In episode after episode this year the House has refused to approve the President’s appointees to government positions, forcing Mr. Obama to resort to the tried-and-true stratagem of using recess appointments. This is the back-door process whereby a president temporarily appoints a position while Congress is away on vacation spraying-on their tans. Chief executives from both parties have resorted to this for decades as Congress has become more intransigent in its insistence that doing nothing is the best way for it to do everything.

But this year House Speaker John Boehner has come-up with a counter-strategy: each day a skeleton crew of Representatives calls a “pro forma” session on the House floor, essentially calling Congress to order for about 30 seconds to declare no business will be done for the day, then gaveling the session closed. This means, technically, Congress is in session and there is no recess even though 99.9% of representatives aren’t even in Washington.

President Obama decided to test this pretense by making recess appointments to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the National Labor Relations Board. Republican representatives are now changing out of their Bermuda shorts and aloha shirts to get back into suits and ties and attack the President via local video feeds, calling his appointments unconstitutional and an abuse of power. And they may actually technically have the law on their side. It’s just unfortunate their own acts rob them of any credibility or ethical standing.

Mr. Boehner, in particular, has again shown Americans there is no low he will not stoop to in his campaign to negate the power of the Presidency as long as it is held by a black liberal. In his attempts to satisfy the extremist element in his party he has painted himself as an obstructionist of the first caliber, who will not even balk at destroying the U.S. economy and middle class. His rallying cry seems to be “whatever it takes”, regardless of consequences.

The Speaker has demonstrated his lack of governing ability in his stonewalling and unwillingness to compromise during last year’s budget and deficit negotiations, and is now perverting the rules of Congress to keep any attempt to repair the damage he has done from proceeding. It seems everything Mr. Boehner does is strictly legal and wholly inexcusable.

Once all the election dust settles, whether Barack Obama is reelected or not you can expect these legislative shenanigans to end-up with the Supreme Court in one way or another. Then we will see the spectacle of judicial light illuminating legislative ideological mania.

Why? That’s a question people have been asking for a long, long time, or at least since about 1972 when the Iowa “process” became the first electoral event of the national campaign season. This was brought about in part by the George McGovern campaign of that year – McGovern’s state co-chair Norma S. Matthews led the move to move the Iowa Democratic caucuses to January. In 1976 the Republicans moved their caucuses to January as well. And ever since Iowa has been the scene of a political and media frenzy that takes place against a frozen backdrop of mid-western stoicism.

Because even though only about one percent of the delegates to the national nominating conventions are chosen in Iowa, and only about 100,000 people in total will decide which one of the half-dozen GOP candidates will win in Iowa, native Iowans take the process very seriously. The whole deal is serious Business with a capital “B”: the candidates spend Big Money, the media spends Big Money, and those 100,000 Iowans themselves cut some Big Deals as they trade votes.

The reason the candidates and media take this thing so seriously isn’t tough to judge. For the candidates it’s the first 1/100th of a lap out of the starting gate. For the media it’s a huge release of tension after months of polling and speculation. But for those 100,000 Iowans who will do the voting, it’s all about the deals.

Now, Iowans like to promote a very egalitarian, folksy image of their caucus process. The front story is they tromp through snow and ice to some neighbor’s house where they drink coffee, eat cookies, and have deep and stirring discussions about the nation and the candidates. But the back side of the story is they are taking part in an old American tradition of horse-trading. Literally stuff like the following is going on:

“So, Bill, I noticed your driveway is looking pretty sad these days. And since I own a construction company how about if I dump a few truckloads of asphalt in your and all your neighbors’ yards, and you vote for Santorum instead of Romney?”

“You can’t be seriously thinking of voting for Ron Paul, Thelma! And I’m sure if you want to know who it is your husband has been seeing on the side, you’ll give me your vote for Bachmann!”

“I might be convinced to vote for that housing development you want to build when it comes before the planning commission if I can count on your vote for Mitt, Clyde.”

And so on.

When it comes down to it, people aren’t really going to be all that gung-ho to freeze their butts off just to cast a losing vote for Rick Perry in someone else’s living room. But if they might get some landscaping out of it, well that’s something else. It’s not like their butt won’t defrost at some point. And then there are the cookies to be had.

