The word that got Keith Olbermann in trouble: "pitiful."

Keith Olbermann got suspended from his ESPN show for tweeting "Pitiful." He was responding to a tweet by a Penn State graduate who'd tweeted "We are!" (linking to an article about raising $13 million for charity). Olbermann proceeded to tweet "PSU students are pitiful because they’re PSU students — period."

"Pitiful" is a strange word. When we see it alone, as in Olbermann's tweet, we assume it conveys contempt. The 4th meaning in the OED is: "Evoking pitying contempt; very small, poor, or meagre; paltry; inadequate, insignificant; despicable, contemptible." $13 million is very small if the idea is to balance the harm that was done to Penn State's reputation in the recent scandal, and Olbermann has been a critic of the settlement.

"Pitiful" can mean "Full of or characterized by pity; compassionate, merciful, tender." You'd think that literal meaning would predominate in the absence of context, but it doesn't. "Pathetic" works the same way. We assume the sarcastic version: "Miserably inadequate; of such a low standard as to be ridiculous or contemptible." The older, more literal meaning — "Arousing sadness, compassion, or sympathy, esp. through vulnerability or sadness; pitiable" — is overshadowed to the point where you can't even use it without explaining yourself.

And you can't explain yourself on Twitter.

"By pulling Cosby’s already completed and widely consumed work, TV Land kicked off an effort to scour Cosby from pop-culture history..."

"... as though, with every re-air, the public would be reminded it had been duped, and was once again guilty of putting too much trust in an individual now thought undeserving of it. It’s the closest thing to retroactively reprobating Cosby, reminiscent of the NCAA vacating Joe Paterno’s wins and Penn State removing his statue after the coach was deemed culpable of covering up Jerry Sandusky’s sex abuse of young boys."

Writes WaPo's Soraya Nadia McDonald at "Cleansing popular culture of all things Cosby."

Interesting application of the word "guilty."

ADDED: "So Netflix, don't air that Cosby post-Thanksgiving special, even though you have already paid for and shot it; NBC, cancel that Cosby sitcom. And if that doesn’t happen, then shame on anyone who watches them."

"There is absolutely nothing worse than the stereotypical old fart in the cluttered office telling people 'It’s all crap!!!'—while pulling down, year after year, a handsome if static salary..."

"... and I’m perilously close to that. In classical Chinese philosophy there is an oft-repeated motif of the sage who writes a book and then departs beyond the frontiers, never to be seen again. Perhaps 7DS is that [non-]book."

So writes 62-year-old Philip Schrodt, who retiring from his tenured prof job at Penn State and setting up shop as an independent consultant.

7DS = "Seven Deadly Sins of Quantitative Political Analysis/The Web Site."

(I got to Schrodt's screed via Paul Caron.)

I'm 62, by the way, and last night I had a dream about someone trying to talk me into retiring, so it's odd running into this today. If you read between the lines chez Schrodt, you'll see he's energized about keeping more of the money he brings in. (I don't think he says anything about the pension he's going to collect, but that has to be part of the economic analysis upon which he's run the numbers.) He's also tired of what he's calling the "authoritarian" governance at his university and it's Sandusky-sullied reputation. And he's sick of academic journals:

I’d like to think I’m still doing research that is interesting, but once the work is written, it is out there on the web where anyone can find it, so why go through the agony of dumbing down the work for a major journal which will then hide it behind a paywall?

It's best to set up your work life so that the efforts you expend create the motivation to do more. If there's pointless drudgery and you don't have to do it, it's lazy not to change. You may imagine that laziness feels good, but slogging along doing things you don't value is deadly, and if you don't need to do it for the money, especially if the alternative is intrinsically energizing and more lucrative... honey, how come you don't move?

"To be fair and consistent, you have to read this as a posthumous indictment of Joe Paterno..."

This = "The charges filed last week accusing three former Penn State administrators of engaging in a 'conspiracy of silence' to cover up child sexual abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky raise questions about whether legendary football Coach Joe Paterno could have been charged if he were still living."

"Former Penn State President Graham B. Spanier was charged Thursday with hushing up child molestation allegations against Jerry Sandusky..."

WaPo reports.

"We certainly haven’t forgotten about Mr. Sandusky’s victims."

Of course, you haven't. Whether you care or not — and past behavior suggests you do not — they all represent lawsuits.

