July 12, 2012

After One Murder of Many Chile Signs Anti Discrimination Law


Just like it happened in many cities in the USA, it took the deaths of innocent gays or people suspected of being gay(B’klyn,Queens, NY etc.) to move the hearts of the general population to put pressure in the government to change. It’s now happened in Chile. What a shame that the people we put in the government ‘always’ take the easy way out and do nothing but complaint that they follow the will of the people, or the church or the narcos or somebody for them to not have “cojones” and do what is “just” and right. An anti discrimination law is not much, but it’s a great start. May be the Chilean government would decide to protect all of its people.  adamfoxie*
Chile’s president signed an anti-discrimination law Thursday following the killing of a gay man beaten by attackers who carved swastikas into his body. The law was approved in May after being stuck in Congress for seven years. President Sebastian Pinera had urged lawmakers to speed its approval after the slaying of Daniel Zamudio in March set off a national debate about hate crimes in Chile.
daniel-zamudio-chile.jpg
A man lights candles March 30 illuminating posters of Chilean Daniel Zamudio that read in Spanish: "Homophobia kills," outside Chile's embassy in Buenos Aires, Argentina. March 30 2012
Zamudio was found beaten and mutilated in a city park, with swastikas carved into his body. The U.N. human rights office had urged Chile to pass legislation against hate crimes and discrimination after the killing. Many people in Chile refer to the new measure, which enables people to file anti-discrimination lawsuits and adds hate-crime sentences for violent crimes, as the Zamudio law.
"Without a doubt, Daniel's death was painful but it was not in vain," Pinera said at a press conference joined by Zamudio's parents.
"His passing not only unified wills to finally approve this anti-discrimination law but it also helped us examine our conscience and ask ourselves: have we ever discriminated someone? ... After his death we'll think twice, thrice or four times before we fall prey to that behavior."
Four suspects, some with criminal records for attacks on homosexuals, have been jailed in Zamudio's killing. Prosecutors are seeking murder charges.
Chile remains among the most socially conservative countries in Latin America. It legalized divorce in 2004, becoming one of the last nations in the world to grant married couples that right.
Some Protestant churches had opposed the anti-discrimination law, saying it could be a first step toward gay marriage, which Chile forbids and which is not explicitly included in the measure.
The Roman Catholic Church, which retains a strong influence over Chilean society, also expressed some concerns about the law, but gay and human rights activists hailed the measure as a step toward equality.
"This law is a giant leap toward creating tools that can prevent and punish discrimination," Gay Liberation and Integration Movement President Rolando Jimenez told the Associated Press. "There's still a lot to be done and we need the institutions to enforce it."
Lawmakers are also preparing to debate a civil union law proposed by Pinera that would grant inheritance and other rights to same-sex couples.
Luis Andres Henao of The Associated Press wrote this report. Federico Quilodran contributed.

If I Tell you the proceeds go to LGTB Orgs..would you take a look?..u will buy Im sure, because it’s beautiful merchandise, procured and inventory checked by Adamfoxie* himself

Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!|||| latest street fashion online

Should You Tell Your Partner About Your Cheating?