Realize that these 100,000 souls are only about 20% or-so of all the registered Republicans in Iowa’s 99 counties. Maybe a bit more. I recently heard someone compare this to a small city like, say, Napa, California. If Napa, California went all-in for Newt Gingrich, you probably wouldn’t hear much about it on CNN or Fox News. It would be just one town in one county in one state. But when the same number of people pick a candidate in Iowa, that’s front page banner headline stuff that will be bounced all over the world within seconds of the vote tally. Because they’re first. And that’s pretty-much the only reason.

The attention Iowa is basted in certainly isn’t because of their great record of predicting winners. In fact, since 1976 Iowa is shooting about 50% for predicting the party candidates for president, and about 25% for predicting the Presidential winner. Vegas does better than that.

Unfortunately Ron Paul’s simplistic vision has several problems associated with it, not the least being it’s impossible to achieve.

Look at the current stock market mess: the market has fallen because of the European economic crisis. The reason is American financial companies are heavily invested in European debt. How will Ron Paul extricate us from this so we can return to the bliss of isolationism? By writing-off those bond holdings and causing those American companies to fail? Congress and its lobbyist masters will never let that happen.

What of the foreign investment in Middle Eastern oil? Right now western corporations are investing in Kurdish oil in a massive black gold rush. That investment ties us into the Kurdistan vs. Baghdad political wrangle – and puts us on the Kurdish side of the fence. When (not “if”) Iraq falls into civil war, will we just stand aside and watch this massive western investment go up in smoke? That seems unlikely.

What about China? They are building aircraft carriers and continue to rattle sabers over Taiwan’s existence as an independent state – a state the U.S. has supported for half a century. Will we simply renege on our commitments to the Taiwanese and let China absorb them?

Ron Paul’s vision is of an America that is free of its foreign entanglements, yet also fully invested in a capitalist free enterprise system that excludes all government regulation and control. He wants the “markets” to be free to decide our economic destiny. But this ignores the nature of 21st century corporate operations: there are no wholly “American” corporations anymore – they are firmly embedded in the world economy and their interests are global interests. The U.S. military is an arm of corporate policy, and will continue to be so in the future. Will Ron Paul dismantle the U.S. corporate/military complex?

No.

As with all our politicians, Ron Paul talks a lot and ignores reality. The President of the United States has no ability to effect long-term change of American policies because the position is temporary. The idea is that the President drives policy through the exercise of leadership – but leadership only works if there is a government willing to be led. We haven’t had that for some time.

The Fire is an Android 2.x device featuring a 7-inch LCD display, a 1 GHz dual-core nVidia processor, 8 GB of storage, and 512 MB of RAM. The Android operating system is submerged under a proprietary Amazon interface designed to focus on Amazon-supplied content.  The device has wi-fi connectivity only, offers a single USB micro-port, a stereo mini-plug for sound output, and a pushbutton on/off/sleep switch.

The only accessory that ships with the Fire is a wall wart charging adapter that plugs into the USB micro-port.  Battery life can vary from 4 to 8 hours depending on what you do with it: as a straight document reader you will get maximum charge life; as a video player you can run about 4 hours of video content; the Web browser and audio player will get you something in-between. The Fire takes approximately 4 hours to fully charge from “dead”.

The Kindle Fire is definitely a Kindle – this is not a general purpose Android tablet and makes no pretense to being so. The Fire does what it is designed to do very well, and that is to deliver Amazon content in a fairly painless fashion.

The interface is as simple as possible. The home screen is a virtual bookshelf. The top shelf displays all recently used books, magazines, videos, songs, and apps in a cover flow style of flipping icons. The shelves below display “favorites” that you specifically place there to be always available. There seems to be no facility for organizing items into groups or collections as on the other Kindles. There are individual screens for books, magazines and newspapers, music, video, and apps. Content can be stored on the device or in Amazon’s “cloud” – and it is here we encounter the first problem.

When I first turned the Fire on I found all my previously purchased Kindle books right there on the top shelf – stored in the cloud and accessible with a finger tap – well, maybe. First of all the touch response is a bit wonky, and getting the icon you want situated at the left-end of the top shelf can be tricky. You quickly learn to move at the Fire’s speed and not your own. It can take a few taps to get a document to open.

The second problem reared its head the second time I started the Fire: all my cloud content was gone. Just gone.  A quick Google search revealed I was not alone here, and most people seemed to overcome this problem by doing a complete factory reset of the device. As this rather extreme measure wipes all of your account info from the device, necessitating entry of all your information and resync to Amazon’s servers, I opted for a different route. I instead went into my Amazon account via my computer, and used the Kindle management facilities to send items to the Fire that I wanted stored on it. This amounted to a few dozen books I’m currently reading or going to read in the near future, plus some reference works I like to have on hand. Now the only stuff to show up in the cloud is new content I purchase specifically for the Fire. At least until the next time it decides to dump it all.