"We want to make sure that we do the right thing in terms of providing a just outcome for them." Aren't you wonderful?! I'm assuming "just" is code for not ruinously destructive to the ongoing enterprise that is Penn State.

What famous movie actor should play Joe Paterno?

Al Pacino!

Quite the photo op.

Removing the statue of Joe Paterno.

A good one.

ADDED: "The 14 Most Unintentionally Terrifying Statues in the World." Just something I ran across while trying to satisfy my curiosity about the exact line in the category of sculpture between what is a statue and what is not a statue. Obviously, the Joe Paterno sculpture is a statue, but what's right on the line, where we could have a debate about whether this sculpture is a statue?

The OED defines statue as "A representation in the round of a living being, sculptured, moulded or cast in marble, metal, plaster or the like materials; esp. a figure of a deity, allegorical personage, or eminent person, usually of life-size proportions."

So it can be an animal. It's usually life-size, but I think that when it gets too small, we stop saying statue (and start saying "figure" or "figurine"), but it can get as large as you can make it and we'll still say "statue" — as with the Statue of Liberty — even though there is an alternate word: "colossus." (Note that the poem displayed at the Statue of Liberty is "The New Colossus.")

I note that if there is more than one figure, we don't say "statue." For example, "Burghers of Calais" isn't called a "statue." Also, it needs to be the entire body, so we don't call that Chicago Picasso a "statue."

"An artist erased the halo over the late Joe Paterno on a mural in State College, Pennsylvania..."

"The artist Michael Pilato had put a halo over Paterno’s image after the coach’s death in January...."

Pilato added a large blue ribbon on Paterno’s lapel symbolizing support for child abuse victims, a cause the artist said Paterno had endorsed.

“When I took the halo off of Joe, it was kind of saying that he’s a human being, put the blue ribbon on him as well, and that was talking about sexual abuse awareness,” Pilato told ABC News Radio.

Then there's the image of former university president Graham Spanier, which people are "throwing stuff at." Pilato's thinking of things like painting a blindfold on him, but "I have no idea right now, you know, I haven’t slept in days because of this whole thing."

Iconography is difficult. Blindfold? But Lady Justice wears a blindfold.

The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of identity, money, power, or weakness; blind justice and impartiality.

So get some more sleep, Mr. Pilato. Maybe paint his hands over his eyes, like the "see no evil" monkey. But no:

"The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized."

They "never demonstrated, through actions or words, any concern for the safety and well-being of Sandusky's victims until after Sandusky's arrest."

The findings of the 267-page report could be seen as evidence of a changing university climate in which the corporate brand — and a blind faith in big-time athletics—is often seen as more important than the educational mission....

In a confidential note, [Gary C. Schultz, the former senior vice president for finance and business] wrote, "Behavior — at best inappropriate @ worst sexual improprieties." He also noted, "Is this the opening of Pandora's box?" and "Other children?"...

"Report: Penn State leaders, including ex-coach Joe Paterno, concealed Jerry Sandusky's activities to avoid bad publicity."

Email from CNN Breaking News.

Breaking news? It's some kind of weird mind game. You get breaking news and the news is that you didn't already know that.

CNN is using "Breaking News" the way the least-funny guy who thinks he's a comedian uses the phrase to try to make jokes.

ADDED: Here's a detailed story about the release of the independent report, which is the work of former FBI director Louis J. Freeh.

After his lawyer said he'd "probably die of a heart attack" if he were a acquitted...

... Jerry Sandusky is convicted on 45 counts of child sex abuse.

"Everyday Graces: Child's Book Of Good Manners," by Karen Santorum, Foreword by Joe Paterno.

What?!



I was going to read Santorum's "Letters to Gabriel," which deals with the same subject — the death of a baby — that Alan Colmes crudely mocked the other day. But not only is there no Kindle version, it's only available as a $130 hardcover book or a $192 audiobook. By the way, it has a Foreword by Mother Teresa.

Looking on to other works by Karen Santorum, I saw that "Good Manners" book, which sells for a reasonable $16.50, but unfortunately is not available for Kindle. I love the idea of teaching children manners. (Maybe if Rick Santorum wins the presidency, Karen — as First Lady — would make teaching manners her special issue. Michelle Obama gets away with insinuating that our kids are fat, so it would be fine, I'm thinking, for Karen Santorum to insinuate that are kids are rude. Or would that be rude?)

But what's with Joe Paterno writing the foreword? I know, Pennsylvania. It just seems so bizarre now.