On the ethics of confessing to an affair

Let’s say you’ve cheated on your partner. (Not you, of course—you would never! Just play along.) You’ve had an affair and it’s over. Never mind why you did it and the right and wrong of the affair itself—these are important issues, no doubt, but they're not our present concern. Assuming you want your relationship to continue, the question you must face now is: should I tell my partner about the affair?
As we did with the ethics of adultery itself, we can ask what the three basic schools of moral philosophy—utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics—have to say about the issue.
Utilitarianism would guide you to tell your partner about the affair only if you would create more happiness (or less unhappiness) for everybody involved in the situation than you would by keeping the affair a secret. As simple as this may seem, this process is crucially dependent on countless factors, some of them based on the persons involved and others on how the decision will play out over time (which is anyone’s guess). If you tell your partner, how will he or she take it? How will your partner’s appreciation of your honesty compare to his or her disappointment andanger at what happened? Confession may make you feel better (or not), but does this justify hurting your spouse (above and beyond the implicit harm of the affair)—and should your happiness be considered at all given what you’ve done?
If that weren't enough, utilitarianism asks you to consider all the people affected by your decision. So, what about other people in your personal sphere, such as friends, family, and possibly children—how will they be affected? And what will happen to everybody involved over time as the revelation plays out? And if you don’t confess, what ramifications will thathave—assuming the affair isn’t revealed eventually by someone else?
Utilitarianism is great for simple, back-of-the-envelope comparisons of good and bad, and it has the benefit of including the harm imposed on everyone affected. But for complicated moral problems dealing with many people, uncertain emotional reactions, and unpredictable ramifications, it often raises more questions than it answers. So onto the next school of ethics...
Deontology would ask you to assess the intrinsic morality of secrecy and confession themselves rather than their consequences. This has the benefit of sidestepping all the contingencies involved in the utilitarian approach, such as how your partner would take it and what would happen to your relationship going forward. But it actually doesn’t simplify things much overall, because the morality of truth-telling is not as clear-cut as it might seem. While lying is considered wrong in general deontological terms, there is no corresponding duty or obligation to tell the truth rather than keeping quiet, and any such requirement would depend on the particular situation. Certainly, if your partner asks you directly whether you had an affair, you would have an obligation to tell the truth—your partner reasonably expects as much. But if he or she suspects nothing and never asks about an affair, it is difficult to argue that spontaneous revelation is morally required (without resorting to utilitarian arguments like those above).
Deontology seems to offer a simple black-and-white solution to moral dilemmas that avoids the comparisons of hard-to-determine costs and benefits. But when you really delve into matters of right and wrong, they end up being almost as complicated—and just as deeply rooted in the specifics of the situation—as utilitarianism. (I could say that instead of black-and-white, we end up with fifty shades of grey, but that would be shameless Google pandering. Oh well... call me maybe!)

Virtue ethics focuses on moral character more than actions themselves, and therefore would have you ask what a virtuous person would do in your situation. Of course, a virtuous person would probably not have had an affair in the first place, but that doesn’t mean you can’t start practicing virtue now! Given that you did have an affair, what would a person of good moral character—the kind of person you want to be—do next? Would a virtuous person be honest even at the cost of hurting the one you love and risking your relationship, and or would a virtuous person practice discretion, suffering internally with the torment of what you did, and instead focusing your efforts on improving your relationship from this point on (and making sure you don’t repeat your mistake)? Hard to say—they both sound good, and they both sound virtuous in their own ways.
Virtue ethics abstracts from actions to focus on character, and in this way it presents itself as a long-term approach to moral behavior, investing in sound decision-making rather than evaluating one choice at a time. But without a strong foundation of what counts as a virtue—on which our greatest virtue ethicists disagree—it is hard to get a direct answer on what the virtuous person would do in the situation you’re in.
So what should you do when faced with the decision whether to tell your partner about your affair? The three basic schools of ethics don’t seem to be much help. They all concluded that adultery itself is generally immoral, but they seem much more ambiguous on the issue of confessing an affair.
Here's what I suggest. Ask yourself: what kind of relationship do you want? Chances are that you want a relationship built on trust, from which secure emotional and physical intimacy can develop. This doesn’t mean that each of you can’t have some secrets or that you have to tell each other everything that pops into your head. But you need to tell each other the important things, the things you both expect to know, the things that are relevant to the foundations of your relationship and that have the potential to affect it—in other words, the things on which the trust essential to your relationship is based. And what has more potential effect on your relationship and the trust holding it together than an affair?
Sure, it’s hard to tell your partner about an affair. It’s hard because it will hurt him or her. it’s hard because it may potentially destroy your relationship. And it’s hard because you are revealing a personal failing, something you are ashamed of and something that may make your partner think less of you. But look at it this way: you already betrayed your partner and compromised your relationship by having the affair. These facts will never go away, regardless of whether or not you tell your partner. But confessing your affair is the first step towards repairing the harm you’ve done by having it.
You may think you can bury the secret, resolve never to cheat again, and focus on making your relationship the best it can be from now on. But it will still be a relationship based on a cracked foundation, even if only you can see the cracks. Out of respect for your partner, you need to let him or her see the cracks too, because only then can you try to heal the relationship together.

