Child rape: high standards and zero tolerance *UPDATED*

I never thought there’d come a day when I’d agree with Andrew Sullivan, but I just saw a pig fly by outside my window, so this must be the day.  He and Megan McArdle have differing views about the appropriate response when you see your boss raping a child.  Here’s Sullivan’s response to someone’s suggestion that it’s perfectly reasonable to be passive if you respect your boss (or if the rapist is an uncle or father or friend):

If you see anyone – even your own father – raping a ten year old in the showers, the first thing you do is stop it yourself. You don’t even call the cops right away. You clock the rapist in the head or drag the boy out of his clutches. I’m so sick of these excuses for the inexcusable. McQueary is as depraved as all the others who stood by and did nothing.

Well . . . yes.

McArdle, however, takes a more nuanced approach.  According to her, we should appreciate the McQueary was looking at someone he liked and respected, and that was obviously going to temper his response:

I have been thinking some more about the Penn State case, and why McQueary and Paterno did what they did.  And I have come to the conclusion that most commentators are overlooking a rather obvious contributing factor: they liked Sandusky.

[snip]

Think about what that really entails: overcoming all the shock and horror, the defensive mechanisms that make you question what you’re really seeing. The total destruction of a long relationship as soon as you name it out loud and accuse him to his face. The actual physical logistics of grabbing a naked sixty year old man, detaching him from that child, and then pounding on him for a while as a ten year old you don’t know watches. The fact that the minute you go to the police, you will have utterly ruined this man’s life: he will be jobless, friendless, and branded as the worst sort of pervert by everyone in the country–oh, and also, in protective custody so that the other inmates in jail don’t, like, kill him.

[snip]

When you find out that someone you know is a pedophile, that doesn’t erase your knowledge that they’re also a human being. It does in the public mind, of course, but it’s very different when you know them.

We are evolved to live in small groups, with very deep loyalty to the other members. In most situations, this is in fact a completely laudable sentiment. But this is the dark side: it is very hard for us to betray the members of those small groups to which we belong, particularly if we have strong emotional bonds to that person. There is a scientific name for people who are not bound by these sorts of ties: sociopaths. And as I understand it, they do not, in fact, make excellent agents of justice, because they don’t care about the victims, either.

Etc. I especially like it the way McArdle, in the last paragraph I quoted, manages to suggest that turning on someone you know, if that someone is in the act of committing a vile, immoral crime, makes you a sociopath.

I’ll concede here, solely for the sake of argument, that everything McArdle says is probably correct factually, but nothing she says excuses McQueary’s conduct.  While reacting instantly when you see a man you’ve respected doing something terribly wrong may be difficult, it’s still the right thing to do.  You’re not a sociopath if you uphold moral standards.

Nor are you a sociopath if you overcome your fear of doing the right and necessary thing.  Can’t you just see the Marines or the Army or the Navy having a new “most people” standard?  “Well, most people would run away if someone was shooting at them.  Heck, they wouldn’t even hide.  They’d keep running until they were in the next country.  So, guys, if someone shoots at you and you run away, no worries.  You get a pass.”  It is to laugh!

The law does have a “reasonable man” standard, which means that people are not expected to conform to entirely unreasonable behavior.  McArdle is trying to craft such a standard for McQueary.  Indeed, with that sociopath reference, she’s trying to say that all reasonable men, seeing a child being raped by a figure of respect would sneak away.  The problem with this is that the universal revulsion towards Sandusky’s conduct, as well as the universal condemnation towards McQueary’s response, says she’s way off base about the average/reasonable person’s response.  The reasonable man, confronted with the same situation, believes that the right and moral thing to do is to rip the child rapist off the child, not to sneak out and call Daddy.  To analyze McQueary’s probably fears and doubts is merely to offer reasons for his behavior that don’t rise to the level of valid excuses — and that’s true even if many of us would have the same problem in the same situation.

UPDATE:  David Brooks makes precisely the same point McArdle did, which boils down to “I bet you wouldn’t have behaved any better than McQueary if you were in his shoes.”  He’s also just as wrong as she was.  As a society, we have to believe that each of us would have behaved better.  We cannot allow McQueary’s conduct to stand as the appropriate response to witnesses a man rape a young boy.  Incidentally, those of you who have children know that a 10 year old boy cannot be mistaken for an older child.  A ten year old is little.  He’s a boy, not a man or even a proto-man.

