE wants justice to be done

    EVERYONE wants the System to work fairly

    EVERYONE (hopefully) wants the perpetrator, if he is truly sick, to get the help he needs

    And, EVERYONE wants the perpetrator, if he is found to be of sound mind, to be punished to the full extent of the Law.

    Now, can we, please, let the system work this all out?

    This, as always, is my opinion only.

    That's assuming that the system works. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by byteb on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:08:42 PM EST
    the system already failed (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 04:03:06 AM EST
    years ago.  Sandusky was allowed to continue to do what he was doing.  As long as he remained free the abuse continued.  Do I know that for sure? Yes I do, perhaps not 100 percent.  But let's just say I would be really really really shocked to have it proven any differently.

    I was referring to now (none / 0) (#23)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 06:23:34 AM EST
    and, especially to the maudlin, over-the-top rage, as if yelling, "the children!," louder than everyone else is a contest, the winner being granted the crown of moral superiority. When someone points out some item(s) or asks a question they're met with, "well, if it were YOUR child....," as if all rules of law, or evidence, should be negated were it to happen to your family.

    That's why I emphasized that EVERYONE feels the same way. And now its time to let the process go forward.

    This is a horrible, horrible tragedy, first, and foremost, for the children, and, yes, even for the perpetrator(s), and their enablers.


    At 84, it isn't so unbelievable that Paterno (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Anne on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:47:30 PM EST
    would eventually have something medical going on; no one lives forever.

    That being said, I wish Paterno and his family well in dealing with this turn of events.

    And to Donald, who seems so obsessed with Helen Lovejoy, and thinks he knows the culture of State College, PA and its most prominent citizen, Joe Paterno, better than the people who live there and bleed Penn State blue, sometimes that visceral reaction, that gut instinct, proves to hold more truth than one thinks.

    I believe, when all is said and done, that the Penn State administration, athletic department, and the surrounding State College police department, district attorney's office and the movers and shakers within the State College community, will be revealed to be a fetid cesspool of corruption - and I think Paterno's going to be some part of that.  I mean, is there anyone of any prominence in State College who isn't a board member, volunteer or fund raiser for Second Mile?  

    And while Sandusky is the main focus of the story, that story isn't going to be able to be told without a cast of characters whom I believe will be shown to have enabled Jerry Sandusky to do the things he's accused of doing.

    And I think Paterno's going to be one of those people.

    All of the facts (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Amiss on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 11:23:12 PM EST
    in this case, by the very nature of what facts have been revealed as truth and the type of case (molestation of a juvenile) will NEVER come out, they never do.

    Actually Don (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 03:05:16 AM EST
    you seem to be emotionally involved,  evidenced by the name calling.  What is your personal connection to this story?

    you make a lot of sense (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 03:50:32 AM EST
    I think you are going to be proven more correct than not.  

    No, Donald, that's not exactly what you've (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:15:52 AM EST
    been doing; to me, it's sounds like a combination of self-righteous preaching with a little apple-polishing-for-Jeralyn thrown in for extra credit.

    For someome who claims that I have no more insight into this case than anyone else, you have certainly not refrained from offering a heaping helping of special Donald-has-been-everywhere-and-knows-everyone-pontifications (I'm sorry to admit that I've come to think of you as a more articulate Forrest Gump), almost to the level of overkill; you certainly have not waited for facts before speaking your piece.

    We're allowed to offer opinions, based on what we do know, so far; that they haven't been proven in any court of law doesn't mean we can't weigh in - it certainly hasn't stopped you, has it?  For heaven's sake, it doesn't stop Jeralyn, and I don't notice you preaching at her.

    Everyone who has been indicted, arrested, or charged is entitled to his day in court, entitled to have a judge or jury hear both sides, and to get a verdict of guilt or innocence - we ALL know that and NO ONE wants to take that away.  But let's be honest here, Donald: even in a court of law, we aren't going to get all the facts.  The defense will object to some of them coming out, and so will the prosecution; both sides will be successful in either preventing or allowing some of the facts to come out.

    If I had the link handy, I would point you to Jeralyn's excellent post of not-too-long-ago, in which she reminded all of us that trials are not about truth or justice - they are about the law.

