The New Yorker on Sandusky

Not a lot new ground covered here. All Sandusky/Paterno details are pulled from Sandusky's "Touched," Posnanski's book and the Freeh Report.

However, the story did well linking the profile of a pedophile to Sandusky's modus operandi. Some nice detail there.

 

Normally, I read New Yorker pieces in their entirety. I could not finish this one.

I suspect that I have succumbed to Sandusky-fatigue and I just do not want to continue to go over the sordid details of his actions and the events that followed from the revelations of his actions.

Other than the actual length of the prision term that he gets - - and its length relative to the life expectancy of a man of his age - - I wonder if there are any more important facts that remain undisclosed in this mess. If there are not, I guess I'll just avoid reading any more about him until he passes on and the obits go over this mess one more time.

Am I the only one who thinks this way...

 

Suppose not, since you're the second reply to a days old thread. And I am the other.

 

I am interested in knowing when he finds God and repents.

I can hope.

 

I feel like I'm over Gladwell's pop literary psychology.

 

I was over it when I found out he whored for Big Tobacco in the '90s.

 

Dom Cosentino of Deadspin (I know, I know) wrote a critique (a mild one perhaps?) of Gladwell's piece, most notable perhaps because Gladwell himself is the first commenter:

http://deadspin.com/5944033/malcolm-gladwell-turns-jerry-sandusky-into-a-parable-by-leaving-out-some-facts

Cosentino may have a point; I'm not so sure the Sandusky case fits so neatly into Gladwell's narrative of the manipulative, fools everyone around him pedophile.