Of course, your partner may not want to work on the relationship once you confess to the affair. But don’t keep your affair a secret just to save the relationship—that isn’t fair to your partner, and only serves to preserve a relationship with cracks that will inevitably spread. You owe it to your partner to let him or her make that decision with all the information you can provide. You don’t want the relationship to end, but neither do you want your partner to stay with you out of ignorance, mistakenly believing that you’ve been loyal. The fact is, you haven’t—and your partner deserves to know that so he or she can decide whether to give you another chance.
So my advice is to tell your partner about the affair, primarily out of respect for him or her—and your relationship.



{Proceeds go to LGTB Orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

Scientists Now Know How Tyrannosauraus Made Luv


 

 WRITTEN BY ROBOPANDA
Photoshopped by Matt Ufford.
How exactly the dinosaurs mated despite their huge weight, scaly bits, badonkadonks, boney plates, and spikes has been a thing of speculation in science circles for awhile. Those circles are usually found in dark, smoke-filled rooms where dignity goes to die. And speaking of lost dignity, The Discovery Channel even did a Valentine’s Day special a couple of years ago on the subject of Tyrannosauraus Sex. How did they not get an Emmy for that? We didn’t watch the program, but we imagine it went like this:
Now we have even more insight into how these enormous beasts made with the two backs. Reports Blastr:
The answer is actually pretty simple. Male dinosaurs mounted female dinosaurs from behind. Like modern birds and reptiles, dinosaurs had a single orifice for both reproduction and waste disposal, called a cloaca. To mate, they simply need to press the openings together for a “cloacal kiss,” though it’s been noted that some male dinosaurs possibly did have penises to help them along (it’s even been suggested that male tyrannosaurs packed a member as big as 12 feet in length).
Twelve feet, huh? Or did it just look that large next to their tiny arms? Pfft, whatever. You think you’re better than us, T. Rex? Can you fold a pillowcase? Yeah. Didn’t think so. Loser.
Anyway, in the interests of science (our excuse for everything), we have several artists’ renderings of what dinosaur sexy time may have looked like. We’d also like to buy Jose Antonio Penas a drink.

{Proceeds go to LGTB Orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

Handsome Russian Gay Activist Nikolai, Released by Moscow



Nikolay Alekseev at Moscow pride in 2006
Russian gay rights activist Nikolai Alekseev says he will seek compensation after a court cleared him of illegally organizing a gay pride protest in Moscow.
LGBT campaigners defied a ban on a pride rally in Russia’s capital by picketing the country’s parliament, the Duma, and city hall on 27 May.
Police arrested 40 people, including Alekseev, for holding an unauthorized demonstration to mark the anniversary of the abolition of an anti-gay sodomy law in 1993.
Alekseev was charged with organizing the event, but a judge on Tuesday (11 July) acquitted the journalist who claimed he did not take a leading role in the protest.
He told Gay Star News that video footage of him at the demonstration provided clear proof of his involvement.
‘It was obvious that I was alone and just trying to talk to the journalists,’ he said.
‘The police were insisting that I was the organizer of the event. I was basically guiding people who were close to me or just appearing on the square.’
Alekseev added: ‘As soon as the decision comes into force I am planning to ask for compensation from the government for illegal arrest and for illegal detention.’
The campaigner told GSN he will also appeal the decision to ban gay pride at Moscow City Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
In defiance, Alekseev claimed to have found a loophole in Russian legislation and submitted requests for gay pride parades for the next 100 years to the Moscow Mayor’s office.
But the Moscow city court has now upheld the refusal of Alekseev's requests.



