I had in my car two fourteen year olds and one thirteen year old. All were familiar with the Sandusky case, so I wasn’t exposing them to sordid information they didn’t already know. None of them, however, knew about Mike McQueary’s involvement, or lack thereof. I gave them a simple multiple choice question:
You walk into a room and see a 50 year old man raping a 10 year old boy. Do you (a) attack the man and try to drag him off the boy or (b) sneak away and, hours later, ask your parents what you should do?
The roar from the back of the car shook the windows: “I’d rip him apart!” “Of course I’d attack him!” “I’d kick him the balls!” “That’s a really dumb question.”
As the response from these very young people demonstrates, McQueary’s young age (28) is no defense to his action. Young people can and do know right from wrong, and child rape is wrong.
How to explain McQueary then? I think the problem isn’t his young age, ’cause he, at 28, was no youngster. The problem was his old age. He’d been around long enough to be fully indoctrinated. All those liberal pundits who are apologizing for McQueary’s behavior by pointing to his youth, his tribal loyalties, and his lukewarm, delayed response are hiding the ball. For liberals, the uncomfortable truth is that McQueary probably didn’t act because, after a lifetime in America’s public education system, his moral relativism training had completely erased any absolute moral standards that might once have populated his pre-academic brain.
I was starting to compose a post on just that point, when jj saved me the effort. Let me quote here his astute comment, written in response to an earlier statement I’d made about the law’s “reasonable man” standard for reacting to a situation:
The “reasonable man” standard? The trouble with that particular fairy-tale is simple, obvious, and the same as it’s always been: who gets to define “reasonable?”
I’m afraid I’ll need to take a little issue with that. Since the discovery of political correctness — which in my life first reared its head in the 1950s — the law not only expects us to conform to entirely unreasonable behavior, it requires us to, all day every day.
If you’re a rancher within reach of the Mexican border, you’re not allowed to defend your property or, come to that, yourself. You can, however, be arrested for trying to do so. “Reasonable?” You not only can’t guard your property or yourself, you’re supposed to stand quietly by and watch your country be overrun, your way of life be buried and lost, and all that you believe defecated on. “Reasonable?”
Snookie, or Pookie, or Moochie — or whatever the hell his name was — Williams was a murderer and founder of a collection of organized offal who have spread everywhere, cost society millions, and murdered a good many people. Flushing him should have been a routine, reflexive act requiring no thought whatever, carried out with the same alacrity you’d flush anything else floating in the toilet. Of course it wasn’t. We — or I should properly say “you,” California — went into full coronary angst mode to spare his worthless life. This was “reasonable?”
In Scotland not long ago the cops pulled over a speeding car. The driver’s defense was that he was a Muslim, running late getting from wife #1 to wife #2. The bewigged and ball gown-equipped jackass on the bench (and if he was a High Court jackass, he gets to wear a red ball-gown, woo-woo!) decided that this made it an excusable offense and dismissed him without a stain on his character, or even a speeding ticket — thereby putting paid to a thousand years of Anglo-Scottish law and custom. “Reasonable?” Even for a judge?
We are wound about with laws and enmeshed in requirements that are antithetical to our customs, beliefs, way of life, and the way this country was set up to be that I’m afraid I have to find the “reasonable man” standard laughable. We have our own ball-gowned jackasses making it up as they go along, and referencing Bulgarian law, or Ukrainian law, or maybe Martian law to decide what our Constitution means when it suits them — Ginsberg outstandingly — and this is “reasonable?”
Instead of shunning NAMBLA spokesmen and placing them firmly beyond society’s pale, we invite their opinions on Oprah — because after all, don’t they have a right to be heard? Dr. Phil engages them earnestly for his (large) audience of the brain-damaged, and sadly regrets that while he cannot agree, he does understand. “Reasonable?”
So here we are, scrupulously multicultural, transnational, non-judgmental, standing for nothing — and everybody’s shocked when this McQueary kid doesn’t know what the hell to do when confronted by the situation that confronted him. Everybody here turns into a militant ass-kicker, in no doubt of what we all would have done in the same situation. (And if we’d done it, Sandusky would have lodged a suit for assault against us, and, win or lose, would have f***ed up our lives forever.) “Reasonable?”
We won’t — and don’t — defend our culture and way of life. We won’t — and don’t — defend the fundamental bases on which this nation was founded. You’re surprised McQueary found himself paralyzed? Why? I’m sure he had a nice, politically-correct upbringing — I’m surprised he even reported it. Who the hell knows what constitutes “reasonable” any more?
If my sampling of three youngsters has any validity at all, it shows that 13 and 14 year olds haven’t yet been infected by moral relativism, while a 28 year old man living in a university environment is utterly incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Let’s pray, long and hard, that we regain our cultural balance before the next generation of kids turns into ineffectual, self-doubting amoral McQuearys.
Cross-posted at Bookworm Room
I don’t like defending McQuery, but I fail to comprehend this lynch mob mentality towards him as well. I think it is a necessary function of society to shame each other, but McQuery obsession goes beyond that. I think his actions are rather simple to explain: He panicked. He was faced with the unimaginable involving the unassailable and his brain locked up on him. I fault him for not acting immediately, but I do not hate him or wish ill tidings upon him. I do thank God though that at least reported the incident. Would his life not be less complicated if he just pretended it never happened? Sandusky certainly would not have objected to such an action.
