The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
Ping!
You sure wonder why McQueary didn’t personally call the cops, at the least, if he beheld Sandusky with a h-rd on about to penetrate a wee lad with said thing. It’s like he’s acting more like he saw someone nibbling from a chocolate bar in the grocery checkout line before paying for it. Could McQueary himself have been queery? (No pun intended)
I feel confident in saying that if my mother had been in that locker room it would have been all up with Sandusky right at that point. She’s 84 years old and all of 100 pounds, but she knows the difference between right and wrong.
Scathing! And true.
The ‘you can’t criticize because you don’t know how YOU would act in that situation’ response from Penn fans is astonishing.
If we’re at the point where we can debate the rights and wrongs of rape—of CHILD rape—then we’re done.
Well said. Progressives (formerly, liberals) are pushing society in this direction. There is no real right or wrong, according to them. They then set about creating laws which define how we are to behave in every facet of our lives.
Good article, as usual.
I was just reading an article about progressivism (such as that espoused by everybody from Wilson to FDR and Barry Obama), one of the hallmarks of which is the substitution of adherence to the law of the state for obedience to personal moral standards. If it’s legal, it must be okay; morality is found in following the letter of the law (in this case, doing the minimum required by reporting the “incident” to a superior).
One thing i haven’t seen speculated about so far in all this, is this:
When McQueary witnessed the attack taking place, he testified that both Sandusky and the victim saw him. Obviously Sandusky would have recognized him since they had known each other even prior to McQueary coming to PSU as a football player, not to mention that his height and shock of red hair would make him easily recognizable to anyone familiar with the program. So given this, what did Sandusky do in the following weeks? He had to realize there was a good chance McQueary would report the incident. Did he contact McQueary at some point? Did he plead with him, telling him that he didn’t see what he thought he saw (that it was just “horsing around”)? Or did he break down and admit that yes he was a sick old man, but begged for mercy, for him not to pursue the matter any further, promising he would never do anything like that again? Or did he threaten him in some way, perhaps saying that if you take this to the police, not only will they likely not do anything about it, but he’d make sure that you’ll never work at PSU again? Or did he get in touch with the higher ups at PSU and persuade them to sweep this matter under the rug?
In any event, i have to think that if McQueary had seen a stranger doing this, his reaction would have been totally different. Not excusing it, but just trying to understand why he acted the way he did and whether Sandusky had some sort of psychological hold over him. Either from perhaps growing up having idolized him or maybe out of fear, knowing that he still held much power and influence in the “Happy Valley” area, and that if you turned on him it could be detrimental to yourself and/or your family.
Which brings to mind that missing District Attorney......
...as the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle wrote some years ago: “When we say ‘we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances,’ we make cowardice the default position.”
I quote that line in my current book, in a section on the “no man’s land” of contemporary culture. It contrasts the behavior of the men on the Titanic who (notwithstanding James Cameron’s wretched movie) went down with the ship and those of the École Polytechnique in Montreal decades later who, ordered to leave the classroom by a lone gunman, meekly did as they were told and stood passively in the corridor as he shot all the women. Even if I’m wetting my panties, it’s better to have the social norm of the Titanic and fail to live up to it than to have the social norm of the Polytechnique and sink with it.
That’s the issue at the heart of Penn State’s institutional wickedness and its many deluded defenders. In my book, I also quote the writer George Jonas, back when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were revealed to be burning down the barns of Quebec separatists: With his characteristic insouciance, the Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau responded that, if people were so bothered by illegal barn burning by the Mounties, perhaps he would make it legal. Jonas pointed out that burning barns isn’t wrong because it’s illegal, it’s illegal because it’s wrong. A society that no longer understands that distinction is in deep trouble.
To argue that a man witnessing child sex in progress has no responsibility other than to comply with procedures and report it to a colleague further up the chain of command represents a near-suicidal loss of that distinction.
The Current FReepathon Pays For The Current Quarters Expenses?
Why, the graduate assistant is so "distraught" that he has to leave and telephone his father. He is pushing 30, an age when previous generations would have had little boys of their own. But today, confronted by a grade-schooler being sodomized before his eyes, the poor distraught child-man approaching early middle-age seeks out some fatherly advice...
Great post - thanks.
You’ll enjoy reading this - it backs you up...