Charlie LeDuff Golfs the Length of Detroit

Economics Without The B.S.**:

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Charlie LeDuff Golfs the Length of Detroit

Joe Paterno: Leadership? What is Truth?

[Reprint from July 2012]

I am a Penn State Alumnus from 1967, right after Joe Paterno was appointed head coach of the football program and before his “legacy” was established.  And what was that “legacy”, ‘Success With Honor’!  I have never attended a football game, but I have benefited by being a graduate of Penn State and being out and about in the world – including forty-eight states, Europe and China –  while the Paterno legacy was being built.  This school grew with that legacy and has many other accomplishments beyond the success of its football program.  I have met many people over the years who were not from Penn State but had expressed pride in the Paterrno legacy and I have encountered situations where I could take pride in the “Penn State Way”.  I can tell you from my encounters in travels that Penn State was Joe Paterno!  And maybe that is why we share in the shamefulness of this affair.

What we have here is the familiar Greek tragedy, the fallen hero.  But what the Freeh Report reveals is not so much hero worship but a failure throughout the management structure of the school in exercising power and counter-balancing the powerful.  The football program that Paterno built brought in tens of millions of dollars each year and it was because he had a recognition of the impact of the football program on the school that he was appreciated and acquired his status.  In addition to the Paterno family contributing millions to the school they helped to raise over ten million dollars over the years for various school functions by attracting donors.  If Joe Paterno had too much power, it was because he was recognized as an exceptional person.

Joe Paterno devoted one-hundred percent of his time to Penn State football.  He did not have any hobbies.  He watched football tapes of Penn State games and high school prospects throughout the year.  He observed details that most of us would miss – like how three plays in different games made the big difference between a winning year and a losing year, bringing out all the critics for his resignation because “maybe the old man didn’t have it any more”.  I think one of the turning points that bonded the Penn State community with Joe Paterno occurred back in the 1970’s when he turned down a lucrative pro football contract and stayed at Penn State when his wife, a Penn State alumnus, told him why do you want to leave here where you have a home, are paid well, and you are appreciated.

            Joe Paterno, being a college graduate student/athlete himself (in English Literature, not athletics) understood and emphasized to players he recruited that they were special because they had the privilege to play for a major team and attend a great university and get a quality education and go on after that and contribute to their community and maybe even become a pillar in their community.  How many college professors can recognize those qualities in a high school junior or senior?  Maybe this was one reason he choose to discipline his players himself rather than leave it up to the school disciplinary procedures – and discipline them he did (some were put off the team, missed key games even a bowl game once, and other means).  Perhaps there was academic jealousy when he took these matters out of the hands of school administrators.  His record of forty-six years at the school speaks for itself – a graduation rate for all athletes (black and white) to be envied, fathers who played for Paterno and brought their sons back to the coach even though they could have gone to more prestigious schools, and players who went on to serve their communities and greater society in music, medicine, business, and politics.

            The Paterno legacy went beyond the school. At the time of his death and memorial service there were football players who Paterno tried to recruit but who went to other schools said that Paterno was the only coach who when he visited their home and talked to their parents mentioned that in addition to football they would get a great education.  The Paterno legacy also went beyond the football program.  Many students at Penn State took that legacy, Success With Honor, to their hearts.

Penn State is a very large university not only in a very small college town, but in an isolated location in Pennsylvania.  It is a cloistered environment.  Graduation is truly a commencement – going out into the world to practice your craft.  Penn State has approximately one-half million alumni and one of the largest paid alumni association memberships in the country (approximately 200,000 paid alumni).  If it appears to others that we worship Joe Paterno as a hero I think they have that confused with the personification of Joe Paterno with the Penn State Way.  [And now that I live in Southern California we should be able to recognize the image of personification to worthy values.]  While I can see all the good that came from the Paterno legacy, I accept the findings of the Freeh Report.  And if Joe Paterno were alive today he would probably be indicted for the coverup.  I cannot explain it.  But I have to accept it.  Let’s hope the new school administrators will learn from this horrible episode and make corrections.

The Freeh Report:

http://progress.psu.edu/the-freeh-report.

The Paterno Family's Report:

http://paterno.com/Resources/Docs/SOLLERS_FINAL_REPORT_2-9-2013.pdf.

