A Legacy Tarnished

Avatar

Ryan Noonan

Ryan Noonan is an economist with a small federal agency. Fields in which he considers himself reasonably well-informed: literature, college athletics, video games, food and beverage, the Supreme Court. Fields in which he considers himself an expert: none. He can be found on the Twitter or reached by email.

Related Post Roulette

62 Responses

  1. Avatar Robert Cheeks
    Ignored
    says:

    Ironically, had this scandal, perpetrated by a homosexual predator, been revealed five years or so in the future, JoPa and the Penn St. president might be considered  forward looking progressives by derailed and distrubed libruls.Report

    • Avatar Ryan Bonneville in reply to Robert Cheeks
      Ignored
      says:

      Oh good, I was worried people might actually take some of this seriously.Report

    • Avatar Jaybird in reply to Robert Cheeks
      Ignored
      says:

      Yeah. That’d nip those comparisons to the Catholic Church in the bud.Report

    • Avatar E.D. Kain in reply to Robert Cheeks
      Ignored
      says:

      Robert what the hell is wrong with you?Report

    • Avatar North in reply to Robert Cheeks
      Ignored
      says:

      Bob, the man who perpetrated this crime is not a homosexual, he is a pederast. For a man who puts as much weight as you do in the importance of words  and especially The Word I would think you would be more hesitate to abuse them in this manner.Report

      • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to North
        Ignored
        says:

        Oh, I don’t think the coach was ‘mentoring’ anyone. I think he merely wanted sated by having sex with a little boy. If it suits you to define him as a ‘pederast’, so be it . The point is this crimnal activity is already beginning to be being justified among the progressive community.Report

          • Avatar Tom Van Dyke in reply to Tod Kelly
            Ignored
            says:

            Mr. Kelly, there are many things I see in LOOG comments [and sometimes on the mainpage] that I would like to say “Knock it off.”

            And this might be one of them.  Or not.  it depends on what the LOOG stands for—free inquiry or just acceptable transgressions against common orthodoxy.

            I have seen complete filth here @ the LOOG, but acceptable filth, within the parameters of the orthodoxy of cultural transgression.  If you can follow me here, Tod: Most filth is so banal, it’s orthodox filth.

            It takes real imagination to be genuinely filthy/transgressive, say de Sade, who, if you look him up, was as still chic as shocking.  Some sophisticates even attended his “parties,” and although revolted, only mildly so.  [I trust you have read him.]

            By contrast, our beloved Mr. Cheeks always behaves as a gentleman, expresses himself gently as a gentleman, but enjoys no cache, no chic. In a very real way, it takes more courage to be a Cheeks than a de Sade these days, if one wants to hang with the sophisticates at places like the LOOG.

            In our cultural milieu, here @ LOOG or in any open forum in 21st century America, it’s Cheeks who is the cultural or intellectual transgressor.  The question is what shall we do with these transgressors, RTod?  Pass them the hemlock?  Your call.

             

             

             Report

            • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Tom Van Dyke
              Ignored
              says:

              What, did I censor him?  Did I threaten to sick Erik on him?

              If he wants to be a d**k just for the purposes of being a d**k, you are correct that it is his right.  Mine is to be able to tell him to stop being a d**k.Report

              • Avatar Tom Van Dyke in reply to Tod Kelly
                Ignored
                says:

                RTod, we got d**ks around here a dime a dozen.  This ain’t about that.  Anybody can be a d**k.  Not just anybody can be a Cheeks.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Tom Van Dyke
                Ignored
                says:

                We do Tom, people can be a little over the top here from time to time so there’s little sense getting excessively exercised.