{Proceeds to Gay orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

This FL Weatherman Arrested as a Pedophile} What is The Age of Consent?



 WPTV NewsChannel 5 weatherman Robert J. Lopicola’s first appearance in court has been delayed until Wednesday morning after being arrested Monday on charges related to unlawful sexual activity with minors he met through Craigslist.

Former WPTV NewsChannel 5 weatherman Robert J. Lopicola’s first
 appearance in court has been delayed until Wednesday on charges 
related to unlawful sexual activity with minors he met through Craigslist.


POLICE HANDOUT

 Robert Lopicola

Cloudy with a good chance of going to prison was the forecast Tuesday for a muscle-bound former Florida weatherman who is accused of having sex with two teenage boys.
Rob Lopicola, who was once a popular fixture on WPTV in West Palm Beach, was revealed in arrest affidavits to be predator with a pierced penis who made no secret about his desire for young guys — and wanted them to call him “Dad.”
“That’s why I like young,” he wrote in one sick message to a 15-year-old who now lives in Michigan. “And 15 is perfect baby. 10th or 9th grade?”
Lopicola was arrested Monday and charged with lewd or lascivious battery, computer pornography and child exploitation, and unlawful sexual activity with minors.
The Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office says the charges against Lopicola stem from two separate incidents dating back to 2010.
In the first, Lopicola had sex with a 15-year-old from Boca Raton he met via a Craigslist ad.
The teenager told cops he initially lied to Lopicola about being 18 and that the former weatherman was pleased when he fessed up to being 15. He said they wound up having sex in Lopicola’s car.
Lopicola and the boy continued to correspond when he moved to a Detroit suburb and much of the filthy back and forth is contained in the arrest affidavit.
In the second incident, the mother of a 17-year-old high school junior in West Palm Beach came home and discovered a naked Lopicola cowering in her shower.
The teenager told cops he answered Lopicola’s Craigslist ad and that the ex-weatherman came over to his house for sex.
Lopicola’s sudden departure from the TV station in 2006 — despite high ratings and praise for his hurricane coverage — was never explained.
After leaving the weather beat, Lopicola became a personal trainer and then a timeshare salesman. When he was busted, Lopicola was tending bar and working as a stripper at a local gay bar. 

If anybody wonders out there,  at what age  can you be pegged as a sex offender or pedophile? As per Wikipedia, "The ages of consent in North America for sexual activity vary by jurisdiction.
While the phrase age of consent rarely appears in legal statutes, when used in relation to sexual activity, the age of consent is the minimum age at which a person is considered to be legally competent to consent to sexual acts. It should not be confused with the age of majority, age of criminal responsibility, the marriageable age, the voting age, the drinking age, driving age, or other purposes. Laws vary widely, and while most jurisdictions set the age of consent in the range 15 to 18, ages of consent as low as 13 and as high as 20 exist.
The age of consent in Canada is 16. All U.S. states set their limits between 16 and 18. 

The age of consent varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  The relevant age may also vary by the type of sexual act, the gender of the actors, or other restrictions such as abuse of a position of trust. Some jurisdictions may also make allowances for minors engaged in sexual acts with each other, rather than a single age. Charges resulting from a breach of these laws may range from a misdemeanor such as corruption of a minor, to what is popularly called statutory rape (which is considered equivalent to rape, both in severity and sentencing).”
Your responsibility as a single adult is to know the age in your city and state…that is if you are into guys younger than you. Saying that the guy lied to you, particularly if he or she looks very young will get you a guilty verdict. A guilty verdict will get you jail, fines and marked for life and in a predator’s list for life. As in any circumstance that puts your hand on the trigger…..this time could be the rule of chance if you are not actively looking for it…….My advise to you is..Think before you shoot.
adamfoxie