The following is a statement issued by Louis J. Freeh in response to an investigation released Sunday by the family of Joe Paterno:
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. FREEH February 10, 2013
I respect the right of the Paterno family to hire private lawyers and former government officials* to conduct public media campaigns in an effort to shape the legacy of Joe Paterno.
However, the self-serving report the Paterno family has issued today does not change the facts established in the Freeh Report or alter the conclusions reached in the Freeh Report. Joe Paterno's own testimony under oath before the grand jury that investigated this horrific case is of critical importance. Mr. Paterno testified in 2011 that he knew from Michael McQueary in 2001 that McQueary had seen Sandusky "fondling, whatever you might call it -- I'm not sure what the term would be -- a young boy" in the showers at the Lasch Building. Mr. Paterno explained, "[o]bviously, he was doing something with the youngster. It was a sexual nature. I'm not sure exactly what it was. I didn't push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset." Years later, Mr. Paterno would explain to a reporter he chose to discuss the event with that he told McQueary, "I said you did what you had to do. It's my job now to figure out what we want to do."
As detailed in my report, the e-mails and contemporary documents from 2001 show that, despite Mr. Paterno's knowledge and McQueary's observations, four of the most powerful officials at Penn State agreed not to report Sandusky's activity to public officials. As made clear in the attachments to our report, on February 25, 2001, Messrs. Spanier, Curley and Schulz agreed to report Sandusky's abuse to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. On February 27, 2001, these men agreed that reporting to DPW was not required, reasoning in the words of Graham Spanier that "[t]he only downside for us is if the message isn't 'heard' and acted upon, and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it." The only known, intervening factor between the decision made on February 25, 2001 and the agreement not to report on February 27, 2001, was Mr. Paterno's February 26th conversation with Mr. Curley regarding what to do about Sandusky. Again, this conversation was memorialized in the contemporary email, where Mr. Curley said "[a]fter giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe yesterday -- I am uncomfortable with what we agreed were the next steps." Curley's message continued:
I am having trouble with going to everyone, but the person involved. I think I would be more comfortable meeting with the person and tell him about the information we received. I would plan to tell him we are aware of the first situation. I would indicate we feel there is a problem and we want to assist the individual to get professional help. Also, we feel a responsibility at some point soon to inform his organization and [sic] maybe the other one about the situation. If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing the organization. If not, we do not have a choice and will inform the two groups. Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities. I need some help on this one. What do you think about this approach?
During the investigation, we contacted Mr. Paterno's attorney in an attempt to interview Mr. Paterno. Although Mr. Paterno was willing to speak with a news reporter and his biographer at that time, he elected not to speak with us. We also asked Mr. Paterno's attorney to provide us with any evidence that he and his client felt should be considered. The documents provided were included in our report.
Further, the Pennsylvania Attorney General specifically requested our staff not to interview Mr. McQueary so as to not interfere with the criminal prosecution of Sandusky. Nevertheless, we had access to sworn testimony by Mr. McQueary at the preliminary hearing as well as the Sandusky trial, where Mr. McQueary was thoroughly cross examined by several defense lawyers. Mr. Curley and Mr. Schultz declined to speak with our staff on advice of their lawyers, despite our numerous interview requests.
Mr. Paterno was on notice for at least 13 years that Sandusky, one of his longest serving assistants, and whose office was steps away, was a probable serial pedophile. Mr. Paterno was aware of the criminal 1998 investigation into Sandusky's suspected child sexual abuse. Indeed, the evidence shows that Mr. Paterno closely followed that case. Later, in 2001, another one of his assistants, Mr. McQueary, directly reported to Mr. Paterno that Sandusky was sexually abusing a young boy in Mr. Paterno's Penn State football locker room. The evidence shows that Mr. Paterno purposefully ignored this evidence.
I stand by our conclusion that four of the most powerful people at Penn State failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade. These men exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky's victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well-being, especially by not even attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001.
In the past months, Penn State has made a dedicated effort to reform the problems that led to Sandusky's ability to victimize children on the university campus. I trust that the changes and improvements that Penn State has put in place will help to build a constructive and protective environment where children will not again suffer abuse.
* In 1989, then-Attorney General Richard Thornburgh selected me from the thousands of federal prosecutors in the Justice Department to lead the investigation into the bombing murders of federal judge Robert Vance in Alabama, and NAACP leader Robbie Robinson in Georgia. Thornburgh then highly praised my investigative abilities, and the cases were successfully prosecuted. Thornburgh personally signed my certificate appointing me as a federal judge.

