|
|
|
To characterize Durshowitz's response to Alan Keyes in this debate as "childish" would be an insult to children. It's hard to imagine that an adult in this country would hold such childish views. If we accept this jew's words as truthful [a true oxymoron], then he must be the first man on the boat to Madagascar.
Take five minutes to complete the Poll on Exiling Blacks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/is-paterno-getting-a-bum-_b_1101933.html Alan DershowitzCriminal and civil liberties lawyer
Is Paterno Getting a Bum Rap?
The debate over Penn State's treatment of football coach Joe Paterno has reached into law school classes. In my Legal Ethics class at Harvard Law School, a spontaneous debate broke out over whether Joe Paterno got a bum rap for being fired. As in any good law school class, all sides of the issue were presented vigorously and articulately. First, we discussed whether Paterno had any legal obligation to report to the police what his assistant coach, Mike McQueary, told him he saw in the locker room. The virtually unanimous view was that he had no legal obligation to do anything -- not even to do what he did, namely relay the conversation to his immediate superior, the Director of Athletics. Unlike many European cou ntries, most American states place no affirmative duty on citizens to report even crimes they have themselves seen, and certainly no duty to report crimes that others have told them about. I'm not aware of any Pennsylvania law, in effect at the time of these events, that would have imposed any such legal duty on Paterno. The fact that he did report the conversation to his superiors would seem to immunize him from any legal liability, either criminal or civil. This conclusion was based on what is currently in the media. There may be facts not known to the class that could change the legal landscape. Several students immediately sought to probe the distinction between legal and moral obligations. This being a class on legal ethics, this distinction is often central to our discussions. In the classroom, the issue often arises in the context of information confidentially given to a lawyer by his client. In such situations, the lawyer may have conflicting obligations: a legal obligation to confidentiality of his client; and a moral obligation to try to prevent continuing conduct that could harm others. But Paterno is not a lawyer, and McQueary was not his client. He was free, therefore, to disclose the conversation to anyone he chose, and it seems likely that McQueary actually wanted him to turn the information over to the proper authority, so that Jerry Sandusky would not be able to continue doing what McQueary had seen him do. The moral question, therefore, is whether Paterno did enough by simply conveying the information one step up in the hierarchy to the athletic director, and doing nothing further. Reasonable people can, and do, disagree over the answer to this question. Some take the view that Penn State is a rigidly hierarchical organization, and that in such an organization, it is sufficient to report to one's superior. Others point out that the Catholic Church too, is a hierarchical organization, and when priests reported abuse to their bishops and the bishops reported the abuse up the hierarchy, the problem persisted. Yet others take the view that if Penn State is a hierarchy like the Vatican, then Paterno was "the Pope," and the buck stopped with him. He, not his superiors, was the person responsible for reporting the episode to the police. That seems unfair in light of the fact that popes can't be fired, and yet Paterno was discarded like a bag of putrid garbage, when it served the interests of the Board of Directors to distance themselves from him. The President, who was also fired, was apparently the highest official to whom the information was transmitted, although it isn't clear precisely what he was told by the time it got to him through the filter of several others. It was the president who was ultimately responsible for the misguided decision to "resolve" the "problem" internally instead of reporting the crime to the police, as should have been done. There is another factor, which may explain, if not justify, Paterno's limited actions in going only to his immediate superior. Paterno and I come from roughly the same generation. We grew up during the period of McCarthyism, and my parents taught me, as his parents may well have taught him, that the most unforgivable sin is to "snitch" on one's friends and colleagues. Being called a "snitch" was just about the worst thing anybody could