{Proceeds to Gay Orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

Bradley Manning’s Been Treated Worse Than Saddam Hussein

 
The lawyer defending Bradley Manning against charges that he "aided the enemy" by disclosing state secrets to the whistleblower websiteWikiLeaks, is arguing that US soldiers are being treated more harshly in application of the law than terrorists.
David Coombs, the civilian lawyer who has been representing the soldier for the past two years after he was arrested in Iraq on suspicion of being the WikiLeaks source, will be pressing his case in a military court next week. In a motion that he has lodged with the court as part of the lead up to a full court martial, he warns that unless the "aiding the enemy" charge is clarified it would leave Manning in a more onerous legal position than terrorists facing exactly the same count.
"It defies all logic to think that a terrorist would fare better in an American court for aiding the enemy than a US soldier would," Coombs writes in the motion.
Aiding the enemy is the most serious of the 22 counts that Manning is facing. In the rank of military charges, it is rated very close to treason and technically carries the death penalty, though the prosecution in this case have indicated that they will not push for that.
The charge alleges that between November 2009 and 27 May 2010, when Manning was arrested at a military base outside Baghdad, he "knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy through indirect means". In court deliberations, it has been further clarified that the charge refers to the transmitting of "classified documents to the enemy through the WikiLeaks website".
The US government has added in later legal debate that the "enemy" to which it is referring is al-Qaida and al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, as well as a terrorist group whose identity has not been made public.
The allegations relate to the passing of hundreds of thousands of US state secrets, including embassy cables from around the world and war logs from Iraq and Afghanistan, that caused a worldwide sensation when they were published by WikiLeaks via several international news organisations led by the Guardian.
Next week the soldier and his defence team will be back in military court in Fort Meade, Maryland, in the latest of a succession of pre-trial hearings to hammer out the terms of the eventual court martial. Previous engagements have led to sparky interactions between Coombs and the army prosecutors seeking to condemn Manning possibly to spending the rest of his life in military custody.
The most significant discussion at next week's proceedings will revolve around the precise legal definition of what "aiding the enemy" means – specifically its allegation that Manning "knowingly gave intelligence to the enemy". The judge presiding over Manning's trial, Colonel Denise Lind, has ruled that the soldier must have had "actual knowlege" that he was giving intelligence to enemy for the charge to be proven.
Coombs will next week attempt to gain further clarification that would raise the legal bar much higher. In his motion he argues that it is a truism in the age of the internet, any posted material is potentially accessible to anybody.
To accuse Manning of having aided the enemy by transmitting intelligence to WikiLeaks that could then be accessed by al-Qaida would remove any sense of him "knowingly" doing so. He writes that this would "render the 'actual knowledge' element utterly toothless in all internet-intelligence
cases."
Coombs highlights an apparent absurdity in the way the law is being applied. In cases where terrorist suspects are brought before military commissions, such as those at Guantanamo, and accused of the very same charge as Manning, the military prosecutors have to prove that the defendant "knowingly and intentionally" aided the enemy. Yet in the case of a US soldier, intentionality is not mentioned.
The defence calls this a "very troublesome absurdity". Coombs states: "For the exact same conduct, a terrorist would benefit from a friendlier mens rea [guilty mind] than a soldier would. Congress could not have intended to give terrorists a more protective mens rea than it gave to soldiers."
If the defence motion is successful next week, Manning would be held to the same standard as terrorists. In other words, the government would have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had transmitted state secrets through WikiLeaks knowing and crucially intending that they would be helpful to al-Qaida and other enemies of the US.
The trial is scheduled for September, but may be pushed back as a result of lengthy legal wrangling and the slow pace at which the prosecution has been disclosing vital information to the defence

 in New York 
guardian.co.uk


{Proceeds to LGTB Orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

Did Anderson Come Out Only so He Could Marry?


ANDERSON Cooper‘s mom wants him to marry his boyfriend!
Sources say Gloria Vanderbelt is desperate for the CNN journalist to settle down with club owner Benjamin Maisini so she can get another grandchild, according to American tabloid the National Enquirer.
“Anderson and Ben are in love, but they were on the verge of breaking up,” a source said.
“Between Anderson’s dangerous work assignments and Ben’s crazy hours at the club, the guys reached an impasse.
“At her age, Gloria is desperate to see her son settle down and make a family. So she got right in the middle of things, and reminded each of them how lucky they are to have found love and to stop being so demanding.
“Then Ben said his real worry is that Anderson’s job keeps him in danger. Pretty soon they got a decent dialogue going and the breakup was averted.
(source)

I just need to ask.  Did he feel the need to come out now so he could marry?


