What Do You Think of Penn State’s Punishments?

What Do You Think of Penn State’s Punishments?

by –  Mary A. LaClair

Were Penn State punishments too severe, just right or too shallow?

The question may be asked: was the judgment fair to some assumed innocent players who played hard for past victories ?   

Haboring a criminal is guilt by association even if ‘the protector’ didn’t do the crime themselves. There are reasons for these laws.  It could be concluded that with knowledge of the alleged incidents which they refused to confront they continued to ‘harbor a criminal’. Worse than harboring a criminal, this case permitted ongoing wrongs.

In addition to harboring a criminal, guilt by association is often a part of American justice for all. It is put there as a safeguard.  If there are drugs found in a vehicle all occupants are guilty by association. Common sense says: ‘be careful of the friends you choose because you will be judged by the company you keep.’  It is always good advice ‘to keep oneself above suspicion’.

Further, law regulates there are such things as ‘accessory before the fact, accessory to the fact and accessory after the fact.’  One need not be guilty of the deed, only enabling the deed, to be considered guilty of contributing to the deed itself.

Philosophically, ‘what one permits, one approves’ and ‘silence means approval’.  Sadly, this concept has been lost in much of today’s ‘too permissive’ society.  Accepting everything that’s dumped on one’s doorstep is to live in a garbage heap. America seems to be accumulating a lot of random acts of garbage.  Proper selection and proper de-selection must be decided upon. Even ‘no decision’ is a decision.  It is a decision to continue in the present state. Lack of this sorting action may come from fear of  making a false accusation – however investigation done properly is never wrong. Note the words ‘done properly’ which has no room for coercion or threats or mistreatment.

There is a delicate balance to be maintained; but we seem to have lost that balance today in favor of erroneous acceptance of everything, and the pendulum sometimes has to swing to the extreme in order to bring it back to proper balance.

I think the punishment for Penn State is quite appropriate and not overdone.  All schools are on notice now that the NCAA will not tolerate the sort of things that took place at Penn State.

‘What you compromise to keep; you lose.’ Penn State Football compromised themselves for the sake of their football team …and money; it appears that they have lost a large portion of each.                                                                    
Perhaps the fine could have been higher? Perhaps banned from having a football team at all ….for a period of four years? In view of that, the current punishment could be considered light?

As to the innocent players in the past… well, they need to know that it is not whether one wins or loses, but how one plays the game. The victorious players in past years had the enjoyment of playing the game – but we all need to learn that some victories do not last forever.

Is Gingrich Guilty of Double Standards?

Is Newt Gingrich Guilty of Duplicity?

–                      Mary A. LaClair

One dictionary describes hypocrisy as: double standards, duplicity, pretence, two-facedness.

Let’s take a look at this in the face of Gingrich’s words versus his actions.

In the last Florida debate Gingrich may be quoted as saying:

“It would be nice if you had the same standard for other people that you would like applied to you…”

Let’s check it out.  When ‘googling’ the words “Gingrich $300,000 ethics fine”, I found the following:

“The case against Gingrich began on Sept, 7, 1994, when former representative Ben Jones, who was then running against Gingrich, filed an ethics complaint. OnDec. 6, 1995, the ethics committee said the allegation was worth “further inquiry” and on Dec. 22, hired Cole to conduct the investigation. (On that) Last Sept. 26, the probe was expanded to investigate whether Gingrich provided “accurate, reliable and complete information’ to the panel.

“Gingrich is only the second House speaker to be charged with wrongdoing.  The first was Jim Wright who resigned in 1989 just 45 days after the ethics committee accused him of using bulk sales of books to get around House honoraria limits. That probe was triggered by a complaint filed by Gingrich.”

I also consider the fact that Gingrich was leading the charge against Clinton for having an extra-marital affair while Gingrich himself was still legally married and having an extended extra-marital, and not his first affair at that; but please be clear, I am not defending Clinton.

In view of these two cases of duplicity that we know of let’s take another look at Newt’s recent statement that:

“It would be nice if you had the same standard for other people that you would like applied to you…”.

            Is Newt Gringrich guilty of duplicity or double standards?  Is this the kind of personality we want as a diplomat to negotiate for us with foreign dignitaries?  You decide by the evidence.

Do you think the attitude of: “It’s OK for me, but wrong for you” thing that is troublesome? He appears to want to keep everyone else honest (yea) but he himself is a different story?

He continued on in that statement to say that ‘it would be nice if we didn’t enter into personal attacks’ yet that statement itself may be considered a personal attack. The more I listen to Newt Gingrich, the more he sounds to me like a fighting fifth grader and not an experienced debate person. I do not think he could conduct a refined debate with the party of the opposition, or with leaders of other countries.

In a refined debate, the two men on the end are far better competitors. Ron Paul has defused more than one hot argument. They are both squeaky clean.  Maybe that’s why the press steers away from them; perhaps there is less fodder for yellow journalism both now and in the future? What a sad reason for letting the press influence us!

I believe God is looking to prove both His power and His desire to be involved in mankind’s affairs, with man’s approval. To say that we like Santorum but say also that we don’t think he could get elected is like the Israelites not going down to the Red Sea. If the Israelites did not go down to the Red Sea because they didn’t see a way to get across, we would not have seen the Red Sea parted.                                                    – end –

Greed & Gingrich

GREED & GINGRICH

–  Mary A. LaClair

To help solve America’s problems, Greed needs to be eliminated from the top down. It needs to be eliminated in these places:

1. Government employees; i.e. Politics
2. Heads of corporations
3. People who think they are more important than they are

I believe the fact that Gingrich accepted at least $1M from Freddie Mac, even as a private consultant, is inexcusable in my mind. Obviously his consulting did no good because Freddie Mac has failed miserably. I believe Gingrich is part of the problem and falls into the third category above, therefore, I believe he will only be a part of the continuing problem without offering a solution and encourage others to be greedy by example. We need to recognize and end greed, not recognize and accept it.

I believe that his idea of allowing child labor is absolutely abhorrent. Child labor laws were instituted for a reason. How many others see this as an open door to future child abuse? Does he expect children to know when the law is being exceeded, or when ‘the envelope is being pushed’ in regard to their labor? Not all adults are nice. It would be unreasonable for anyone to expect otherwise. Some gym teachers can be sadistic. Too many adults are expecting children to be adults before their time. This cannot be denied: just look at toddlers and tiaras, child sex abuse, etc…this is all the fault of misguided adults, and sometimes sick-o-s.

Where ever limits are found, even in marriages, limits always have a way of getting stretched.

Gingrich seems to have stretched the limits in his marriages and in his consulting fees.

I would not let Newt baby-sit my children for one hour!

I do not like his ideas on new National child labor laws of any kind!