Many of the Fire’s benefits are at the same time failings. The 7-inch screen makes the device small enough to hold in one hand, but it also makes some content difficult to use. Magazines especially are blessed and damned here: the formatting and illustrations appear clear, bright, and crisp – but the type is generally much too small to actually read. This forces you into the cycle of “unpinch” to zoom in and read, then “pinch” to zoom down and look at a whole page. You get used to it, but you don’t like it. The 10-inch tablets are definitely winning here.

The touch system makes navigating documents much quicker and easier than the iInk Kindle’s cursor and paging buttons. But it also makes holding the Fire something of a pain because you can no longer place your thumb on the glass – if you do you will inadvertently turn the page or highlight text and call-up the dictionary or copy/paste functions. A cover will probably make holding the Fire easier, but will also make it bulkier – and it’s plenty thick on its own.

As an app platform the Fire is hindered by its limited RAM and “mass” storage. Sure “Angry Birds” plays great, but anything more involved or that provides real productivity is going to suffer. And since there is no camera, no microphone, no Bluetooth, and no GPS any apps that use those features are worthless here. And on top of all that, you can’t use anyone but Amazon’s app store – unless you are prepared to hack the device, and rather than do that why not just spend another hundred bucks and get a real 7-inch Android tablet?

Video is one place the Fire really shines, rather surprisingly. The player is simple and effective. You can place video content in storage via USB and of course access Amazon’s quite extensive store. You get a free month of Amazon’s Prime service – and there are some worthwhile things to watch, although the “free” movie selection is limited to the same things you might get on basic cable. I have been having a great time watching old “Dr. Who” episodes I haven’t seen in thirty years, and overall the TV offerings on Prime are superior to the movies. Without Prime, or to rent/buy things not offered by Prime, you’ll pay anywhere from 99 cents to $4 rental, or $7.99 and up to buy movies and shows. A Prime subscription costs $79 per year, and also entitles you to free 2-day shipping on anything you buy from Amazon that needs to be shipped. Netflix is also available out of the box if you are so inclined – but so far I haven’t been.

The music player is very basic and has few bells and whistles, and I must admit I’ve hardly touched it because I have an iPod, a wireless music/radio player, and a network file server at home. So I’m fairly over-stocked with audio choices that kick the Fire’s butt already. The Fire’s speakers are not going to win any awards: they are tiny, tinny, and produce very low volume. Headphones or at least ear buds are required, although I’ve had great success plugging into the Aux-In on my wireless player.

And then there is the much-touted Silk Web browser. It actually is a nice if somewhat basic browser. It has tabs, favorites, pinch-zoom, etc. and is pretty speedy.  Amazon obviously put some work into this feature and it makes the Fire a nice on-the-go Web browsing device. Just don’t expect an Internet Explorer or Firefox here – but that’s not necessarily a bad thing in this age of bloated browsers. Also take comfort in the fact that Flash works.

The bottom line with the Fire is for $199 you get a content platform for Amazon services. You do not get a general purpose tablet. The lack of some basics like camera and even SD card slot really limit the device. It’s a good LCD Kindle that plays movies for those who don’t want anything more. But for myself it has mainly shown me how much more I could do with a real tablet, and as soon as I decide to spend some real money I’m sure I’ll move up.

Also the Fire is not about to replace my iInk Kindle DX or Kindle 3: the LCD screen can get to be a strain when reading for long periods, and the lighter, thinner, and easier to hold Kindle 3 will be my reading device of choice for some time yet. Still there are some documents that just look better on the Fire, like National Geographic and books with involved formatting – so it has its place. But I think another generation will make that a better place, and I suggest Kindle users wait until the next generation Fire is available to light one up.

I asked the question in my last post “Someone gives the police orders. Who is giving these orders? When did they become more powerful than the public in a supposedly free society?”

I only half-suspected this might be the answer. Here are a few quotes:

….the Mayor of Oakland acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security had participated in an 18-city mayor conference call advising mayors on “how to suppress” Occupy protests.