{Proceeds to LGTB Orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

Paterno was the “Bomb” in PennState Child Abuse Cover Up


Jerry Sandusky case: Who's who
Joe Paterno and other top Penn State officials buried child sexual abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky more than a decade ago to avoid bad publicity, according to a scathing report Thursday that exposed a powerful "culture of reverence" for the football program and portrayed the Hall of Fame coach as more deeply involved in the scandal than previously thought.


The alleged cover-up by Paterno, then-university President Graham Spanier and two other Penn State administrators allowed Sandusky to prey on other boys for years, said the report by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who was hired by the university's trustees to investigate.
He called the officials' behavior "callous and shocking."
"Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State," Freeh said at a news conference in Philadelphia upon the release of the 267-page report. "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized."
The findings of the eight-month investigation into one of the biggest scandals in the history of college sports could further stain Paterno's reputation. The revered coach who emphasized integrity both on and off the field and ran what was considered one of the cleanest programs in sports died of lung cancer in January at age 85, months after he was summarily fired by the trustees.
Freeh said that while he regretted the damage the findings would do to Paterno's "terrific legacy," the coach "was an integral part of this active decision to conceal" and his firing was justified.
Asked whether the actions of the four officials amounted to a crime such as conspiracy or obstruction, Freeh said that would be up to a grand jury.
In a statement, Paterno's family vehemently denied he protected Sandusky for fear of bad publicity.
"The idea that any sane, responsible adult would knowingly cover up for a child predator is impossible to accept. The far more realistic conclusion is that many people didn't fully understand what was happening and underestimated or misinterpreted events," the family said. "Sandusky was a great deceiver. He fooled everyone."
The report could have consequences for the criminal case against Penn State athletic director Tim Curley and retired senior vice president Gary Schultz, who are awaiting trial on charges of lying to a grand jury and failing to report abuse.
Freeh and his team, which included lawyers and former law enforcement officials, interviewed more than 430 people and reviewed more than 3.5 million emails, handwritten notes and other documents. Paterno died before he could be interviewed but testified before a grand jury.
Sandusky is awaiting sentencing after being convicted last month of sexually abusing 10 boys over 15 years.
The investigation focused largely on the university officials' decision not to go to child-welfare authorities in 2001 after a graduate coaching assistant told Paterno that he had seen Sandusky — a former assistant coach himself — sexually abusing a boy in the locker room showers.
Paterno and the others gave various explanations for their decision, saying among other things that they misunderstood the allegations, that they did the best they could and that this was the "humane" way to handle the matter.
But the Freeh report said: "It is more reasonable to conclude that, in order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university — Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley — repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from authorities, the university's board of trustees, the Penn State community and the public at large."
A number of other factors contributed to the decision to keep quiet, the report found, including "a culture of reverence for the football program that is ingrained at all levels of the campus community."
Spreading the blame around, the report also said the trustees failed to exercise oversight and didn't inquire deeply into the matter when they finally learned of it.
Spanier's lawyers Thursday denied Spanier took part in a cover-up and said Freeh's conclusion "is simply not supported by the facts." Spanier was ousted along with Paterno four days after Sandusky's arrest last November.
An attorney for Curley had no immediate comment, and a lawyer for Schultz did not return messages.
Freeh said officials had opportunities in 1998 and 2001 to step in.
In 1998, police investigated after a woman complained that her son had showered with Sandusky. The investigation did not result in charges. But the emails show Paterno closely followed the 1998 case, Freeh said. University officials took no action at the time to limit Sandusky's access to campus.
