The Penn State sexual abuse scandal was big news for a while, as it should have been. As it should be. Articleman presented here at Dagblog a long, well researched, well presented opinion piece which I felt made some good arguments. Others did as well. Respondents who disagreed with parts of A-man's argument made strong points as well.
 The main point of contention revolved around the issue of sanctions against those individuals directly involved versus actions penalizing the entire organization which provided the situation in which the crimes took place and then, as an organization, tried to hide the crimes so as to avoid any harm to Penn State and its idolized football coach, Joe Paterno.
 
 To provide protection to Penn State and to Joe and his successful program, the people in position to do so had to shield discovery of the crimes and shield the criminals. This protection of the overt criminal for the purpose of protecting the reputation and positions of persons in leadership positions who had power and prestige was itself a criminal act. This protection virtually assured that the criminal abuse at the heart of the many ensuing crimes would continue.

  I think few if any will disagree with what I have stated so far. I think that no one will deny that some corrective action needed to be taken and few will disagree that punitive action was/is both necessary and appropriate. That punitive action is only a part, though, of the action that needs be taken to lessen recurrences of abuses in the future.

 So what? you may be saying about now. That was so last-week and football season doesn't even start for a couple months and many don't even like football anyway.

  Yeah, we all got to vent our opinions and most opinions included combinations of pragmatism, legality, justice, and morality. I believe the only thing getting universal agreement is that everyone recognizes that a crime did occur which led to other crimes of different natures and that we should attempt to affect change for the better in our diligent oversight of institutions, and in our reactions when those institutions go wrong, so that the same crimes will be fewer in number going forward.

 Oh yeah, I almost forgot, how did the world outside the cozy little world of Penn State leadership come to know about the crimes in the first place? It was because a person who was a witness to one act of disgusting criminality reported it. His name was Mike McQueary.

 There were many in the Penn State tribe of fans who reacted in blind stupid angry defense of Joe Paterno, in defense of the entire football organization, and the entire University. Many of those directed a large part of their anger at McQuerry. If only he had STFU their hero would not have been harmed. Their blind stupidity would not have had to override any tingles to their conscience which could have been avoided if they had been allowed to wallow in willful blind ignorance of things no person could justify and no person with an honest conscience would try to justify. Their team's chances of winning the next national title would not have been harmed. Their joy in cheering for their team would not have been interrupted by anything more important.  "God damn Mike McQuery" was no doubt on the minds and lips of many. That's just the way [some {most?}] people are.

That same reaction was/is evident in the case of Bradley Manning.
Manning revealed many crimes even worse in their actual nature, and  magnitudes worse in the number of victims. Manning revealed things we didn't want to know, that we didn't want to believe, and so we didn't want to hear them. Besides, for many the revelations could, because they should, hurt their particular chosen team. His leaks revealed a festering sickness within the team they, myself included, wanted to admire.  Certainly not that everything about that team and all its members is bad, but that within its broader scope there are things that are just wrong. Things that need changing for reasons that are pragmatic for the purpose of maintaining a functioning democracy, that need changing so as to work towards a moral and ethical and sustainable government which honors justice for all. Things which, if allowed exposure to our conscience, simply cannot be ignored.

 There are those who would have, if they could have, punished and silenced McQuery so as to protect their position. Joe Paterno and the President of Penn State would have kept their jobs, the teams fans could all have cheered on with a clear conscience, and Sandusky could have continued butt-fucking young boys. Win-win for all the wrong doers involved. Punishing McQuery would have been wrong, but if corrupted leaders could have done so they would have done so for their own cynical purposes.
 
There are many on all sides of the U.S. political spectrum who said,  "God damn Bradley Manning" when he revealed wrongdoing to the general public after his attempts to go through the chain of command were ignored. Many of the reasons for this reaction parallel those of people who had strong defensive feelings about the Penn State scandal and Manning revealed many crimes even worse in their actual nature, and  magnitudes worse in the number of victims, than anything which happened at Penn State.
 Manning has been demonized by some as a traitorous individual who must be sick to have done what he did.  This is done for various reasons and one of the wrong reasons for some is simply that he hurt their team. He took some of the shine off the perceived glow. If only he had just STFU like most of us would have done if faced with the same risk he bravely faced.  We would not have to decide if the bigger game is more important than any single team. We would not have to worry that the crimes he revealed would cause some to become "Ones Who Walk Away From Happy Valley" and hurt our team by doing so.
 We can examine and judge the actions of various actors in situations like at Penn State abstractly from a safe distance. Bradley Manning found himself in a very tough situation that he never chose, that he never volunteered for, of needing to take a great personal risk to do the right thing and try to positively affect the ongoing criminality he had become aware of. I believe he passed that unwanted test of courage and commitment to his oath as a soldier, and to his conscience as a human, with flying colors. He acted heroically and now people with the power to do so are making him pay a terrific price for his action, partly to warn off anyone else who might have courage approaching that which he acted on.

I do not have that kind of courage but I can do a couple tiny things. I can support Manning with a few bucks and I can sign Daniel Ellsberg's petition in support of Manning. Its a small thing, its right, and I hope others will consider doing it.

http://web.mail.comcast.net/zimbra/h/search?si=9&so=0&sc=8748&st=message...