"President Obama, who took office pledging to put science ahead of politics, averted a skirmish with conservatives in the nation’s culture wars..."

"... by endorsing his health secretary’s decision to block over-the-counter sales of an after-sex contraceptive pill to girls under age 17."

So begins the New York Times report, and it's hard not to read this as criticizing Obama, who phrased his support Sebelius in terms of his role "as the father of two daughters."

“And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old going into a drugstore should be able — alongside bubble gum or batteries — be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not used properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably feel the same way.”...

Odd that all the attention is on the child's health. Who is impregnating 10- and 11-year olds? We're talking about serious crimes! One reason very young girls shouldn't be able to purchase this drug on their own is that it prevents criminal behavior from coming to light. The Times quotes James Trussell, director of the Office of Population Research at Princeton University saying “Where is an 11-year-old going to get the $50 to buy this product?” What willful blindness! There is a male in the picture somewhere, a male facing a severe criminal penalty.

The NYT refers to "[s]ome Democrats" offering reasons for "avoiding a divisive debate over teenagers’ sexuality." Teenagers' sexuality? When we talk about the Penn State scandal, there's no discussion of the "teenagers' sexuality." What "divisive debate" are these Democrats talking about?

Sandusky gives the NYT a 4-hour interview.

Here. Excerpt:

"They’ve taken everything that I ever did for any young person and twisted it to say that my motives were sexual or whatever... I had kid after kid after kid who might say I was a father figure. And they just twisted that all."...

He... characterized his close experiences with children he took under his wing as “precious times,” and said that the physical aspect of the relationships “just happened that way.”

"The question is not whether but how will the student section at Camp Randall Stadium humiliate their Penn State foes?"

"I'm guessing they make a show of wearing shower caps and bath towels. Just a guess. I know that's gross and insensitive but so are those college kids, as were we at that age."

Penn State defense strategy: McQueary's credibility.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

The lawyers point out that they believe Mr. Paterno's testimony matches that of their clients. "All of them testified that Mr. McQueary did not tell any of them that he witnessed anal sodomy on March 1, 2002."...

The shower story "is a graphic image provided by a third-party witness," says Wesley Oliver, a professor of criminal law at Widener School of Law in Harrisburg, Pa. "Other stories [in the grand jury presentment] about touching are more ambiguous."

"Joe Paterno clashed repeatedly with the university's former chief disciplinarian over how harshly to punish players who got into trouble, internal emails suggest..."

"... shedding new light on the school's effort to balance its reputation as a magnet for scholar-athletes with the demands of running a nationally dominant football program."

"Pennsylvania cops say they have no records that support Mike McQueary’s claim that he called police..."

If McQueary's credibility is bad, that undercuts his value of his eyewitness testimony:

McQueary’s testimony is a key in the grand jury’s investigation and the prosecution’s case against Sandusky, and any discrepancies in his testimony and public statements are sure to be used against him by defense lawyers at trial. The New York Times reported Wednesday night on its website that a critical break in the case came in 2010 when investigators spotted a brief mention on an Internet forum about Penn State athletics that a coach, McQueary, might have some information about the long-standing rumors of sex abuse by Sandusky. Investigators set up a meeting and McQueary told his story - a graphic account of the rape he had witnessed. ...

According to New York defense attorney Tom Harvey, who is following the case for The News, McQueary’s email claims are a “defense attorney’s dream.”

“Assuming the email is not a hoax, he’s making statements that are inconsistent with prior statements,” Harvey said.

Why did Jerry Sandusky do that interview with Bob Costas?

It starts off very badly. I hear a man who is not committed to confident lying or confident truth-telling. He sounds like he's accessing his memories and filtering what we receive.

"Well, I could say that, you know, I have done some of those things. I have horsed around with kids, I... I have showered after workouts. I... I have hugged them and I have touched their leg... without intent of sexual contact, but, um... uh... so if you look at it that way... uh... there are things that... uh... wouldn't... uh... would be accurate."

After hearing that, I wondered why exposed himself to an interview, why his lawyer let him do that. But as the interview continues, including contributions from the lawyer, I think he does in fact get himself into a better position that where he was before we heard that... assuming we listen to the entire 8+ minutes. He ends:

I don’t know what I can say or what I could say that would make anybody feel any different now. I would just say that if somehow people could hang on until my attorney has a chance to fight, you know, for my innocence, that’s about all I could ask right now. You know, obviously it’s a huge challenge.