say about someone who grew up in the 1940s and 1950s. Moreover when we grew up, no one understood the pervasiveness and seriousness of child abuse. Again this is not an excuse, any more than the Catholic Church's long traditions of confidentiality, forgiveness and hierarchy, were an excuse for its inactions in the face of widespread child abuse. But it may help some to understand why a good man like Joe Paterno might fail to do what a younger generation of good men and women would naturally do when told about a child being abused by a former assistant coach. I think the consensus of the class was that regardless of what the law did or did not require, Paterno should have done more than simply report to his superior and wash his hands of the matter -- if, in fact, that's all he did. As the moral leader of Penn State athletics, he should have served as a role model for the current generation of students and athletics. At the very least, he should have followed up to see whether the school had done enough to avoid a recurrence. Perhaps if he had insisted that more be done beyond taking away Sandusky's key and gym privileges, more would have been done. All this is clear with the benefit of hindsight. But from the perspective of events as they unfolded, it is asking a lot of a football coach, even one as revered as Paterno, to have served as the primary or exclusive guardian of the morals of Penn State. I believe, and here I'm speaking for myself and not my students, that, on the basis of the information now in the public sphere, Paterno was treated unfairly by the Penn Board. His extraordinary contributions to the school -- both on the field and off -- should have been weighed in the balance and he should have been permitted to retire with dignity. His legacy should be that of a giant, who may have made one serious mistake of judgment, which seems clearer in retrospect than it probably was at the time it was made. There are no perfect heroes in real life, just flawed human beings who should be judged on the totality of their merits and demerits. When so judged, Joe Pa is still a flawed hero in my eyes. Many of my friends and students disagree, believing that his mistake was so serious that it trumps his victories on the Grid Iron. It's an interesting debate. What do you think? A version of this article first appeared on Newsmax
Alan Dirshowitz got booed off the stage in a debate with Alan Keyes when he misquoted Voltaire by proclaiming [falsely, of course] that he would die to protect our right to free speech in the very same breath he said we simply have "no right to tell two adults who choose to gratify themselves in a certain way that they are wrong, and he has no basis for his conclusion". This is a lie, Dirshowitz believes this lie, and he's just amazed [no, shocked] when he discovers that we don't believe it. This is paranoia and schizophrenia all wrapped up into a tidy little ball. Not only do we have this right today, we have had this religious obligation to God for 5,000 years, 90% of more of the countries of the world have this right today, and legitimate democratic public mandates in more than 33 states within the very country Alan resides in to protect that right with DOMA laws show up to 85% of voters agree they have that right. Now Alan complains "Paterno was discarded like a bag of putrid garbage, when it served the interests of the Board of Directors to distance themselves from him" as if though the rights of DOZENS of CHILDREN [and specifically BOYS] who were abused BECAUSE Paterno failed to act are totally and completely irrelevant to his "expert legal analysis". I'm embarrassed for my country that it would protect such chronic criminal behavior by so many for so long, and I could not care less what some silly board of directors does or does not do. I have zero faith that Alan, much less the board, much less Paterno, much less Sandusky himself, would EVER do the right thing. In fact, I am ONE HUNDRED PERCENT CONFIDENT that ALL of them, plus the local DA's, PLUS the local judges, PLUS all the priests and bishops and cardinals in the area, would do exactly the WRONG thing as they have ALWAYS done. This single statement is proof positive of it. It's way past time for Alan to be Paterno-ized, and the phrase "discarded like a bag of putrid garbage" must be made an integral part of his walking papers. Alan, when I take out my garbage today, and tomorrow, and the day after, ..., I'll be treating it with extra care, because now every time I throw it away, I'll be thinking of you, and only you. May God protect my country from you and yours.
