How to Justify Crime - Joe Paterno

   In discussion with friends, there was the question of what goes through the mind of someone like Joe Paterno. Based on what I've learned from reading "Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts" I think I have some ideas on how this works. And it's actually quite simple. It's a matter of taking it one step at a time until you find yourself beyond a "point of no return."

   It could possibly have started out with Paterno convincing himself that "Sandusky is a good man. He wouldn't do that!" Later, Paterno would find out that Sandusky would indeed do that. Then the justification would be along the lines of "Sandusky is still a good man! He's just a little troubled, but there is no reason to taint or even ruin his reputaion and career by bringing the police into this. If we just support him, he will get over this." There will be little to no consideration of the victims in this justification. The cognitive focus will be on the abuser. After all, that is who Paterno knows; he is not emotionally attached to the children being harmed. As horrible as it sounds, this makes them easier to dismiss from the equation.

   At some point, Paterno may have realized that Sandusky is not going to just "get over this." But by this point, he is too committed to change course; he is beyond the point of no return*. He knows that if he goes to the cops now that they will be wondering why he didn't act sooner. When word reaches the media, they will be asking the same questions. See, Paterno has already acheived the roll of accomplice. He knows this. He is no longer just protecting Sandusky; he is also protecting himself, and he likewise turns his rationalizing on himself as well. Now it's "I'm a good guy, but they will treat me as though I am not!" The desire to protect one's own image, unfortunately, all too often is greater than the desire to protect others, in this case, the children that Sandusky was abusing.

   And Joe Paterno has had a very positive image to protect, as should be evident by the way people have been supporting Paterno. This is also why I am disgusted with their reactions. They are demonstrating the same cognitive processes - protecting the public image of a person - that leads to such cover ups.

---

* The idea of the "point of no return" is that if the person who has been justifying bad behavior stops doing so after this point, their personal reputation will be damaged. They can never be entirely guilt free from their actions. Whereas, if they had stopped justifying early on, they could have been forgiven and no damage would have been done. However, many people wrongly decide to avoid damaging their own reputations by continuing to justify bad behavior instead of fessing up. The reason this is the wrong decision is that, if and when the bad behavior is discovered by outsiders, the damage to one's reputation becomes much worse. In the third paragraph, I talked about how Paterno had reached the point of no return. If he would have reported Sandusky at this point (and it's hard to know exactly where that point is - it's mostly an arbitrary point), his reputation would have been slightly damaged. However, as a result of people finding out about Sandusky through other means, Paterno's reputation is now quite damaged.

The Shame of Penn State - Students and Coaches Alike!

   It is bad enough that administration personel and coaching staff at Penn State have been covering up child rape, but what may be worse is the reaction of students and other supporters of Joe Paterno.

   First it was rallying outside Paterno's house in support of Paterno, but now it has turned into rioting in reaction to Paterno being fired. Such behavior is simply indefensible.



   I have also seen support on Facebook, with some people making comments along the lines of "he wasn't the guy who did it." Sure. He wasn't. But, according to the grand jury report, Paterno knew about the allogations and did very little about it. This makes him an accomplice. Supporting Paterno at this point is equivalent to supporting accomplice to rape. That is pretty sickening.

   The one argument I have heard that I can partially accept is that Paterno be given a chance to defend himself. Others have been calling this "Duke II." That's a disastrous situation* to compare this to, but one implication seems to be a concern that a decision was made too quickly. (The other implication is that Paterno has been falsely accused; this seems quite unlikely and I cannot support such a defense.) Even with such arguments, I feel the Board of Trustees would have at least had to suspend Paterno.

   But, in spite of those more valid defenses of Paterno, I cannot help but suspect if this was pretty much any other coach, few would have objected to such quick action. I cannot help but get the feeling that there is special pleading taking place here. And it sickens me. It sickens me for at least two reasons:

1. This gives special protection to people with privelege and weakens the chance that the victims, when they belong to a less priveleged group, will get their justice or if they'll even report their case.
2. The support of Paterno sends the message that a significant portion of the populace finds #1 to be acceptable.

   So, Penn State protestors and Joe Paterno supporters, consider yourselves a disgrace to the human race. Whether you realize it or not - and I suspect many of you don't - you have effectively made yourselves part of the problem of covering up for rape.

   As for the Board of Trustees, h/t. Thank you for treating Joe Paterno equally as you would have any other coach. Equal treatment for all is the way society should operate.

---

* I am disturbed about people bringing up the Duke rape allogations because one of the disturbing parts of that situation was how the accuser was treated. It was one of those cases where she "couldn't have been raped" because she was (1) a striper (and thus probably a "slut") and was (2) allegedly either drunk or drugged up or both. It's the problem where rape is not considered rape by many people because they think the victim "had it coming." And while the accuser in this case was making false accusations, this discrediting of potential victims based on looks and behavior - as opposed to examining the evidence of the case - makes it harder for actual rape victims to speak out honestly, if at all, about their assults. This effectively promotes the rape culture in America.

My disappointments with the Weiner situation.

WARNING: The following blog post contains language not appropriate for children who have been handled with kid gloves as well as adults with the naivety of such children.


I was disappointed last night when I heard that Anthony Weiner resigned, but, upon further reflection, if that is what he felt he needed to do, then so be it. What really pisses me off is the pressure he received from his colleges. I talked to my father this morning, and he wanted Weiner to resign as he thinks we should hold Democrats to a higher standard. When it first came out that Weiner had indeed sent out those photos, I thought he should resign. Then I reconsidered...