Challenge Me!

Economics Without The B.S.**:

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Generation of the '60's: Challenge Me!

For a '60's Generation (of followers, not leaders; but, who worked for inspirational leaders) that is out of work, listening to today's leadership, let's take a look back at what we can do.

1957 -- Russians launch Sputnik -- before the U.S. can get a satellite in orbit...or a rocket off the ground ----

April 12, 1961 -- Russians send Yuri Gagarin into orbital flight, before the U.S.

Several weeks later, May 5, 1961 -- Alan Shepard becomes the first American into space, on just a sub-orbital flight.

Just a couple of weeks later, on May 25, 1961, President Kennedy, before a Joint Session of Congress and before the Nation and World, announces that we are going to the Moon!

President Kennedy's address in Houston, Texas, September 12, 1962 (a year and half after the speech to Congress) -- why we are going to the Moon.

November 1962 -- President Kennedy tells his NASA administrator why we are going to the Moon.  Does the NASA administrator, James Webb, sound convinced that we will be on the Moon by the end of the decade?

July 20, 1969 -- Neil Armstrong, with Apollo 11, lands on the Moon.

1971 -- Alan Shepard, ten years after his sub-orbital flight, is hitting golf balls on the Moon.

What have you done lately?

Give me a challenge.  Into the unknown.  And watch what I can do.

When is the last time you saw a scientific achievement, in bold headlines, on the front page of your newspaper?

Supply-Side Economics vs. Demand-Driven Economics

Economics Without The B.S.**:

[**  Double entendre intended.]

Could Supply-Side Economics be the reason for our economic stagnation?

We have people today, and for the past several decades, advocating to give the entrepreneurs freedom to act and they will create the jobs that our society needs.  But after several decades of this thinking, here we are:

(1)  with economic stagnation – falsely blamed on debt;

(2)  economic rewards going to the few, the powerful, and not sharing equally to all who work and produce in our society;

(3)  misplaced economic incentives that are not directed at the overall productivity of our economy due to concentrated wealth and its resultant political influence;

(4)  a consumer economy that is out of balance with the commercial and industrial needs in our society;

(5)  and leadership in our society, both at the government and private sector, that appears either unable or unwilling to tackle tough issues with regard to:

            (a)  educational needs of children and adult education/and continuing education;

            (b)  revitalizing urban centers and small towns;

            (c)  and giving attention to our physical infrastructure and natural surroundings;

and all of this and more in a time in history when we are globally connected, highly educated (both formally and practically), with boundless resources, and enormously wealthy.

            There was a time when supply-side thinking was needed and worked – in the 1980’s – but we are long past that point.  After that economic turn-around, our middle-class has become complacent, politically ineffectual, and of no consequence.  We are now in an economic miasma that is affecting our society and degrading our democracy.  It reminds me of the complacency of the 1950’s which led to the Sputnik awakening.

            We need to get back to a demand-driven economy.  But that will take a public revitalization of citizenship to force action from the leadership in our society.  Sputnik scared the hell out of us during the Cold War.  It was right there on the front page of every newspaper in the country, big city paper and the rural/local 6-page edition, in a day when EVERYONE read a newspaper.  As a result, we were accelerated into a decade of scientific achievement resulting in a man on the Moon – an achievement which was not believable by our scientific community when President Kennedy first announced it.  The demand (read as a challenge) placed upon our scientific and technical community spawned innovation that was unheard of just a couple years before.

            Because we have been an economy with supply-side emphasis, and many of our leaders are not technically oriented, we have an entrenched, well-off segment that is satisfied with the status quo.  WE NEED TO CREATE DEMAND!  The demand comes from inspirational leadership that challenges us to explore the unknown, be innovative, and use our creative energy.  WWII demand created an economy that got us out of the Great Depression.

            We do not accept the status quo.  We are the one animal that uses our brain to shape our culture.  Our mentality, our culture, is demand-driven (not supply-driven).  We exist to meet challenges and conquer those obstacles – not to get rich.  If that’s the way our culture operates, then that’s the way our economy should operate.  We will not fix our economy, or society, by handing out tickets to the Gravy Train.  We need to tap into the American culture and way of life that wants to be challenged, explore, and innovate.  WHERE IS THE DEMAND?