In order to have something reasonably approximating a moral, functional society, all of us have to believe that we would be proactive in rescuing the child, and we each have to have a mental image of ourselves acting so that, should the situation arise, we have a moral and practical template to follow.  That some of us, indeed, many of us, might pull a McQueary and choke when the moment comes is NO EXCUSE.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Simplemind

    Strikes me that there must be two different kinds of people in the world. Those that fear to act and those that fear that they will not act in a crisis.  Neither knows for sure what they will do in the moment of crisis. I would like to think that I would have done better than did McQueary.  He failed. Even if you believe he did the right thing by slinking away and reporting to Paterno, when nothing came of his report, he was duty bound to do more. He certainly is now percieved as having benefited from keeping silent (keeping the problem within the organization) since he stayed on at Penn State landing a coaching job.  He is damaged as a result. No matter what he did he was going to have to face the fire. That is the reality. There was going to be no easy out.  What he did at the time probably seemed to him to be the easy way out and he rationalized it as the right way. Now look where he is, perhaps forever stained as a pedophile enabler. DO NOT BE AFRAID.

  • Danny Lemieux

    In McQueary’s favor, I believe that I know how I would react today, but I am not sure how I would have reacted as a 20-something graduate student, not sure of himself and where he fits in the world. Still, that does not obviate the question of whether it would have been the wrong response. It might explain it, it does not excuse it. I did and said many things in my 20s that were, in hindsight, very wrong. Those are growing experiences. McQueary’s response to Sandusky’s act may have been understandable, it was still wrong.
     
    Unfortunately, these are distinctions that are becoming more and more difficult to make in our non-judgmental society and the educational systems that prop it its mores.
     
    I do notice that the one missing element (which, to your great credit, you did raise at the end of your post, Book) in these media discussions regarding the actions of Sandusky and McQueary is the kid himself. He appears to be an incidental prop in this stage play taking place. I would think that he should be a leading member of the cast. Maybe even the focus.

  • Charles Martel

    What McArdle says is a perfect example of hand-wringing, an affliction that has paralyzed almost all of our wannabe moral superiors today. If reacting to Sandusky’s assault on that child by pulling him off and breaking him in several places would make me a sociopath, then so be it. As long as McArdle wanted to hand out the monicker, I’d accept it.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Morality is not about the truth. Thus people don’t care about the facts of the situation or what was actually going on. What people care about is enforcing common behavior and standards. Irregardless of what it costs whom. To enforce and modify human behavior, requires changing reality, not researching the facts.

    This is its flaw as its well as its benefit in engineering human societies. People can just say “sex is private and it’s taboo in public” and nobody cares to know WHY. Just that it is common sense and enforced by society. The truth, people don’t really care about. Society’s power, though, everyone should care about, for society can make them do a lot of things.

  • Duchess of Austin

    In my book, a 26 year old person is *grown.*  An adult.  They can vote, they can drink, they can sign contracts.  If, by the time you are *grown* you don’t know that a near 60 year old guy schtupping a 10 year old kid is WRONG, you need to have your head examined, not be the heir to a cushy coaching job.  I don’t care if it was Jesus Christ himself who was buggering a little kid, McQueary did not stop the rape.  Instead, he took the cowardly way out and called his daddy.  Puleeze.  He even acknowledges that Sandusky and the kid both made eye contact with him!  Come onnnnnn.  He had the element of surprise on his side and seriously, how much effort would it have taken for him to continue on into the showers and stop what was going on?  Nobody says he had to make a flying tackle.  All he had to do was make his presence definitely known and then go call the cops.  Heck, he could have made the call to the PD from his cell phone, right in the perp’s face.
     
    All that has to happen for evil to proliferate is for good men to do nothing.  Pretty prescient words, if you ask me.  A good man did nothing in this case and how many more little kids were buggered in the next NINE years before somebody had the guts to stop this monster?
     
    I have no sympathy for any of those men.  It seems that the powers that be played a sick game of “telephone” and the rape got minimized as it went up the chain of command.  It went from child rape to somebody feeling “uncomfortable.”  Not a one of these people, who had the power to stop Sandusky as long as 12 freaking years ago, wanted to rock their cushy, comfy boat and do what they all knew to be the right thing.  There is no way you can convince me that none of these guys were completely ignorant of Sandusky’s little friends and what he did to them. 
     
    I’m sure there are upwards of 100 or more victims.  Do the math….3 or 4 victims a year since 1977! OMG.  Sandusky didn’t just wake up one morning and decide to start buggering little boys.  He was a sick freak from the get go and he formed his charity to have access to the type of prey he desired and NOBODY did a goddamned thing about it for fear of losing their own sinecures.  Disgusting.  They all deserve what they get.
     
    As far as I’m concerned, they need to burn down the buildings and salt the ground.
     

