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.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. cerumendoc says

    The victim of Sandusky’s rape and McQueary’s witnessing was doubly wounded by the fact that this evil committed against him went unpunished.  And, no, going to jail a decade later isn’t ‘closure.’   Rather, if right on the spot, at the very moment of the crime, had McQueary kicked the crap out of Sandusky, the victim might have been able to walk away with the knowledge that maybe there is good in the world and that it, indeed, triumphs.  Maybe, just maybe, despite the horrible crime committed against him, seeing Sandursky’s skull split open like a melon, courtsey  McQueary, could have provided the victim that healing he needed.

  2. Simplemind says

    Don’t forget, McQueary gained financially by not going to the cops. He went from grad student to coach at Penn State. It isn’t necessary to invoke relativism to explain the situation.

    I don’t think you can rule it out, but it is probably more a function of him being an opportunist and seeking leverage against his employer, at the expense of children. Likely he knows the difference between right and wrong and perhaps willfully chose wrong because he thought he could gain and wouldnt be caught.  Now he apparently feels shame at having done nothing to help the child and in an email recanted his grand jury version of events by claiming he did intervene and went to the cops. 

  3. Spartacus says

    I once made the mistake of using the word “reasonably” in a discussion with a superior.  It was thereupon explained to me at a very high decibel level that “reasonably” was a useless word, and shouldn’t even be in the dictionary, because it had no meaning.  Reflecting on this later, I realized that from his point of view, this was entirely correct, because although he was trying very hard to be many different adjectives (and succeeding in a number of admirable ones), “reasonable” wasn’t on his list, wasn’t something he processed, and so the word truly had no meaning to him.
     
    Reasonable is as reasonable does…

  4. Mike Devx says

    Maybe you can convince me that McQueary’s actions are caused by the miasma of political correctness… but at this point, no, I’m not buying it.

    Penn State appears to me to be the perfect example of a rigidly hierarchical system where dominance flows directly upward, and it is within *that* environment that McQueary lived.  I don’t find it pc at all, at least from this distance of observation.

    I think he abandoned his individuality to that rigid hierarchy, not to the soft bigotry of pc correctness.

  5. 11B40 says

    Greetings:

    I’m still pretty much nonplused by all this kicking of Mr. McQueary’s can down the road. Between the supporting opinions of incipient teenagers and comparisons to Medal of Honor winners, I just have to wonder what’s being searched for hereabouts. 

    Last night’s PBS Newshour reported that Mr.Sandusky is out on a relatively low six-figure bail without any electronic monitoring at a time when people, especially those in the criminal justice industry, should have some idea about his danger potential. There has been any mention of the seizure of any of his computers or documents or associations with others that I’m aware of. If you still have teeth to sink into something, that might be an issue that would bear some fruit.

    Doubtlessly, more people will encounter situations similar to Mr. McQueary, but I don’t see how all this hand-wringing and worse will preclude repetitions. Perfection has nothing to do with this world.

     

     

  6. says

    11B40,

    Sandusky’s easy.  If the charges against him are true, he’s a monster.  If he’s convicted, he’ll deserve it.  If he’s not, he’ll spend the rest of his life watching his back, I suspect.  The judge who let him off easy acted inexcusably, but we know that the justice system is weak, if not corrupt, and that a good lawyer can get you off.

    McQueary bugs me because he was there at the time.  Maybe I take this more personally because I have a little boy of my own.  The thought of someone watching and walking away spooks me.  It’s also because it does hit close to him.  I know I’d never pull a Sandusky, but it frightens me to think how easy it would be to pull a McQueary.  I want to set a standard, and I want to demand of myself that I meet that standard.  If I don’t, well, then I’ll have to live with myself as he has to live with himself.  One of the ways we prepare for problems is by practicing them in our mind and learning from the mistakes of others. 

  7. says

    I think people who live in a liberal community bubble or who expect society to protect them, take this issue more seriously than I do.

    I don’t expect society to lend me any helping hand. That’s just the reality of my expectations, which is concurrently matched with my state of paranoia, security preparations, and so on. Most people who think they have plenty of help and power going for them… don’t go to the extents that I have to study and learn the use of certain tools. People who feel safe… aren’t really motivated to go out into the beyond into INdian country for much of anything.

    The other thing is, people see Sandusky as anathema, some one not part of their cultural and societal sphere. So they don’t use his morality or behavior as a standard to test themselves. But someone else, like Mc there, can be used as a morality test. Mc isn’t a monster, but people do think he decided incorrectly to multilaterally “discuss” certain things (Boy, if I was a talking head on tv, I would be repeating the unilateral vs multilateral phrase 24/7 just to piss off LibProgs). Mc is that “example” people see of wrong behavior that isn’t yet deserving of execution for being a monstrosity.