                 Still, I’m surprised; you’ve taken to your fainting couch over considerably less than having an entire group of people being accused of being sexual predators of little children. Or the entirety of the left being in the process of legitamizing such.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t accuse all homosexuals of being pedophiles, nor did I accuse the ‘entirety of the left’ of being in support for decriminalizing pedophilia. I did say some homosexuals are child preditors, but some heterosexuals are child preditors as well; some perverts do both little boys and little girls. And, while not all the progressives support decriminalization of sex crimes against children, we can see the movement to do so beginning. You may appreciate this link, it’s from your country:http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament

                 

                 Report

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                For what it’s worth, I read your comments the same way North did.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                Tod, I can’t believe that you did that because of a natural hostility toward moi? Perhaps, eye strain, anxiety, angst?Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                I didn’t read them that way.  I mean, yes, accusing liberals of being soft on child molestation is dirty pool, but I didn’t see any evidence that Bob conflated child molestation and homosexuality.

                What http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pedophilia-a-sexual-orientation-experts-tell-parliament says, of course, is “Don’t  think you’re going to “cure” child molesters; you’re not, any more than you’re going to cure heterosexuals.”  That’s unwelcome news, but in my estimation entirely correct.Report

              • Avatar RTod in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                No, Bob, I do not have a natural hostility toward you. I have a natural hostility toward coming to this site – a site maintained by a number of people, some of whom are gay and treat you with civility – and snidely implying they are no better than/are actually child rapists. I know you just do it to get a rise out of people, but unlike Tom I think it crosses a line.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                RTod, would you kindly point out where I implied that ALL homosexuals were child predators? It was NEVER my intention to make such an outrageous claim, and to be attacked for it, and for other things I did not write, is becoming more and more expected here at this progressive site that prides itself for expressing a certain cutting edge ‘intellectualism,’ when in fact many of the people here are merely well educated ideologues who understand truth as transitory, illusory, self-serving and relative.

                One other point I’d like to get off my chest. Coach Sandusky is an ‘accused’ pedophile. There’s been no trial or authorized finding of guilt that I’m aware of. Indeed, Sandusky denies the charges. How is it that men have already lost their careers, been fired from their jobs, and placed on leave predicated on an accusation?Report

              • Avatar Tod Kelly in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                Bob – 2 things.  If I misread you, and that wasn’t a way to tweak gays and liberals while still being able to say you never said all gays and liberals were such, than I owe you an apology.  So…

                I apologize.  My bad.

                Regarding your second question:

                The gentlemen you refer to aren’t being fired because molestation did or didn’t take place.  They are being fired for not following University policy on actions that are required by law when they are made aware of potential situations like this.  If you look at the University Employee Handbook – any University employee handbook – I will guarantee there is a set of measurable responsibilities that a manager has to execute if a suspicion of this sort is brought to their attention.   I also guarantee that the policy will state that failure to follow execute those responsibilities will result in immediate termination.

                The world in general is (understandably) upset about the potential crimes.  But these that got the sack got it for the reasons stated above.  I am not arguing here whether the is right or wrong; but that’s why they were fired.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                RTod, I don’t tweak people over their sexual orientation. I have no interest in what others do with their tool assuming we abide by the  consenting adult thing. I’ve made no secret that as a traditionalist Christian the homosexual act(s) are by definition, sin. I have always claiimed, much to the chagrin of some, that the proper response to pedophilia is death by hanging.

                Re: my/your second point, it still seems to me that it is beyond the pale to punish someone for something that has not been adjudicated. I can understand suspension but JoPa, (not a favoritie btw) was fired and he DID tell  his bosses.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                If I misread you I apologize. The only thing I can offer is that the homosexuals are all child predators canard is a hoary and common cliche on the right so I’m used to reacting firmly to it.

                The link you’ve provided though (and it is from one of my countries) merely indicates that it’s unlikely that pedophilia is some kind of easily treatable disorder; though for people who indulge I doubt you’d find many liberals who’d say a bullet wasn’t an appropriate response.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                An apology is not necessary. I was trying to make a point. The responses were, as always, enlightening. Earth abides, the discussion continues.Report

              • Avatar Tom Van Dyke in reply to North
                Ignored
                says:

                I’m sorry, Mr. North: I was more musing on transgressivism than getting involved in the discussion.  I was confident Mr. Cheeks would not want for foils on this topic, and as we see, he does not.