  • JKB

    No need to pummel, but who leaves the child?  Simple rule:  When you see an adult having sex with a child, you take the child with you, preferably to the hospital, when you leave.

    Worse implication of McQueary, from his own testimony:  “The graduate assistant was shocked but noticed that both Victim 2 and Sandusky saw him.  The graduate assistant left immediately, distraught.”

    What kind of man looks into a child’s eyes then leaves them to their fate?  

    The mind can rationalize many things, perhaps even easier after decades of post-modern attacks on morality and honor.  But just because you can deceive yourself, doesn’t make it right, doesn’t make you right and doesn’t give you leave from accountability.  You knew, you did nothing, we know the kind of person you are.

    That being said, no one knows what kind of person they are, in this situation, until they face it.  You prepare by creating hard values and distinct barriers to rationalizing compromises to those barriers.   

  • Kate

    The McArdle argument absolutely blows my mind.  What other heinous act would it take for … never mind. History has far too many examples of what happens when individuals refuse to actively confront evil acts – for whatever reason. 

    One of the lessons that I try to pass on to my children is that of the absolute necessity to choose to do the right thing – be it to not cheat, use drugs, or ignore bullying behavior. At times, it feels like we’re rowing upstream – but realizing that the easy choice of behaviors is not always the best is 3/4 of the battle. 

    What McArdle is not facing, I think, is that bad choices are not necessarily made by strangers. It is far easier to excuse behavior by someone you know, but that doesn’t mean that the excuse should be made.

    Interestingly enough, I just ran across the latest essay prompts for the SAT (November’s seating.) Obviously these questions are burning in many minds.

    Question 1:  It has been said that “All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.” This statement suggests that people should do more than merely think about themselves and a few others, that they should feel responsible for issues and concerns that affect the larger society or community. But aren’t most people already doing a lot more than “nothing” by taking responsibility for their own well-being and that of their families and friends? Assignment: Should individuals take responsibility for issues and problems that do not affect them directly?

     http://professionals.collegeboard.com/testing/sat-reasoning/prep/essay-prompts

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    At the risk of appearing contentious, or even worse, those little Ox-bow Incident hairs on the back of my neck still seem to be vibrating away. Right now, I’m kind of wondering how many of these Penn State analyses are a kind of whistling past the graveyard reaction. The longer and louder their condemnations, the more we hopefully protect ourselves from acting similarly in some future encounter. 

    During my all-expense-paid tour of sunny Southeast Asia, I was an infantry squad leader. One day as we took our lunch break, I put two of my rifleman out on an observation post lest our repast be disturbed. Shortly thereafter, one of them called on the radio to say he saw two miscreants approaching and asked what he should do. My flippant Bronx-style reply was, “Did you forget your weapon?” Now this young man, who had been through both Basic and Advanced Infantry training was not a bad soldier, but the circumstance he found himself in was a bit more than he could handle at that moment, for whatever reason. 

    Similarly, there was an incident in another one of our company’s platoons in which a pointman came face to face with a bad guy and both turned tail and beat feet. Again, a good soldier, well trained, met a circumstance that overloaded his circuits and produced a less that optimal result. These experiences have left me more so than usual to “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” 

    I spent most of my worklife in the printing industry. One of the boons and banes of that industry is dealing with Graphic Designers. One of the interesting things I came across in doing so was the concept of positive and negative space, the former having something in it as opposed to the latter. Looking at the Penn State situation and all the now inherent hand-wring, I asked my self what’s not begin put under the analytic microscope. Several things stand out to me. 

    The first is the homosex. I’ve seen references to anal rape, oral rape, sexual predation, but nowhere at any time to homosex or any of its variants. To my mind, that seems peculiar. I mean its obviously homosex and, at least in my mind, that would be a more heinous act than heterosex in that the damage to the child’s sexuality might be even more complicated. Yet, this issue seems to have the benefit of Harry Potter invisibility cloak.

    The second is the requisite references to the Catholic Church’s failures in similar situations. The Church has certainly earned its ignominy in this regard, but there is another organization, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) that has the goal of not only promoting, perhaps perfecting, this behavior but also of legitimizing it. Yet, I have no mention of it in the couple of handfuls of articles that I have read. Should not the public be informed or warned about this collection of predators and what they are about? Does this incident not provide such an opportunity?

    Next is the due process aspect. Not long ago, the members of the Duke University lacrosse team found themselves entrapped in a legal incident with racial and sexual implications. In my opinion, the university did not behave particularly well. The team coach was fired and the team disbanded for some reason that made sense to the educated and credentialed overseers of that university. Several dozen faculty members had no problem condemning the accused before the they had had the benefit of any due process. None of those administrators and educators suffered any penalty. Those leaders in the sexual/civil rights industry who made their own contributions to the controversy seem still to be leading their various organizations with any moral approbation being heaped upon them.