The first thing I considered is that this is his private life and it should be just that: private! Nothing illegal was done in this situation. When Republicans engage in such behavior, I call them out primarily because they campaign on "family values." This makes what they do hypocritical toward their voters. Weiner may be a hypocrite toward his own wife and family, but not to his voters.

He did, however, lie at first. I had to consider this. So I tried to put myself in his shoes as much as I could. I suspect that must be embarrassing as hell (figure of speach) to admit that you cheated on your wife. It would then reason that it could be challenging to admit said event. From there it would then reason that one might fail at that challenge, and that failure result in lying about it. So I get it. I can forgive Anthony Weiner for lying to the public.

Recently today, I had another light turn on. As I said, my father said he holds Democrats to a higher standard. This got me thinking today, "What standard? Whose standard?" (Or maybe the better question is, "Why is this part of your standard?") The answer to that came from the conversation I had with my father. I mentioned that humans are very sexual animals, but mostly we talked about bonobos, which are homo sapien's second closest living relative, right after the chimpanzee. (I don't even care if you don't believe in evolution if you instead believe that the creator/god/designer/whatever used a "common template." If that really is the case, then examining chimp and bonobo behavior is important to understanding humans.) I pointed out that bonobos engage in peculiar sexual behavior in that they have sex to resolve disputes as well as make-up sex. Sound familiar to any other species we know? Now, chimpanzees don't display these types of behaviors, but just like bonobos, they are promiscuous. Might humans display similar behaviors? I think the obvious answer is "YES!" Hell, the attention sex scandals get should be evidence enough that humans are very sex-focused. Furthermore, I think this idea that two people are supposed to spend their lives as being each others only sexual partner is not realistic for all humans.

Note the emphasis, because I can imagine some people are wondering if I'm trying to give myself a free pass on cheating on my wife. I'm not. I think people who know me well realize that is not part of my personality...which has likely been heavily influenced by these societal ideas of marriage. However, I'm not going to judge people who cannot live up to such a lifestyle as I realize that it is probably not in the human nature to do so. I put more blame on society for having such an expectation, and part of the problem here is...wait for it...religion! Now, this opens another can of worms that I don't want to deal with here, but the problem is that religion tends to control sex in order to control people. I will try to get a post up in the near future to explain how this works. For now, just look at Christian religions. You'll hopefully notice that the more fundamentalist denominations also have more restrictions on sex, while the more liberal denominations have fewer restrictions.

There are basically two points from this:

1. Marriage may not have been right for Anthony Weiner, but did he get married to fit with societal norms? ...Norms which I don't think should exist. (Not to mention that he is a Jew who married a Muslim...maybe not a good recipe for a happy marriage...it would likely be challenging at the least...but I'm just speculating here.)
2. Why is this even a standard we should be expecting politicians to live up to? (Unless they campaign on that standard.) This standard is a conservative/religious standard! Should I hold a Democrat up to a higher standard on this conservative value than a Republican? One word: No! ...Correction! Make that two words: FUCK NO!!! I WILL NOT play by THEIR rule book!

The second thing I considered is what I consider important. And, adding to the first consideration, what someone does in their private life is not one of them! With the way the Democrats have been nearly bending over backwards to avoid confrontation with Republicans, a Democrat who stands up for what he believes in is a huge plus! Weiner is such a Democrat. (Yes, yes, you could argue that he didn't stand up for his marriage, but then I've essentially addressed this already!) That's not to say I agreed with him on everything! His views toward Israel are a good example of where my views differ greatly with his.

Speaking of spineless Democrats, this brings me to my third consideration, which really is more of a reaction...whatever. The more I heard about Democrats asking Weiner to resign, the more I wanted him to stay. I can hardly stand this shit anymore! The Republicans keep blackmailing the Democrat politically, and they keep giving in!

The New Republic put out a good article today covering some of this.

Obama also opined that Weiner should resign because he can’t serve the public effectively—that was the same day he presided over a fundraiser in a half-empty Miami auditorium, while Republicans were successfully blackmailing the Democrats and the country over their vote for the debt ceiling. Obama is worried about Weiner being able to serve “when people are worrying about jobs, and their mortgages, and paying the bills,” but he has not raised a finger to defend Elizabeth Warren, his presumed appointee to head the still-born Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama’s statement was yet another example of what the late Spiro Agnew called “pusillanimous pussyfooting.” Weiner’s resignation means little, except to him and his family, but the willingness of leading Democrats to cave in the face of the campaign against him will embolden the Breitbarts and Eric Cantors of the world to up the ante.

I could not have said it better myself, but this information about Obama out fundraising while not defending Elizabeth Warren and criticizing Weiner really makes me sick. The sad part is I am probably becoming conspiratorial about why Obama is not defending her, who I think is the obvious choice for the CFPB. Selecting her probably angered a number of lobbyists, to which he, or at least his staff, listens to. Now, Obama cannot revoke his nomination of Warren, as that would just be too obvious. But he doesn't necessarily have to defend her, though it does seem silly to nominate her and then not defend her. It is a shame I'll be practically forced to vote for him next election as the lesser of two evils. But I digress.

The last thing I want to post is a video that covers some of the same point that the TNR article did--Democrats caving in only further encourages the Republicans!