….for the DHS to be on a call with mayors, the logic of its chain of command and accountability implies that congressional overseers, with the blessing of the White House, told the DHS to authorise mayors to order their police forces – pumped up with millions of dollars of hardware and training from the DHS – to make war on peaceful citizens.

….why on earth would Congress advise violent militarised reactions against its own peaceful constituents? The answer is straightforward: in recent years, members of Congress have started entering the system as members of the middle class (or upper middle class) – but they are leaving DC privy to vast personal wealth….

Lt. John Pike is going to find it difficult to explain his behavior when there are literally dozens of on-the-spot videos of his actions: he sprayed peaceful, sitting student protesters with pepper spray at close range without provocation – not just once, but several times. He then physically pulled students into upright positions when they manage to stay in their places despite the obvious agony caused by the chemical attack.

The ring of seated protesters did rise then, and were joined by other people from the surrounding area. They surrounded the police officers and chanting “shame on you” and “you can go”, forced them to take what has become known as the “March of Shame” out of the area and off to the sidewalk.

During the encounter only Lt. Pike and one or two other officers accosted the protesters (at least that’s the impression the video gives). The other officers seem unsure of what to do. At first they tried to form a double line so arrestees can be led away. But as the crowd surrounded them they were forced into a tighter and tighter formation, until at last they are packed into a condensed mass, backs together for mutual support. It is obvious they were completely unprepared for the number of protesters they encountered. The video starts with Lt. Pike’s swaggering assault on peaceful citizens engaging in their right to assembly. It ends with his look of utter bewilderment as passive resistance overcomes the swagger.

The arguments I have seen in favor of the brutal treatment Occupy protesters have been subjected to generally start with the claim they are being removed from places they “aren’t supposed to be”. Where is this “place” these people aren’t supposed to be? Who decides that? They aren’t setting things on fire, hurting people, invading homes, or destroying property. When did such a consideration as “you aren’t supposed to be standing there” come to outweigh their constitutional right to free assembly and peaceful protest?

Someone gives the police orders. Who is giving these orders? When did they become more powerful than the public in a supposedly free society? These are the very issues the Occupy movement is protesting about. On paper authority is vested in the public. In reality it is in the hands of corporations who write our laws and pay-off politicians to pass them.

The police should not be painted as the villains in this situation. I’m not a police hater. The police saved my life once and the majority of the time they do a fantastic job protecting people. But other times they are used as a control force against people. It must actually be a lousy “rock-and-a-hard-place” situation for most of them. Dorli Rainey, the 84-year-old lady drenched in pepper spray in Seattle was physically assaulted by the police – but her rights were assaulted by the politicians controlling the police, and the corporate interests that control the politicians.

View the video of that Seattle confrontation: the police are standing in a line using large handheld canisters of pepper spray, essentially hosing people down with the stuff. What was the protesters’ “crime”? They weren’t on the sidewalk – that’s what a police spokesperson said later. The spraying was indiscriminate: young, old, female, and male – at least one pregnant woman who had to be transported by ambulance. It was a complete over-reaction. But the orders were given by people who weren’t even there – orders to physically harm people who were essentially guilty of jaywalking.

The question has been asked “how many of those people in the streets really know what they are protesting about?” The answer is: all of them. It’s those who doubt the protesters sincerity and intelligence who don’t understand what they’re protesting about. They aren’t a mob and these protests aren’t riots. The Occupy movement has a structure and order to what they do – they have large assemblies where proposals are put forward and then debated and voted on. I saw this happen in Oakland the night before the police raided the original Occupy encampment in Frank H. Ogawa plaza. They knew the police were coming and actually discussed what to do. They decided for non-violent protest – most evacuated the plaza there willingly, while a few elected to sit-in and be peacefully arrested. And it worked very well – both the protesters and the cops kept their heads that morning. The Occupy protesters are more democratic than the U.S. Congress because their decisions are made based on their ideals and beliefs, not on who paid them the most to vote a certain way.

What we are seeing in OWS is just as valid as the protests that led to the Boston Massacre (of protesters by British troops), Nat Turner’s rebellion (by slaves against the Southern system of white supremacy), and the labor strikes of the early 20th century (by workers who were being exploited by corporations that were aided by politicians).

Every so often the people must re-wrest control from the economically powerful forces that take their rights from them, bit by bit, over time. This is one of those times. It’s one of the fundamental rhythms of a democracy, seen over and over throughout history. The struggle for the rights of the citizenry in the face of moneyed power is never over. I’m not advocating socialism or any other “ism” – I’m talking about the kind of democratic, free society invented here in the United States – it must be defended by every generation in one way or another. Capitalism and democracy are not an easy mixture of systems – but democracy should always come first.

