Okay... I'll bite. First: no, there are no passes. I offer exhibit one, a great piece by Sara Ganim shortly after everything blew through the fan in November: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/11/special_report_why_the_jerry_s.html
Secondly, I must point out that - while it's fair to say there are Second Mile issues with Corbett - it is not accurate to say Corbett took campaign donations from the charity. He took campaign donations from people who served on the board of the charity. That's not just splitting hairs. Why? Because when you look at who those board members were, they have personal business interests that far outstrip or outweigh their interest in The Second Mile. The causative leap from Second Mile board member donating to Corbett ergo the money was intended to influence investigation of Second Mile is fallacious. However, the reverse argument of Corbett being aware of Sandusky investigation and its connection to the Second Mile and still taking donations from folks who served on the board is more valid. The governor, I believe, argues that to decline such donations could have tipped off people to an ongoing investigation. Maybe, maybe not. It would certainly have raised some eyebrows had he declined $$$ from some of those folks.

There are several problems with the opinion piece you cite. The biggest is the claim that the supposed failure to interview major players like McQueary, Curley, Shultz, etc. thereby constitutes a major hole in the investigation. If one reads the report - and checks the footnotes - one realizes rather quickly that the Freeh report relies on sworn testimony from all of these people given during various legal proceedings. Testimony under oath is better than unsworn answers to questions in interviews. One other point I'd make is that the article claims the media are ignoring that the report says Paterno decided Sandsuky would not succeed him BEFORE the 1998 shower incident. That's crap. I myself have written TWO stories that make that as explicit as the nose on your face. Inaccuracies like these should make one pause before accepting this guy's conclusions too readily. The best bet for anyone really interested: read the Freeh report yourself and make up your own mind.

No bonuses. This Patriot-News reporter - I won't speak for us all, but I don't believe I am alone - is as sensitive to Sandusky-overload as anyone... perhaps more so, since we're the ones who have to immerse ourselves in it to report what we do. The simple fact is this report is a major part of an ongoing story. That story happens to be intensely unpleasant on a host of levels. This particular installment was not an attempt to reach for crumbs - it's mentioned specifically in the report, and - I thought - lends perspective on Spanier going forward. Reasonable minds can - of course - disagree.

It was the opinion of Penn State counsel - former Supreme Court Justice Cynthia Baldwin - that they could not take Sandusky's keys to the showers in 2011 after the Patriot-News reported the grand jury investigation, and - according to the Freeh report - some in the athletic dept. questioned why he still had use of the facilities. Baldwin's opinion was based on Sandusky having been given emeritus status (by Spanier) upon his retirement in 1999. Without any charges having been filed - Baldwin said - the university would be open to a civil suit if it restricted his access. The report also notes that some employees assumed from Sandusky's ongoing use of facilities and appearance in the President's box at football games that the grand jury had actually dropped the investigation and that he'd been cleared. The handwritten notes on a draft of Sandusky's terms of retirement that appear to be Paterno's - according to the report - question the liability of allowing Second Mile kids use university gym and weight room equipment with Sandusky. Whether that was simply a straight-up legal liability (injury-lawsuit) concern or more wide ranging is subject to interpretation, but the Freeh report references them in context of the former.

Nor was it meant to be... unfortunately. And just for the record: I grew up on a dairy farm.

I'll make it easy for you: "In the interest of full-disclosure, I should note that I grew up living over one of the largest natural gas storage fields in North America and only about 600 yards from one of Dominion Transmission’s big compressor stations. I know what an emergency blow-down feels like at 4 a.m.: One goes bolt upright from sound sleep because the roar sounds like a jet fighter is taking off from your front yard, windows rattling, apocalypse approaching, as all of the gas in the station suddenly blows into the sky to release pressure and prevent an explosion. But in my neck of the woods, the benefits of the industry generally outweigh the drawbacks. My mother retired as an engineer after 20 years of working at the station."

Ummm... did you bother to read the link? If you want a glimpse into my biases, I made them explicit in my review of "Gasland" : http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/06/gasland_review_documentary_on.html

And then there's this, from my favorite Reason reporter Ron Bailey: http://reason.org/news/show/natural-gas-flip-flop

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rube

Sorry, your job numbers are WAY off base. There's no question the gas industry has brought economic benefits to the state, including lots of new hires, but the real number - including ancillary industries - is closer to 20,000 new jobs in the last three years. Here are the most recent stats from Labor & Industry: http://www.paworkstats.state.pa.us/admin/gsipub/htmlarea/uploads/Marcellus_Shale_Fast_Facts_Viewing.pdf

That should have been "fraught" with complications!

True... and in addition to the South Newark Basin which you refer to here, there are other productive strata of shale including the Utica, the Rhinestreet and the Geneseo. The issue so so brought with complications, Marcellus has become a kind of shorthand for shale drilling in general. In part that's because it's the most well-known and quite possibly the largest reservoir, but other strata are certainly being tapped and in production.

The information in the film is not bad; the presentation is... you know, the film part. What's more, the information has been widely available for well over a year, including right here in the Patriot-News. Here's just one example: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2011/04/wtf_what_the_frack_is_hydrauli.html

I shall offer a twerpish response: there's a difference between a review and a news story. The movie - in my opinion - is crap... in part precisely because the P-N readers have NOT been cheated. If they've been reading any of my stories about the drilling, they know I treat the issue seriously and they know everything and more than what's offered in this film. If you don't believe me, perhaps you'll believe the people who bankrolled the film. Here's their appreciative assessment of my reporting on the issue: http://www.energyindepth.org/h’burg-patriot-news-steps-up-with-the-facts-on-fracturing/

Here's a reminder... more skepticism than most others were offering at the time: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/06/gasland_review_documentary_on.html

Two of those women are quoted in the story.

Yeah, scratch that last bit: my "close reading" was a misreading. Pre-release will be gone as of July 1, 2013.

Corbett's original proposal - or that of his Justice Reinvestment commission - specifically required funding be sent to the local level; unfortunately, the legislature did not get around to passing that portion of the reforms. Word is they intend to in the fall, but as it stands now, it's fair to say an added burden has been put on the local level without accompanying funds - though it's a relatively light burden, as everything is optional except the ban on third-degree and ungraded misdemeanors going to state, and there's only about 75 of them statewide per year. However, it's unfair at this point to blame that unfunded mandate on the governor; in this instance, it's the doing of the legislature.

The original projections done by Tony Fabelo factored in the loss of pre-release and still resulted in reduced population and savings (in part from the diversion of technical parole violators into CCCs instead of prison), but a close reading of the law as passed appears to retain some form of pre-release. I'm now looking into exactly what that means.

Most of the provisions in the law take effect in 60 days. There are some exceptions. The apparent elimination of pre-release does not take effect until July 1 of next year (2013)... though there is some uncertainty about that, see my post below. There is also a prohibition against anyone being sentenced to state prison for a third-degree or ungraded misdemeanor - that goes into effect in 30 days.