Mike McQueary -- Poster Child for Moral Relativism?
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