    Maybe I’ve looked at criminal behavior and psychology for too long, but none of this stuff really impacts me. A lot of Democrats are saying that multilateral debate and argument was the right decision Mc made there. Sorta like that Hollywood director and the teenaged girl, or Barnie Frank’s prostitution house and Fannie Mae side deals. They don’t believe that they were wrong decisions. In fact, they believe those were the RIGHT DECISIONS. Think on that for a moment. My opinion is that irregardless of how much confusion or lack of data Mc had, he didn’t have the guts to do anything about it in the first place, so it’s a moot point. I originally started learning H2H to deal with serial killers or terrorists with a death wish. Compared to some boy that can’t make a decision without his daddy’s breath in his face, what exactly am I supposed to think… that he could be me? He’s as far to me as a serial killer is. If I don’t expect myself to adhere to serial killer morality and judgment, why should I expect myself to adhere to Mc and Democrat type judgment? The “societal” bridge is too far for me to be impacted by his behavior, in regards to anonymous strangers. Maybe if Mc there was some guy I knew, it would be different, but that ain’t so.

    I think one of the weird issues humans have is this irrational expectation that strangers, who aren’t related by blood, society, or culture, to you, is somehow “like” you are, a fellow human. Being fellow humans makes no difference to me. Most people expect humans to “help” in various situations. I have no such expectation. I expect them to turn away, if not become outright hostile and join the aggressor or evil faction. That is my “world view” so to speak, and I can speak from experience and analytical prediction, that most Americans don’t think in those terms. But because I don’t think in those terms, I am not strongly affected by either the actions of a Sandusky or a Mc. If they are an enemy of humanity, they should be killed. If they are a minion, they should be neutralized. If they are an ally, they should be protected. What is so difficult there to figure out. Not for me there is not. If Mc is evil or a minion of evil, eradicate him from existence. That is all that matters. If he is not, he is not. Otherwise, he’s not an issue I concern myself with. It’s not useful to waste time and interest on such things, in my view. It doesn’t get rid of evil nor does it protect the allies of human progress. Yet I do understand this infernal need of human beings, properly socialized in non-violence, pacifism, or societal protection, to have such Red Letter expectations of their fellows and of themselves. But I don’t compare myself to Sanduskies or Mcs. They might as well be Martians as far as I am concerned, for or about them ethically.

    A good lawyer can get you off? No way Book. You got to enter the 21st century here. Right now, the way it is done is that the Justice guru over at DC simply dismisses the case. You don’t even need no stinking lawyer. In fact, you don’t even need to appear in court. This is the new modern system, get with the program people. The Democrats did what they were voted to do, and are bringing back order, fairness, and justice to the system, and people need to support that.

     

  8. 11B40 says

    Greetings:  especially Bookworm at number 6

    I appreciate the forthrightness of your response because, while we may be on the opposite ends of the spectrum in this matter, my emotions somewhat drive my opinion.

    Growing up in the Bronx of the ’50s and ’60s, I was a bit of a roughneck.  Fortunately, God blessed me with a good pair of hands and my father provided ample amounts of training. I never really minded seeing people get beat up. Some earned it; some really needed it. But I never could put up with seeing some one get beat down.  At some point in time, enough is enough and my sense of personal honor requires a stop.

    One evening, I got into a bit of a dustup in our local schoolyard.  There was an initial clash after which my opponent went a bit mouthy as a form of solace, I suppose, so I gave him a second application. Unbeknownst to me, my father had been passing by on his way home an saw most of my performance. When I got home, my father took me aside and shattered my cock-of-the-walk feelings by telling me how disappointed he was in my having a second go. 
    His standard was that after you beat someone, it doesn’t matter what they say, they’re still beaten. 

     

  9. says

    Btw, in case people thought otherwise, the internet is full of Democrat punks who think they are tough shiz, but are only specialists in verballing abusing those they don’t fear. The lack of physical correction on the internet is like free virgins to Islamo terrorists. They can’t get enough nor can they resist misbehaving for evil.

     So of course the LEft capitalizes on cowardice or hesitation. They attack anyone for it, even their own, if it is useful or helpful to the cause of the Leftist alliance. But you know what… the solutions they offer to the problems of this day… were in fact the result of the problems they themselves caused. So they cause problems like this, then they get on their high horse and say “vote for us, support us, believe us” because we’ll FIGHT FOR YOU against X.

    Well, guess what. “X” only exists because of their previous behavior.

     

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply