Family Values Round-Up

Interesting choice of words from The Eagle Forum Blog:

According to the grand jury report, Penn State learned about accusation against Sandusky in 1998. University official arranged for a confrontation, pressured him into admitting inappropriate behavior, and turned the case over to the police. When the DA decided that there was insufficient evidence of a crime, the university fired him anyway.

Penn State officials have been charged with a crime for not reporting a similar allegation against Sandusky in 2002. The entire case hinges on the memory and credibility of McQueary, but now he has changed his story and says that he reported it to the police. There is no physical or other hard evidence of abuse. According to Sandusky, the child involved will testify that McQueary is lying about what he claimed to have seen.

[...]

Traditional British and American law does not require citizens to report crimes that they witness. We are not a nation of snitches. If your neighbor is illegally smoking dope, you do not have to say a word.

Most people are happy reporting a crime against a child, because the child is usually unable to speak up for himself. But the mandatory reporting laws go way beyond that. They require reporting suspicions.

Now we know who will come to the defense of Coach Sandusky. The sort of people who equate one's neighbor smoking reefer to a man in his 60s raping a 10-yr. old boy.

And of course, since there is "no physical or other hard evidence of abuse," we might as well forget the whole thing. (What physical evidence do they expect nine yrs. after the alleged crime? Oh, who knows or cares?) As long as the neighbor isn't raping children in his back yard where it can be seen, not to worry. And mere suspicion isn't enough, whether or not the child is "usually unable to speak up for himself." Children, in the family values universe, are mere property, to be done w/ as the nearest adult desires.

Meanwhile, an attorney for one of the alleged victims has a thing or two to add.

"Mr. Sandusky has elected to re-victimize these young men at a time when they should be healing," attorney Ben Andreozzi said in a statement.

Andreozzi, who declined to identify his client, said the man wanted the former coach "to know that he fully intends to testify that he was severely sexually assaulted by Mr. Sandusky."

As far as the changed story, & some other facts:

Sandusky acknowledged that he showered with some of the children after workouts but claimed that his only contact was "horseplay" and not sexual

Andreozzi said he was particularly troubled by Sandusky's response to a question in the interview in which Costas asked whether the coach was sexually attracted to young boys.

Sandusky repeated the question back to Costas before responding, "I enjoy young people; I like to be around them. But no, I am not sexually attracted to young boys."

Sandusky's attorney Joseph Amendola has suggested that the person then-football graduate assistant Michael McQueary allegedly witnessed being assaulted in 2002 denies he was raped by the coach. Amendola could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Andreozzi said he was not aware of any alleged victims who might be "changing their story or refusing to testify."

"To the contrary," he said, "others are coming forward."

Also Wednesday, State College Borough Police Chief Tom King told the Associated Press that his department did not receive a report from McQueary about the alleged incident in 2002.

McQueary wrote in an e-mail to a friend that he had discussions with police about what he saw, but he didn't specify which agency.

Penn State spokeswoman Lisa Powers said the university is looking into whether McQueary contacted campus police. "Right now we have no record of any police report filed by Mike McQueary," she said.

State police have received calls from the public offering potentially new information about the case.

Not to mention that many have taken Sandusky's interview to be a virtual confession.

To my ear it was a near confession. Here, for example, is a telling exchange, rather excruciating to listen to:

BOB COSTAS: Are you a pedophile?

JERRY SANDUSKY: No.

BOB COSTAS: Are you sexually attracted to young boys, to underage boys?

JERRY SANDUSKY: Am I sexually attracted to underage boys?

BOB COSTAS: Yes.

JERRY SANDUSKY: Sexually attracted, you know, I enjoy young people. I love to be around them. But no I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.

Well. OK. An innocent person doesn’t have to repeat that question and then parse it. You just have to say no.

Anyway, Sandusky didn't do it w/ all the young people he "helped."

At one point Costas asked Sandusky if he fits the classic “MO” of a pedophile to which the former coach replied:

“Well — you might think that. I don’t know. (LAUGHS) In terms of — my relationship with so many, many young people. I would — I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and — and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have — I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.”

Phyllis Schlafly must be very proud of her little Roger, who, of course, politicizes this ugly mess.

The mandatory reporting law is a direct attack on the autonomy of the American family. Many parents have practices that provoke the disapproval of others. All it takes is one anonymous call to CPS, and a govt social worker will knock on the door and threaten to put the kids in foster care. There is no due process. The upshot is that know-nothing social workers are redefining how American children are to be reared, and this is a change for the worse.

And it is only going to get worse, as the Democrats want to expand the mandatory reporting.

[...]

I would not be surprised if this Penn State witch-hunt concludes by the state paying millions of dollars in bogus lawsuits, and no one found guilty of anything. Plus a horrible new anti-family law.

Pro-children is anti-family. Remember that at the next witch-hunt. (As if these hateful religious freaks are opposed to "witch-hunts." Who the fuck invented witch-hunting?)