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.

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. 

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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.