Then, after the 2001 report of Sandusky sexually abusing a boy in the showers, university officials barred him from bringing children to campus but decided not to report him to child-welfare authorities.
Some of the most damning evidence against Paterno consists of handwritten notes and emails that portray him as deeply involved in that decision. According to the report, Spanier, Schultz and Curley drew up an "action plan" that called for reporting Sandusky to the state Department of Public Welfare. But Curley later said in an email that he changed his mind about the plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe." Instead, Curley proposed to offer Sandusky "professional help."
In an email, Spanier agreed with that course of action but noted "the only downside for us is if the message isn't (heard) and acted upon and we then become vulnerable for not having reported it."
Freeh suggested it was Paterno's intervention that kept administrators from going to authorities. "Based on the evidence, the only known intervening factor ... was Mr. Paterno's Feb. 26 conversation with Mr. Curley," Freeh said.
Michael Boni, a lawyer for a boy known as Victim 1, called the report a "serious indictment against Penn State's culture and environment of protecting at all costs the football program." He added: "Nothing is shocking anymore in this case ... but the fact that the highest levels of the school made a conscious decision to cover up what Sandusky had done, it comes close. It is shocking."
Karen Peetz, chairwoman of the trustees, said the board "accepts full responsibility for the failures that occurred." She said the panel believes Paterno's "61 years of excellent service to the university is now marred" by the scandal.
The report chronicled a culture of silence that extended from the president down to the janitors in the football building. Even before 1998, football staff members and coaches regularly saw Sandusky showering with boys but never told their superiors about it. In 2000, after a janitor saw Sandusky performing oral sex on a boy in the team shower, he told his co-workers. None of them went to police for fear of losing their jobs.
Reporting the assault "would have been like going against the president of the United States in my eyes," a janitor told Freeh's investigators. "I know Paterno has so much power, if he wanted to get rid of someone, I would have been gone." He went on to assert that "football runs this university."
According to the report, Sandusky was permitted to retire from the university in 1999 "not as a suspected child predator but as a valued member of the Penn State football legacy" — thus ensuring his access to football events and campus facilities. That, in turn, "provided Sandusky with the very currency that enabled him to attract his victims."
Sandusky received what Freeh called an unprecedented lump sum of $168,000 when he retired. But the former FBI chief said there was no evidence it was an attempt by the university to buy Sandusky's silence.
The report could influence investigations under way at the NCAA and at the U.S. Education Department, which is examining whether the university violated the Clery Act, a federal law that requires reporting of certain crimes on campus. The Freeh report said the Penn State apparently failed to comply with the law. Neither the Education Department nor the NCAA would comment directly on the report.
George Enteen, 79, a retired professor of Russian history, called the Freeh report a "terrible mark" on the character of Paterno, a man he otherwise respected as someone who raised a lot money for Penn State and elevated the school's reputation and academic quality.
"The worst suspicions were borne out," Enteen said. Paterno, he added, "was the key figure. If he had said, 'Report it,' they would have." But he said: "It doesn't negate all the good things he did."
Christian Beveridge, a masonry worker who grew up near Penn State, said the findings will damage Paterno's legacy.
"He built this town," Beveridge said. "All of his victories, he'll be remembered by everyone in town for a long time, but there will be that hesitation.”


{Proceeds to LGTB Orgs}
Love And Pride Sale! Up to 70% OFF on Selected Products Buy Now! Special offers and sales for all products! Up to 70% off, Free Shipping! Buy Now!||||

SEARCH This BLOG

Loading...

Amazon SearchBox/ Most Things You buy through here will give us a few cents

Popular Posts

The Forest Needs help

ONE

ONE
Relief World Hunger

Save The Lungs of The Earth

Orangutans ARE Part of the Forest

Love is Sharing

Pride Shack

Gay Male Pride Items #1 (Vertical Banner)

Click Here To Get Anything by Amazon- That will keep US Going

Young Love Collection

CDC

SiGn ThE PeTiTiOn

DVD's

HIV Army

Blog Archive