The struggle between the moneyed powers and those who really make the money has been going on in America since the nation’s start. The “Founding Fathers” were mostly rich white men who created a system that gave the “lesser people” enough concessions to give them the sense of liberty, yet protected the rich white men’s power and wealth. It took the next 200 years for the actual citizenry of the U.S. to re-forge that system into one that has at least the potential to be fair, equal, and free – we aren’t 100% there yet.

It took the political protests of the early 19th century that put-down the power of the Federalists (led by Alexander Hamilton) in favor of the Democratic-Republicans (led by Thomas Jefferson). It took the movements of the antebellum era that further broadened liberty under Andrew Jackson, the abolitionists, and the various pro-democracy parties of the time. It took the Civil War. It took the women’s suffrage movement of the turn of the 20th century, and the workers’ movements at the same time. It took the civil rights, antiwar, and women’s rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

Now it takes the Occupy movement to keep us heading toward a society where the individual has rights, but the corporation only has legislated abilities. It’s no coincidence that the Occupy movement is contemporary with the attempts to give corporations the same legal rights as individual citizens, most recently seen in the Supreme Court decision that corporations can give unlimited contributions to political organizations. People aren’t “sheeple” – they never have been. The Occupy movement may not accomplish the goal of creating a more just, more equitable society. The Boston Massacre and the actual Boston Tea Party didn’t, either. They led the way.

Curley and Schultz were charged under Pennsylvania’s mandatory reporting statute for suspected child abuse. This statute states that when a report of abuse has been made it is the responsibility of the “person in charge of the school or institution” to make a report to the State Department of Public Welfare. The grand jury found that Curley and Schultz made “materially false” statements under oath.

Strangely there seems to be no legal provision for anyone to have notified police. And the cited statute seems to indicate that both Joe Paterno and Mike McQueary discharged their legal obligations fully in informing the administrators of the incident of sexual abuse McQueary says he witnessed. This could give Paterno legal grounds for filing suit against the Penn State trustees who fired him. Apparently the grand jury did not find Penn State President Graham Spanier at fault, although the trustees did and fired him as well.

Here is the link to CNN that loads the .pdf document of the grand jury’s findings. WARNING: the testimony in this report is very graphic. However, if you truly want to be informed as to exactly what has led to the situation at Penn State, this is currently the only valid source of information. Everything else is just media speculation and hearsay. In particular the latest evolutions in Mike McQueary’s story are not reflected in the grand jury document.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/sandusky-grand-jury-presentment1.pdf

That sounds great, but it’s untrue. The CBO says the net reduction by the next President’s fourth year in office would only be $5 billion. And without the annual net deficit reductions the Affordable Care Act would enable, by 2018 a repeal will actually start costing the government money.

So to be honest Mitt Romney should say repeal of the act will save $95 billion by his fourth year in office, except when you take the cuts to Medicare and tax increases that are part of the act out of the equation. That results in a $5 billion savings. And with those cuts and taxes out of the picture going beyond that fourth year in office, repeal actually costs money.

But Mitt Romney isn’t going to say that because he wants to score points with fiscal conservatives. And saying to them you’ll “save” $95 billion is like dangling raw meat in front of cannibals. Who cares if it’s true or not? Not Mitt Romney.

Some Republicans want to change how the CBO operates, effectively pulling its teeth and reducing its influence over policy. Some like Newt Gingrich want to simply do away with the Office entirely because they see it as an obstacle to their legislative agenda. Every time the Republicans make broad claims that this-or-that Democrat initiative would cost money, the CBO comes-up with actual figures. Sometimes this makes the Democrats look like total spendthrifts. Other times it makes the Republicans look as if they can’t do basic math. When the CBO shoots-down some Democrat for making outrageous numerical claims the Republicans are the first to quote the Office. Every time the CBO catches the Republicans in an outright lie, the Office is “partisan” and an “obstacle”.

The CBO exists for one reason: to give taxpayers real information that cuts through the political b.s. the legislature spreads with a trowel. It obviously doesn’t exist as a resource for Congress to use, otherwise they wouldn’t make these ridiculous claims they make. In their zeal to tear apart anything and everything the Obama administration accomplishes Republicans don’t have time for correct facts and figures – they have lies to tell, and the CBO is an obstacle to that.