People all respond differently under pressure and I think it is childish and irresponsible for us to expect heroic deeds from those we do not know. And ultimately the truly cowardly action to take would have been to deny the incident entirely. But he didn’t.
And I wouldn’t trust your kids to save me or anyone else from a dangerous situation. I don’t know your kids, so I do not know their character. But I do know everyone likes to talk tough. I like to believe I would throttle Sandusky myself if I were in McQuery’s shoes. But fortunately I was not and can not ever say with certainty how I would react until I am.
Yep.
Many of us have an issue with McQueary’s cowardice.
http://ecc102.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/mike-mcqueary-most-hated-man-in-america-november-2011/
NotCoach: he “panicked”?? For over ten years? I can (just barely) understand him walking away, sayign to himself, did I just see what I thougth I saw? I can understand panic for about three minutes. After that, it is pure cowardice.
My point is not to defend his inadequate actions. My point is that in all of this he is the least culpable. Not all of us are cut out to be heroes and the most heroic in our society, those who serve, volunteer and then are trained to be heroic. But in the end McQuery did not take the easiest way out. If he instead chose to ignore the incident entirely his public life would be much more sanguine today. Victim #2 would continue to be not known as being a victim. I think people need to refocus their anger towards Sandusky and those who could have actually put a stop to his predatory behavior entirely when told about it, but didn’t.
“…least culpable…?” He saw it first. He did. He failed to do what needed to be done.
I have anger towards Sandusky, but if McQueary would have done the right thing right then and there, Sandusky would not have been allowed to continue in his deviant behavior.
McQueary is the most culpable for enabling a pedaphile to continue raping young boys. Because I guarantee more reports are coming.
Mike McQuearyAmerican “Progressives” — Poster Children for Moral Relativism?!!!FIFY
@NotCoach,
“Panic” is what you call it when a person slams the door in the face of a stranger who shouts “Boo!” at them, only to realize later it was their neighbor playing a prank on them. Even so, minutes later, there are apologies and everything is set right.
Stop defending this worthless man.
He did not “panic”. He froze in fear, then called his Daddy. He has to live with that. Unfortunately, that 10-year old boy has to live with it, too.
Your comments do nothing but put yourself in McQueary’s place and then defend his cowardice. I know exactly what I would have done to Sandusky. And not one jury in America would have convicted me of anything.
What you call a “lynch mob mentality” is actually just common-sense, morality, and justice.
Okay, so….at what point is it normal to do nothing when you see a young boy being sodomized by an older man?
Anyone? Anyone?
Exactly.
@NotCoach
Sorry, I’m a little female who has stood up to stop three gangbangers from breaking into a car. Stupid? You bet but I have to stand up for what is right. If I don’t, who does? Being honorable has a price. Not being honorable’s price must be much higher.
(Result of my stupidity-they looked at me called a “crazy female dog” and went on their merry way laughing.)
What an interesting question. Now ask your children what they would do if after doing what they said they would, that they found out the person was innocent of what you accuesed them of? (ie after “I’ll rip him apart!” or “I’d kick him in the balls!” the person they just assaulted, and possibly killed, was not doing what you claimed that they did?) Wait… you do realise that Sandusky has not been convicted, right? No? Have you heard of due process? Did you realise that the Grand Jury Transcript did not include all of the information during the Grand Jury Trial? That McQueary has now “clarified” that he “did something” to make what he saw “stop”?
You can check out the link below for some recent information:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7243505/police-say-no-record-penn-state-mike-mcqueary-reporting-assault
Have you heard of the Duke Lacross Team Scandal? Where several young men we accused of rape. Only after being slandered, dragged through the mud, and their lives made miserable for the enjoyment of others, it was shown to be a lie. OJ Simpson’s murder trial? Casey Anthony’s murder trial? Amanda Knox’s murder trial? Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial? Remember how all of them were eventually found NOT GUILTY? (except for lieing to Police for Casey Anthony)
After someone is hung for a crime they didnt commit, can they be brought back to life? Once a person has been branded for a crime can they ever be fully exonerated? Maybe it is better to wait until all of the facts are in. Grand Juries only hear from the prosecutor who gets to present everything he/she wishes. Sometimes the information presented to the Grand Jury ends up being lies, hearsay, or unConstitutional. Or maybe it is time to bring back the “Salem Witch Trials” or maybe start creating “American ‘Sharia’ Courts”…
All that “what if he was innocent” guano is a strawman. McQueary didn’t hear a rumor, he saw a man attacking a boy live and in person and right in front of him. And that was the question Bookworm asked the boys: “You walk into a room and see a 50 year old man raping a 10 year old boy.”
No one is asking about kicking his ass 12 years later. They are asking about stopping an attack in progress.
What a bunch of dummies!Read what McQueary actually said in court.
He peeked, for a few seconds, and BELIEVED but WASN”T SURE that there was any sexual contact. He panicked and bugged out without being able to testify that there was OR WASN’T something sexual going on. And thats what he told Paterno.
HE WASN’T SURE! Got it?
Sandusky, considering the number of complaints, probably is a child molester. BUT, Cowardly McQueary didn’t give Joe enough to go on. What is an unsure witness going to testify to? How unsure he is? And, why is he unsure? Because he did the cut and run gig. His name fits him perfectly. He got three honorable men crucified- for his cowardice. He should have to share a cell with Sandusky. Who knows, they might hit it off?