When asked the direct question: "what makes something right?", Dirshowitz gave a number of lame excuses for not answering, like "there are no simple answers", before he finally admitted "I don't know". He went on to say that, not only does he not know what is right, but that he knows that WE don't know what's right. Huh? He believes that he is so much smarter than every single Christian in the country, that if he doesn't know what's right, then nobody else possibly could? Dirshowitz is even smarter than God, and therefore nobody else in the world could possibly know what's right? The supreme arrogance of such a statement is bad enough, but the implication is that, if Christians don't know what's right, then jews like Dirshowitz, who ADMIT that they don't even know what's right or wrong, should be the ones telling Christians what's right and wrong?! This brilliant moral minor then followed up by calling the Holy Bible "homophobic", "racist", "sexist", and "anti-jewish". This is blasphemy in every sense of the word, and it's the type of blasphemy which disqualifies him to practice, much less teach, law in this country. Dirshowitz then LIED in such a convincing manner that his contribution to and continuation at Harvard MUST be SERIOUSLY questioned. Alan Keyes was at his most brilliant when he called him on that LIE. Dirshowitz said, and I quote: "He [Keyes] simply has no right to tell two adults who choose to gratify themselves in a certain way [sodomites] that they are wrong, and he has no basis for his conclusion. What is he going to do--cite some Biblical verse?" Alan Keyes then challenged Dirshowitz that believing that Americans have no "right" to even speak out against ANYTHING is the very definition of totalitarianism. If Dirshowitz had had false teeth, they would have flown across the auditorium as sputtered and LIED: " I said no such thing", which of course was met with the first spontaneous "boos" of the entire debate. "I said no such thing"! For 5,000 years now, Jews have believed that they can say ANYTHING to Christians because they think they can merely deny that they ever said it. And for 4,950 years they were just about right. But now we have TV and radio and the internet which keep permanent RECORDS of their jew LIES. This is EXACTLY what Dirshowitz said. It's on video tape. Nobody but Durtbag said it, nor could have said it! From this point forward, what Dirshowitz says has utterly no credibility. He doesn't know right from wrong but wishes to impose his ignorance on those who DO. He can willy nilly say that they "simply have no right" and then claim that he never even said it. He admitted that he knows that sodomy is a learned behavior, claimed that sodomy occurs only in private bedrooms, then ignored that sodomy is INEVITIBLE when sodomites are permitted to be around young Boy Scouts. He misquoted George Washington, then when Keyes called him on it, he reversed himself by claiming that the New York Times misquoted Joseph LIEberman who misquoted George Washington. He whined that the Boy Scouts is "too Christian" and "an established right wing" organization, after admitting that he was admitted to the Boy Scouts as a known JEW. He attempted to hold Alan Keyes to the purportedly Constitutional principle of "separation of church and state" [which is not in the Constitution], criticized Thomas Jefferson as "just a man" [whose misquoted letter about separation of church and state was the issue], and then said that even if this wasn't in the Constitution that "I would add it" [read: jews can't be held to mere words, contracts, nor written statements in Constitutions and bibles because they're morally superior to the written word]. He condemned the Baptists for the statement: "women must submit gracefully" and claimed that Christians will be apologizing for that "travesty ... just as they apologized for the Inquisition and the Crusades". It was the most supreme display of jewish arrogance this author has ever witnessed, and I've witnessd planty. He invoked the holocaust in the name of his 40 dead relatives, to which Keyes, a black man, challenged Durtbag to try to top slavery--a brilliant deep six to Durtbag which deflated his victimization baloon like a sharp pin. Of course like all jews, he'll always ignore the 264 million dead WHITE Christians in Europe, many of whom are direct ancestors of the majority of the American population, who presumably gave their lives to protect the poor jews from the Nazis (another big jewish LIE). When booed, Dirshowitz screeched in a little girl's voice: "If you think your boos will scare me, you don't know me". No, Durtbag, audiences don't boo people to "scare" them--they boo them to let you know how STUPID you look and sound when you get caught in a big fat LIE, right there on stage, before thousands of viewers, on VIDEO TAPE, by denying that which you just stated. How revealing that this little faggot expert on victimhood, who went to great lengths to make sodomy appear as nothing but a life style choice rather than the social pathology it is, would view a boo as an attack on his life or safety. Boo, Durtbag. Boo, boo, boo. Sue me.
----- Original Message ----- From: Prof. Yaccov Iram To: Marvin Berlowitz Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 1:07 AM
|
               |
|
Modified Thursday, May 23, 2013 Copyright @ 2010 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |
Loading
comments� 
http://law
23 Pa. Cons. Stat. � 6311
Chapter Heading. The heading of Subchapter B was amended
December 16, 1994, P.L.1292, No.151, effective July 1, 1995.
� 6311. Persons required to report suspected child abuse.
(c) Staff members of institutio
is required to report under subsection (b) in the capacity as a
member of the staff of a medical or other public or private
institutio
immediatel
school, facility or agency or the designated agent of the person
in charge. Upon notificati
designated agent, if any, shall assume the responsibi
have the legal obligation to report or cause a report to be made
in accordance with section 6313. This chapter does not require
more than one report from any such institutio
or agency.
McGarity fulfilled his obligation to report to a "Superior"