Letters to the Editor

Posted: October 31, 2012

Wrong to erase Paterno's victories

Two recent articles show the impact of the Freeh report and NCAA sanctions on generations of Penn State football players. In Thursday's "NCAA chief defends Penn State sanctions," NCAA president Mark Emmert is quoted as saying: "I hope the student player on the field doesn't feel like that wonderful game they played and that great experience they had was for naught. They won that game. You are just not going to see it in the NCAA record book."

Apparently, we won't be seeing it in The Inquirer either. In "Mount Union coach goes for 324th victory" (Oct. 20), we read: "Only three college coaches have won more games: John Gagliardi (487), Eddie Robinson (408), and Bobby Bowden (377)." By choosing not to mention Joe Paterno, you also do an injustice to the players who were on the Penn State team that won the 409th game under his coaching. What did they have to do with sexual abuse?

Their loss of legacy from the NCAA-sanctioned, and PSU Board-approved, rewriting of history reminds us that two wrongs don't make a right.

Robert Giuliano, Wayne, robertgiuliano@gmail.com

Rating agencies share blame

In Mark Zandi's article Sunday, "Ups and downs of the recovery," there is no mention of how the failure of the big three rating agencies - Moody's, Standard & Poor's, and Fitch - to properly analyze and predict the risk associated with high-stakes securities contributed to the economic devastation. The Great Recession exposed the depths to which conflict of interest with Wall Street ran rampant through the offices of the big three rating agencies. Credit-default swaps were bundled and the rating agencies essentially gave what were junk bonds top-tier, AAA ratings. Zandi states, "Arguably, the most important factor holding back the recovery now is a lack of confidence." Well, the rating agencies turned the science of investing into a slot-machine game of chance. At least in Vegas, they give the big losers some good comps.

Jason Kaye, Philadelphia

Trivedi campaigning on issues

Jonathan Tamari's article Sunday, "Splitting hairs: Why do the campaigns sound so much alike?," simultaneously derides and praises Manan Trivedi for the original way ("Bad hair, good ideas") he presented himself in 30 seconds to voters. Unlike your endorsement of Trivedi's Republican opponent in Pennsylvania's Sixth Congressional District, Tamari actually did a fair job of presenting both candidates. But he could not take the campaign seriously because he was bored by the campaign ads. Too bad!

Because of Tamari's boredom, we may get summer reruns of gridlock for another two years. Perhaps it is not a question of message discipline that forces many candidates to echo the same issues. Perhaps it is because people are actually concerned about the issues, and want to hear what the candidates have to say, albeit for 30 seconds. Instead of trivializing important issues of war, medical insurance, and financial management, perhaps Tamari could spend more time on these issues, so people would not be limited to the sound bites that candidates can afford to broadcast.

Ben Burrows, Elkins Park

Casey didn't deserve endorsement

Your endorsement of Sen. Robert Casey is undeserved. Casey has proven to be an ineffective leader and representative of Pennsylvania. His first term has been undistinguished. With no notable accomplishments, he can only boast of his blind, unwavering, and enthusiastic support for the failed policies of President Obama. Rewarding such a mediocre performance will only allow him to continue to vote affirmatively for domestic and foreign policies that have failed.

A.T. Locilento Jr., Elverson

comments powered by Disqus