                As for the fainting couch, I don’t have one.  Like the T-shirt says, i used to be disgusted, now I’m just amused.

                 

                Thx for the kind words down on the sub-blog.Report

              • Avatar Robert Cheeks in reply to Tod Kelly
                Ignored
                says:

                Tod, am I a d**k for speaking the truth? I argued that the homosexual rape of little boys is and will be an act justified now and in the future by certain progressive individuals and organizations. Given the rather visible trajectory of the great moral (OMG, did he say ‘moral’) decline I further argue that, given enought time, this henious act will be, not only justified, but acceptable. It’ll be described by its advocates as an act that’s ‘hepful’ or ‘good’ for the little boy. And, I would think that most here agree.

                 Report

              • Avatar Scott in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                Bob:

                I agree, there is at least one group, the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that is trying to legitimize homosexual realizations with children. Not to mention that it was only in the 90’s that some mainstream LGBT groups made statements against NAMBLA after NAMBLA began to receive widespread public criticism. I guess before that those LGBT groups were okay with NAMBLA until they realized that their association with NAMBLA might prevent their acceptance.Report

              • Avatar North in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                I suppose it was inevitable that NAMBLA would be brought up sooner or later on this subject.Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Not to mention that it was only in the 90?s that some mainstream LGBT groups made statements against NAMBLA after NAMBLA began to receive widespread public criticism.

                So, Scott, when have you written a formal statement against NAMBLA?  Are you on record?Report

              • Avatar Ryan Bonneville in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                Name names, McCarthy.Report

              • Avatar Scott in reply to Ryan Bonneville
                Ignored
                says:

                Ryan:

                Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) in 1994 and  also in 1994 the the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF).Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Those are the points at which those groups denounced NAMBLA, right?Report

              • Avatar Patrick Cahalan in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                Before then they were obviously pro-NAMBLA.Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Scott
                Ignored
                says:

                They’re still anti-Greek Orthodox.  At least, if GLAAD ever denounced filioque, I missed it.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Robert Cheeks
                Ignored
                says:

                I argued that the homosexual rape of little boys is and will be an act justified now and in the future by certain progressive individuals and organizations.

                Can you name any of those progressive organizations that justify the homosexual rape of little boys?  If it is happening now, as you say, then surely you must know of some.  Because as a traditionalist Christian I’m sure you would be reluctant to bear false witness.Report

              • Avatar Murali in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                NAMBLA might be considered progressive under a certain reading. NAMBLA just seems from a conservative POV (which I dont share, but somehow am able to understand) is just a culmination of permissiveness about sexual perversions starting with masturbation, premarital sex, sex with people of other religions, races, people of the same sex etc. For a paleo like Bob, given that progressivism has been (at least partly) about removing interference with regards to what goes on in the bedroom, he is not confident that the line we say will not be crossed, won’t. This is true especially given the history of such liberalisation. Inter racial marriage was liberalised with the understanding that gay marriage was going too far and that those people are extreme and different from us. But look where we are today. I do think that plural marriages is the next frontier. I really hope that we dont ever get to the point where the legalisation of sex with minors is a reasonable position to hold. (it doesnt follow that such organisations should be outlawed. Just ridiculed and mocked vociferously)Report

              • Avatar Mike Schilling in reply to Murali
                Ignored
                says:

                And the Civil War would never have been fought had the outcome been understood to be “black men can marry white women” , making Bob’s embrace of the Confederacy understandable as an attempt to prevent child molestation.Report

              • Avatar Ryan Bonneville in reply to James Hanley
                Ignored
                says:

                The trick here is that NAMBLA is progressive. The fact that the broader progressive community doesn’t consider NAMBLA “one of us” doesn’t invalidate the literal truth of the statement. It is, as others have pointed out, a masterful bit of trolling.Report

              • Avatar James Hanley in reply to Ryan Bonneville
                Ignored
                says:

                Agreed, but I’m going to hold Bob to that whole “Thou shalt not bear false witness” thing, which I’m pretty sure his Sunday School teacher didn’t define as “find a clever way to define it so that can be defended as having some marginal truth value.”