In Salt Lake City, Utah, police arrested 19 protesters as they pushed them out of their camp there. The Mayor’s office has indicated that daily protests will still be allowed, but that overnight camping is at an end.

There were 27 arrests in St. Louis, Missouri, as police enforced a curfew law at the city park being occupied there.

Denver, Colorado police in riot gear arrested 17 protesters as they removed them and their tents from a location near the Denver civic center. Police also indicated that daily protests would be allowed, but that there would be no camping in the city.

In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,  Mayor Michael Nutter has increased police presence around the Occupy encampment there, and has indicated they will soon move against the protesters because of “health and safety issues”.

Big Brother makes his move. Now we’ll see how determined the protesters are. Will they be scared-off, or will they come back? If the past is anything to judge by, whenever a popular uprising meets with violence the determination of the protesters grows. We saw that recently in the Middle East.

We are seeing how different our form of government is: they aren’t killing people outright, but they are willing to use force. Many politicians are sensitive to the fact that anything they do will become world-wide news almost instantaneously, and are trying to avoid the kind of negative publicity that Oakland, California received due to their mishandling of the Occupy movement there. Oakland itself has taken a much more measured approach, and has given protesters plenty of notice that they will not be allowed to occupy city property much longer.

There have been problems at the Occupy encampments. A man in Oakland was shot and killed last week. There are reports of drug use at the Occupy sites, and at least one report of sexual assault. However, as an ex-resident of Oakland I know that street shootings aren’t a rare event, and there is as yet no indication the shooting there was actually related to the Occupy protests. But any large, ad-hoc congregation of people is going to draw a problem element who see the situation as a form of camouflage for criminal activity. If the police were to concentrate on that element they might find the majority of Occupiers are simply citizens who are fed-up with an iniquitous system.

The news media still seems unable to decipher what the Occupy movement is about. There isn’t a well dressed PR spokesperson going on their TV shows and saying things in the kind of double-talk they recognize. And they seem unable to read signs. But mostly it’s not a simple movement, and the media needs things to be simple so they are easy to tag with buzzwords. The problems the protests are about result from three sources: corporate greed, political power, and media sensationalism. All three work together in a self-sustaining system that is indifferent to the individual.

But the allegation of pedophilia isn’t a license to throw-out other important social and legal conventions:  presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the disavowal of guilt by association, and the administration of justice by investigation instead of reaction.

Jerry Sandusky stands accused of molesting eight young boys. The alleged incidents may have taken place while Sandusky was an assistant football coach at Penn State University. It appears that Sandusky’s superiors at Penn State may have known of the allegations before they were made public.

Note the important qualifiers “accused”, “alleged”, “may have”, and “appears”. These are important words because until local and federal authorities complete their investigations, and until Jerry Sandusky is found guilty or innocent, none of these accusations and allegations are facts. And we should proceed on the basis of facts, because people’s careers, community standing, and very lives are at stake.

Joe Paterno was Sandusky’s boss. As the head coach of the Penn State football program he should have reported any accusations against Sandusky to his superiors in the University administration, and it appears that’s exactly what Paterno did. Again, until allegations move into the realm of facts, we can’t really say for sure.

If Paterno did report accusations against Sandusky to the University administration, they should have investigated the allegations, and reported them to law enforcement authorities. It appears the administrators did not do their “due diligence” – it appears they may have knowingly covered-up the allegations against Sandusky.

Right now the usual hysterics surround this case: the media is exploiting the drama to get ratings, advocacy groups are passionately calling for resignations, and at the same time gaining media attention for their cause. The educational community is looking to lop off heads left and right in an attempt to appear responsible after-the-fact. It’s the usual circus in such a case, comprised of fear, politics, and scandal-mongering.

But we mustn’t lose sight of the truly important aspects of the Jerry Sandusky case: if Sandusky is proven to be innocent it’s too late to rehabilitate his reputation. If Paterno did the right thing it’s too late to leave him to his career coaching football if he’s forced to resign. If administrators who didn’t cover-up the Sandusky case are fired it’s too late to undo the harm to their careers and community standing.

And if Sandusky is guilty? Then there is the need for justice for his victims. And justice is all we can give them, because in that case Sandusky will already have deprived them of a normal, undamaged life. But we need to know that before we take actions that may or may not be the correct ones.