    So...unless someone is flat-out stating that they "know" that Sandusky/Paterno/fill-in-the-blank is guilty of fill-in-the-blank, try to remember that what is being expressed are people's opinions, they are entitled to them - as you are to yours - and maybe stop trying so hard to be the corner comment policeman.


    Interesting (none / 0) (#25)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 09:33:35 AM EST
    You wrote:
    Everyone who has been indicted, arrested, or charged is entitled to his day in court...

    Paterno has been neither arrested nor charged.  Does that mean he isn't entitled to fairness?  As I have read all of Donald's posts on this matter, that's all I read him asking for.


    Are you being deliberately disingenuous? (5.00 / 0) (#27)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:07:53 AM EST
    No, the fact that Paterno hasn't been indicted, arrested or charged does not mean he isn't entitled to fairness.

    But he is a part of the whole mess, to what degree we still don't know yet.  

    Where we are with this is that we have pieces here and there, but still not enough to know what the whole picture is.  We're human - we fill in the blanks, we have gut feelings, we have common sense, we have kids of our own, we've coached, we've lived in a State College-type atmosphere, we've been victims of abuse - we have varying levels of age and experience; doesn't mean that any one person is right or wrong.

    Donald's standard for fairness in this situation seems to be one that allows him to make his case for Paterno, but not for anyone else to make a case that suggests that Paterno may have known more and not lived up to Paterno's own standards for integrity and principle.


    That's pure speculation (none / 0) (#28)
    by rdandrea on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    But he is a part of the whole mess, to what degree we still don't know yet.

    The Grand Jury presentment was quite clear on what IT thought Paterno's "part" was.  The Grand Jury's opinion was based on testimony. Your attempt to "make a case that suggests that Paterno may have known more and not lived up to Paterno's own standards for integrity and principle" is based on what, exactly?

    Joe will be a punching bag in this, hammered on one side by McQueary ("I told Joe everything") and Curley and Schultz on the other ("Joe told us nothing").  Unfortunately, he might not live to testify as to what he was really told and/or passed on to his superiors.

    If Joe lives long enough to testify in the Curley and Schultz trials, you'll have your answer in the fullness of time.


    You may see this as corruption (none / 0) (#26)
    by Green26 on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:46:49 AM EST
    but my guess is that there was a large element of friendship and loyalty involved.

    My hunch is that McQueary is going to be shown to have been less than truthful and forthright in this matter. His stories, recollections and statements are already becoming inconsistent and questionable. I have my doubts that he actually communicated all of what he apparently said to the grand jury, to Paterno, the AD and the VP. His account seems a bit odd to me too.

    As I've said before, I don't think any of the incidents involving the 8 kids cited in the indictment occurred after 2002, but I may have not read newspaper articles correctly or they may not have been complete. Of course, there are rumors of additional kids coming forward now, and I suppose those may have occurred after 2002.

    I still don't understand why some of you believe Paterno is at fault. In a university setting, it looks like he did what he was supposed to do. He immediately reported the matter upward in the university chain of authority.

    The charity is the entity that probably deserves the level of scrutiny that Penn St is getting. If there was enabling, that's where it occurred. Sandusky met all 8 of the kids through the charity.


    Allowing friendship and loyalty (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by sj on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    to supersede law is corruption.  On every level.

    What law? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Green26 on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:01:42 PM EST
    Only 2 people have been charged with anything relating to the incident, the AD and the VP. A misdemeanor under a vague state statute which does not apply to this situation, in my view, has a 2-year statute of limitations, and has never been used for a criminal charge in Penn (according to one of the defense lawyers).

    The perjury to the grand jury charges were not related to the actual incident, and will not hold up either, in my view. The AD and VP talked to McQueary together, I believe, and I believe Paterno's statements about what McQueary told him will be similar to what the AD and VP say McQueary told them, so it will be 3 people against 1. Also, McQueary is making inconsistent statements, and his credbiiity is probably not going to look good.

    I say these two guys never get convicted of anything. I think I saw that McQueary is also being investigated now, for something.


