Tuesday, August 19, 2008

'Non-judgemental' my ass;

these people want to destroy the family. And they've done a pretty good job of it.
Consider one British parent, Fiona MacKeown, who in November 2007 went on a six-month vacation to Goa, India, with her boyfriend and eight of her nine children by five different fathers, none of whom ever contributed financially for long to the children’s upkeep. (The child left behind—her eldest, at 19—was a drug addict.) She received $50,000 in welfare benefits a year, and doubtless decided—quite rationally, under the circumstances—that the money would go further, and that life would thus be more agreeable, in Goa than in her native Devon.

Reaching Goa, MacKeown soon decided to travel with seven of her children to Kerala, leaving behind one of them, 15-year-old Scarlett Keeling, to live with a tour guide ten years her elder, whom the mother had known for only a short time. Scarlett reportedly claimed to have had sex with this man only because she needed a roof over her head. According to a witness, she was constantly on drugs; and one night, she went to a bar where she drank a lot and took several different illicit drugs, including LSD, cocaine, and pot. She was seen leaving the bar late, almost certainly intoxicated.

Followed, unsurprisingly, by her rape and murder. Then
About a month later, Scarlett’s mother, interviewed by the liberal Sunday newspaper the Observer, expressed surprise at the level of public vituperation aimed at her and her lifestyle in the aftermath of the murder. She agreed that she and her children lived on welfare, but “not by conscious choice,” and she couldn’t see anything wrong with her actions in India apart from a certain naivety in trusting the man in whose care she had left her daughter. Scarlett was always an independent girl, and if she, the mother, could turn the clock back, she would behave exactly the same way again.
Because, of course, she couldn't possibly have any responsibility in how things turned out. 'Naivety'? YOU ARE A FRIGGIN' MORON, NOT 'NAIVE'.

It is not surprising that someone in Fiona MacKeown’s position would deny negligence; to acknowledge it would be too painful. But—and this is what is truly disturbing—when the newspaper asked four supposed child-rearing experts for their opinions, only one saw anything wrong with the mother’s behavior, and even she offered only muted criticism. It was always difficult to know how much independence to grant an adolescent, the expert said; but in her view, the mother had granted too much too quickly to Scarlett.

Even that seemed excessively harsh to the Observer’s Barbara Ellen. We should not criticize the mother’s way of life, she wrote, since it had nothing to do with her daughter’s death: “Scarlett died for the simple fact that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people, as well as being blitzed with drugs, late at night, in a foreign country.” On this view, being in the wrong place at the wrong time with the wrong people is a raw fact of nature, not the result of human agency, decision, education, or taste. It could happen to anybody, and it just happened to happen to Scarlett. As for drugs, they emerge from the ether and blitz people completely at random. It all seems very unfair

And you, Ellen, you idiot. The kid was 'in the wrong place at the wrong time and drugged' because her idiot mother left her there! And you are one of the enablers who helps this kind of crap happen.

Read the whole damn thing. This is exactly what a bunch of 'progressives' would like to see here: no judgement, no responsibility, 'the state will take care of everything', the whole damn nine yards. And where it happens, the same damn things happen.

Ever see the show Two And A Half Men? One episode I saw, the father of the kid was asking his brother "What's wrong with Jake? He gets everything he wants, he lacks for nothing, we almost never tell him no....OH GOD, WHAT HAVE I DONE TO MY SON?!?" It finally hit him that he should have been saying 'no' a lot more, making him work for things, making him grow up. Well, the 'progressives' in England have basically done the same things, and far too many parents have bought into it: give the kids things, and family and rules and discipline won't matter. They think. Until they're dealing with a bunch of uncivilized, immature beasts who think rules don't apply to them. And they get that idea because they've not had to follow any rules; except for the 'don't sound bigoted or judgemental or otherwise non-pc' of course, and then, if they do break them, they'll get a talking to. At worst.

I know I say this a lot, but it does cover it: God, what a mess.


Thud said...

I come from a pretty tough part of England...blighted by unemployement but even more so by years of the socialist welfare state.Whole families that have never enjoyed the pleasure of earning their living are now incapable of any concept of life beyond the state.

Anonymous said...

To quote a book I read somewhere:

"Think of it as evolution in action."