    The administrators at Penn State who behaved illegally or immorally should be investigated and their shortcomings brought to light. But there should be some form of due process involved. I see many references on blogs about people “being thrown under the bus” and things being done “for the children”. Many of those references are of a mocking tone. In terms of the non-judicial sanctions so far imposed/inflicted by Penn State, there seems to me to be some similarity. So, now that the university is in the glare of the public spotlight, one should assume that their interests are truth, justice, and the American way? As opposed to “Someone get a rope!” or “Will no one relieve me of this man?”. 

    Lastly, is the question of why a university has its own police force and how does that work in our democracy? I realize that there must be many warm and fuzzies for the ruler of the Penn State fiefdom to have his own military wing, but is this force responsible to elected officials or to appointed ones. As the university seems to have been successful in keeping the assaults out of the public judicial system for quite a while, is that not an indicator that something is grievously wrong or at least worthy of examination?

    There seems to be much wrong at Penn State. However, I think that we will all be better off if we put a governor or two on our self-righteousness and moral indignation. A calm, rational process of investigation and explanation is what is most likely to produce an positive outcome of a very negative situation. If you all remember, the Ox-bow Incident did not end well.

     

  • Charles Martel

     
    “You prepare by creating hard values and distinct barriers to rationalizing compromises to those barriers.”  
    JKB reinforces the case to be made that we are not always our own best keepers. Society has to erect hard and thick walls to contain us when we are faced with moral issues that tempt us to desert the good.

    I used to work for a magazine in Berkeley. One day the publisher, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, the calendar editor, a progressive Jewish woman who would not be caught dead believing in Judaism, and I got into a discussion about ethical boundaries. How far would you go, I asked? As an example, I brought up the mountains of data that Nazi scientists had generated as a result of their experiments in freezing thousands of Jews to death. “The Jews are dead and there’s nothing we can do to bring them back,” I said. “Shouldn’t we use the Nazi data as a way of showing that they did not die in vain?”

    Both of them were a bit troubled by the source of the knowledge, but said they had no objection to using the data. They agreed with my pragmatic assertion that it would be a shame to let the Nazis’ findings go to waste.

    I then told them that I did not believe my own proposition. I said that the data were so tainted and ill-gotten that we should destroy them. They objected to that assertion, reminding me that destroying the data would have made the Jews’ meaningless.  

    Then I asked Lois, the calendar editor, “Here’s a similar situation. An assailant sets upon your oldest daughter and kills her. In the process he steals $5,000 from her. I, a Good Samaritan, appear and kill the assailant. A rough sort of justice has been served. Now the money is useless to your daughter because she’s dead, and her assailant had no right to it. Would it be OK for me to keep the money? It would be a shame to let it go to waste.”

    She didn’t like that. She was very unsettled by my what-if. The less abstract and closer to home the example of misbegotten gains became, the more she found morally wrong with my proposed disposition of the loot. “It would belong to her family,” she said.

    “Who is the family of the dead Jews?” I asked.

    “Israel,” she said.

    “Well, Israel refuses to use the data. What do you make of that?”

    For a second there—but only a second—she left the realm of pragmatism and walked in a place where some things are so tainted by the blood of innocents that they are no longer available to us for normal human use. They have to be put away, never to be touched.

    Then she was back in Liberal Land. “Why wouldn’t you use the data?” she asked.

    “Because there is a wall I would have to breach to get to it. A high, hard and terribly unrelenting wall that tells me there are places where even my thoughts are not allowed to go.”

    “Why pen yourself that way?”

    “Because walls not only keep us safe from the dangers without, they keep the world safe from the danger within us. Ask the Nazis how the unbounded ability to collect their data worked out. Ask the Jews they murdered to get it.”

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Martel’s dilemma leaves out ultimate goals of longer reaching good. It doesn’t consider what happens when the data is used to save or prevent the loss of millions of lives. Nor does it consider what happens if the 5,000 is essential for some project that will ensure the elimination of murder or murderers. What determines right or wrong then is possibility and decision. Somebody has to make the decision of what to do, whether the ends require the methods utilized. If there is no better way, then one is left utilizing the resources that are available. When it comes to the extinction of nations, tribes, families, and humanity itself, the refusal to use available resources is essentially a suicide pack. But the person that determines the situation is dire, is making a judgment based upon epistemology. Thus ethical dilemmas is never purely about ethics really. Epistemology and truth factors critically in what decisions should be made. 