    Oy (none / 0) (#33)
    by sj on Mon Nov 21, 2011 at 11:00:58 AM EST
    Only 2 people have been charged with anything relating to the incident...
    Maybe due to... I don't know, corruption?

    Lung cancer is horrible. (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by caseyOR on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 09:28:07 PM EST
    My dad died of lung cancer. Those final six months after diagnosis were horrendous. The treatments are painful and often futile. And the end is just painful, so frikken' painful.

    No matter what Paterno did or did not know or when he did or did not know it, no one deserves cancer. At 84, the odds are the remainder of his life will be miserable. My thoughts go out to the Paterno family.

    My dad did too. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by desertswine on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 12:26:56 PM EST
    I aree totally.

    I think it is horrible (1.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:32:42 PM EST
    that he has lung cancer, but he didn't give one single thought to how much Sandusky's victims suffered and suffered and suffered over the years.  Now it is all raining down years later when he was trying to retire and has cancer.  He doesn't get special empathy from me.

    How do you know what Paterno... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Romberry on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:36:47 PM EST
    ...did and didn't give thought to? I submit that you don't know, and that the facts of this case are far from in.

    Well, he has a history of discounting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:56:37 PM EST
    the sexual misconduct of those involved in his Penn State sport with him.  And why was Sandusky "forced" to retire in 1999?  He has gone on the record saying that he was fully informed of the 2002 incident.  An ex assistant coach said it was impossible for Paterno to have not known.  I don't see Paterno expressing anything for the kids that were hurt.

    Once again, you are stating... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Romberry on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 06:24:09 PM EST
    ...things that you don't really know, and the reason you don't know is because you don't have all the facts. Neither do I.

    Not even sure what you're driving at with "he was fully informed of the 2002 incident." Yes, he was informed. And when he was informed, he reported it up the chain of command to higher authority. And McCrewry sp?) had subsequent interviews with that higher authority (including the person in charge of PSU Police) as a result of that. Near as I can tell, your issue here seems to be that Paterno did not go to the police himself. If that's the case, then why is so much of your anger reserved for Paterno? Where's the anger at the grad assistant and the university president and the guy in charge of the campus police. For that matter, where's your anger at the DA who investigated and declined to bring charges after an incident was reported in 1998?

    Paterno seems to be a lightning rod for a lot of folks with this case. They want to focus blame on him. Honestly, I don't find it very rational. But emotionally charged situations like this tend to be that way.


    MT, you don't know (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:52:59 PM EST
    knew a thing about any victims -- and the nature of what he was told about the  2002 victim is disputed. Please don't libel him here by stating your opinion as fact.

    Paterno posting (none / 0) (#3)
    by Daniel on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:39:04 PM EST
    Kudos to you, Jeralyn.

    Treatable lung cancer to someone his age (none / 0) (#4)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:45:08 PM EST
    is probably not an exact science...

    nor is it for anyone (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 05:53:48 PM EST
    We can all allow him to hope his treatment is successful.

    Indeed, I wish him the best. (none / 0) (#10)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 06:34:50 PM EST
    We don't really know how important (none / 0) (#13)
    by observed on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 08:28:52 PM EST
    Paterno is in this case, in my opinion.
    IF he really was as negligent as MT thinks, I have no sympathy for him.
    Personally, I can't imagine how he did not know about Sandusky; if this is the case, my wish is that his illness does not interfere with him getting some approrpriate payback while he is alive.

    Negligent? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Green26 on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 10:05:02 PM EST
    Negligent about what? What do you think Paterno should have done? Why do you think it was Paterno's responsibility to do anything more?

    I can only hope that if it turns out (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Nov 19, 2011 at 02:55:28 AM EST
    that his alleged inertia in dealing with the Sandusky situation, was not alleged and indeed, gave Sandusky more time and opportunity to molest more young boys, you will be able to admit you were wrong.  
    My opinion is that a lot of men were making money playing a kid's game and didn't want that gravy train to stop.  So they covered up a crime against defenseless children.  They may have thought they stopped it at the same time.  If so they were ignorant or they just didn't care, because pedophiles can't be stopped short of incarceration.