|
In Reply to: Penn risked backfire to make a salient point posted by Observer on August 25, 2004 at 15:10:28:
Unlike Lauren, I don't view Penn's ability to extort money from the criminal leadership a simple case of good luck, as if the guy won the lottery or something. He got money because he consented to remain silent for one year about his role in a criminal coverup. I'm glad he spoke out about that role after he became financially indepedent, but I think he owes the people who paid for his golden parachute a bit more in the way of material support than simply disclosing the fact he took a pay-off.
Penn definitely made a salient point, and anger is rightly directly first and foremost toward Zerby & Smith. However, another salient point also has been made, and that is this: Any benefit to be gained from Penn's disclosure WILL backfire and be lost if he doesn't step up to the plate and take responsibility for the admission that he took a pay-off. I applaud him for openly admitting what he did, but I will never agree that the ethical dilemma associated with taking $17,000 in hush money from TF's criminal leadership can be logically equated with the moral consequences of finding a pot of gold buried in your back yard.