  • Danny Lemieux

    “Because walls not only keep us safe from the dangers without, they keep the world safe from the danger within us.”

    And that, Charles the Hammer, is why you deserve an honored place sitting beside the guru on top of the mountain. 

    I can’t tell you all the times that I have tried to tell people that there was nothing strange or insane about the Nazis, because the Nazis reside in all of us, only to be greeted with totally blank, unbelieving and hostile stares. Especially from Jewish people, who take particular offense at that statement. It’s rather frightening, really. 

  • Danny Lemieux

    Actually, it makes me think of the concept of “taboo”, a Polynesian term that references behaviors in which individuals should never be engaged. During the 1960s and beyond, cultural “taboos” were viewed as cute, irrelevant and even superstitious concepts practiced by backward, unenlightened peoples…like Republican conservatives, for example. 

    Over time, I’ve come to realize that taboos represent social circuit breakers to human behavior. In and of themselves they may appear inane cultural curiosities. However, they represent prohibitions against behaviors that lead to slippery slope descents into depravity. They were put into societies as “walls” (using Charles M’s phraseology) to prevent the evolution of more depraved and destructive behaviors. 

    For example, adults taking showers with kids may seem innocuous. However, as recent events at Penn State indicate, such activity should be a social taboo. 

    Bring back the Taboo!  

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    Every society is a complex machine. Taboos that might be effective in one, aren’t for another.

  • JKB

    Society has to erect hard and thick walls to contain us when we are faced with moral issues that tempt us to desert the good.

     Society cannot build the containment.  You discover what kind of man you are when you are faced with a choice, in the dark, with no one watching, with no one likely to find out.  It is then, when it is only you and your conscious, that you learn  who you are.  That can only come from inside.

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    There are generally two models of primitive society’s morality. The first one is based upon honor: the ability to trust a person’s word as being the guarantor of behavior. The second one is based upon external influence and punishment, whether that be law, tribes cutting out the weak and the feminine, or police states.

     America was originally One, based upon a frontier system. In New Orleans, DC, Oakland, Los Angeles, SF, and Chicago…. it is now Two.

     Those two archetypes pave the way for all sorts of hybrid and mixed systems. JKB illustrated a desire for an honor based system of enforcement. Others here described a desire for external controls such as law or social morality. These two extremes are basically mutually exclusive. The person that relies upon trusting other people’s character and honor, has little need for laws, police, or such things. Georgia is much in that mold. Totalitarian nations, the Left, Democrat Socialism, or police states like Singapore and China, tend to rely on external fear, punishment, decrees, examples (Martha Stewart was an example), and “lessons” (Leftist US Academia loves giving out pointed lessons on stuff) to keep people in check.

     

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    It is hard to utilize society based enforcement of laws and morality from an external perspective, in such a fashion that good is achieved. It’s very hard for fallible humans to not abuse the power to control their fellow citizens. Singapore and Japan are two exceptions to this rule, where their behavior is codified and modified by extremely heavy social controls. You cannot even imagine the level of fear and social inhibition the Japanese have concerning certain things. Literally, you cannot imagine it and if you ever came to know about it, you would face culture shock in the extreme given your American sensibilities. However, most of the time state or social controls turn into corrupt evil retarded behavior like the 3rd Reich, Islamic regressiveness, Leftist death worshipping, and so on.

    When Americans say “society should decide morality, not the state” what they really mean is “individuals must be able to decide for themselves in their own community, not some outsider”. A society made out of drones and “just following orders ma’am” people would turn out to be just another police state of evil minions.

     Of course, if you went all the way to honor based, you would get back blood feuds, the duel, and all that other “uncivilized” stuff, was determined by child raping, mass murdering Leftist revolutionaries of the modern era… that is.

  • Pingback: Bookworm Room » McQueary’s age is no excuse for his lukewarm, delayed action()

  • jj

    The law does not expect us to conform to entirely unreasonable behavior.  On what planet does this thinking prevail?  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? 

  • http://bookwormroom.com Bookworm

    Oh, my gosh, jj! You are ridiculously right.  You’ve also touched upon a point I keep meaning to blog about, but can’t seem to started, namely the fact that moral relativism may be what really paralyzed McQueary.  In a world where the only evil is conservativism, how in the world was he supposed to know that what he saw was wrong?

  • http://ymarsakar.wordpress.com Ymarsakar

    They agreed with my pragmatic assertion that it would be a shame to let the Nazis’ findings go to waste.

    did these semi hypocrites say the same thing about American losses in Vietnam, Iraq, and Taiwan?