                And notice that he said “organizations” plural. I’m waiting to hear a list of the others.

                Somehow the one thing conservatives never quite seem to wrap their mind around is that whole concept of consenting adults which is at the heart of so much of both libertarianism and liberalism.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Robert Cheeks
          Ignored
          says:

          I’m afraid I’ll have to ask for some citations on that last part Bob. Where are there progressives trying to justify this monstrosity.Report

        • Avatar North in reply to Robert Cheeks
          Ignored
          says:

          You could use pedophile as well to accurately eliminate the whole Greek aspect but then that’d then be including the massively more common practice of men predating on prepubescent little girls. Please note that I am not suggesting that such men are heterosexuals nor do I assert that the practice of raping little girls is a time honored tradition in religions (Christianity not the least among them) or that it is a behavior the right condones or winks at.Report

    • Avatar Fish in reply to Robert Cheeks
      Ignored
      says:

      Mr. Cheeks, I consider it a privilege and an honor to be witness to a master exercising his craft, and at the top of his game.  You, sir, are clearly one of the greatest trolls to have ever existed.  Bravo, sir.Report

  2. Avatar E.C. Gach
    Ignored
    says:

    University affiliations seem at times to border on soft nationalism.  It usually makes me feel very uneasy.  Last night’s riots re-enforce that unease.Report

    • Avatar Ryan Bonneville in reply to E.C. Gach
      Ignored
      says:

      To be completely honest, my loyalty to Michigan (, University of) almost certainly comes before my loyalty to the United States.Report

      • Avatar E.C. Gach in reply to Ryan Bonneville
        Ignored
        says:

        In a way, that’s very understandable.  A university get’s you most often for four extremely formative years, feeds you, houses you, provides recreation, identity building events, and a sense of dignity and self-empowerment.  The U.S. and state governments certainly don’t do any of those things for me, at least not in such a directly apparent and easily marketable way.

        And not to be down on universites either.  I fondly remember mine and would love to spend the rest of my years in academic reclusion from world.

        Still, there’s a strange underworld of college debauchery (in which I certainly partook) that is brought to life and legitimized through the campus athletic institutions which seems horribly our of balance with the entity’s presummably liberal arts mission.Report

  3. Avatar Kimmi
    Ignored
    says:

    how dare you fingerpoint at the flunkie.

    All this indignation over something that’s been known about since 2009…

    In alabama, this’ll never make the papers. because down there, football’s all they got.

    PennState’s a fine school, it deserves better than this corruption from on high. (US Steel’s CEO’s kid played for Paterno? Really?)Report

  4. Avatar James K
    Ignored
    says:

    What Penn State and the Church (and any number of other institutions) have in common is that they are explicitly trading on an image and your or our membership in or ownership of that image. Take my own alma mater, for example. When someone starts talking about what it means to be a Michigan Man, I tear up like an old RAF pilot remembering the Blitz. Every Saturday in the fall, more than 100,000 Penn State fans get together in the stadium and scream “We are… Penn State!” at the tops of their lungs.

    I think you’re on to something here.  It’s very hard to criticise something when you identify with it strongly because it feels like criticising yourself.Report

  5. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    From the looks of things, Joe Paterno is playing the role of Jesus. The people love him, but he’s gotta die to redeem their sin, even though he has no sin of his own.Report

  6. Avatar DensityDuck
    Ignored
    says:

    Incidentally, it’s worth remembering that riots at PSU aren’t exactly uncommon occurrences.  PSU students are notorious for getting all crunked up and rioting after Artsfest.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *