How dare we judge a woman who has had 9 children by five men, who lives on welfare, takes the kids to some 3rd world country, leaves one 15 year old daughter in the care of an old guy and the daughter winds up dead? In an article about how bad it is to be a British kid:
What explains the nonjudgmental attitude among elites? The reluctance to criticize Fiona MacKeown might be an expression of sympathy for someone in the throes of grief: however foolishly (or worse) she behaved, she certainly did not deserve the murder of her daughter. Furthermore, the Guardian and Observer journalists might argue, we do not know enough about the details of her life to criticize her fairly. Perhaps she is a good mother in most respects; perhaps her children, apart from the drug addict and the murdered Scarlett, are happy, and will lead lives of fulfillment and achievement. After all, no style of upbringing guarantees success or, for that matter, failure; and therefore we should suspend judgment about her.
I suspect, however, that the main consideration inhibiting elite criticism of MacKeown is that passing judgment would call into question the shibboleths of liberal social policy for the last 50 or 60 years—beliefs that give their proponents a strong sense of moral superiority. It would be to entertain the heretical thought that family structure might matter after all, along with such qualities as self-restraint and self-respect; and that welfare dependency is unjust to those who pay for it and disastrous for those who wind up trapped in it.
Theodore Darlymple concludes:
The British government thus pursues social welfare policies that encourage the creation of households like the Matthews’, and then seeks, via yet more welfare spending, to reduce the harm done to children in them. But was the Matthews household poor, in any but an artificial sense? At the time of Shannon’s current stepfather’s arrest, the household income was $72,000; it lived free of rent and local taxes, and it boasted three computers and a large plasma-screen television. Would another $5,000 or $10,000 or $20,000 have made any difference?
A system of perverse incentives in a culture of undiscriminating materialism, where the main freedom is freedom from legal, financial, ethical, or social consequences, makes childhood in Britain a torment both for many of those who live it and those who observe it. Yet the British government will do anything but address the problem, or that part of the problem that is its duty to address: the state-encouraged breakdown of the family. If one were a Marxist, one might see in this refusal the self-interest of the state-employee class: social problems, after all, are their raison d’être.
So children in Britain suffer from emotional lack and material indulgence. This is a deadly combination. Not only that, but the elites refuse to hold the parents responsible for this disastrous mix. Expecting parents to work, or women to stop at one or two men, etc. is simply not done because it would call into question liberal policies and ethics (or lack thereof). It pays to be irresponsible and reckless. It pays in America, too.
There is a good way to change this bad behavior. Stop underwriting it with tax-payer dollars. Remove the incentive to live licentiously and reinforce the behavior that’s desired. Part of me would also like to punish parents who have rotten kids. I know that’s not always fair. Still, in my short time on this earth, I have yet to see “bad seeds”, but I have seen loads of bad parents. And they always seem shocked when their precious offspring become Satan’s foot soldiers.
And another thing: being a single parent is no excuse. Michael Phelps was raised my his mom. He and his sisters turned out fantastic–they are a credit to her dedication. But she worked and she was committed to something she loved, education, and they learned by her example. Even in less-than-ideal circumstances, children can succeed. But someone has to care.
It’s time to throw out the nonjudgmental, post-modern nonsense that there are no absolutes and no ideals. It is time to judge and heap scorn upon the parents who produce these rotten kids. It is also time to stop reinforcing bad behavior of the parents. Children deserve better. And when children are deprived of what they really need, society ends up paying a steep price.
Cross-posted at RightWingNews.com
When I heard that the U.S. reversed course and had decided to “come to the table” with Iran, I thought, uh oh, this is the last effort before Iran’s nuclear sites get bombed after the Presidential election. If nothing else, the State Department can shrug their shoulders and say, “We tried”, which is essentially what’s happening today. The New York Times Mike Nizza reports:
Last week, the United States’s decision to join those talks directly was seen as a “double policy shift” that could lead to a breakthrough. But a session on Saturday ended in deadlock.
The problem, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice saw it this morning, was that Iran was not being serious. From The Associated Press:
“We expected to hear an answer from the Iranians but, as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious,” Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates. “It’s time for the Iranians to give a serious answer.”
As some readers may have gleaned already, it was a widely expected result. Hard-liners have long warned against negotiating with Iran, saying it was less than serious about resolving the nuclear issue. Others have hinted at the same concern as the talks have dragged on.
As an aside, check out this paragraph:
If Tehran’s professed civilian-only ambitions for their nuclear turned out to be false, as some suspect, the weapons they obtain would drastically upset the balance of power in the Middle East. If Israel decided it had to forcibly prevent that from happening (the widespread talk is of air strikes), that would probably derail the long, meandering talks between Iran and six global powers aimed at halting Iran’s uranium enrichment in exchange for a package of incentives. [emphasis added, -ed]
Good grief. Is there a person on the planet who believes that Iran has “civilian-only ambitions”? Iran with nukes would “upset the balace of power”? Ya think? I would guess that an obliterated Israel (Iran’s stated objective) would more than change the power, it’d probably change the terrain of the Middle East (literally), too. And, should Israel bomb Iran back to the stone ages, nuclear-wise, I’m guessing that the need for “incentives” would be gone, no? I mean, the problem is the nukes.
So will the pointy-heads be satisfied that enough “negotiation” happened when Iran gets bombed, their nuclear ambitions dashed for another couple decades? Doubtful. They won’t acknowledge Iran’s ambitions because to do so, they’d have to get “serious” about their analysis and policy positions.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News
It reads like some good erotica, but this story in the Times Online extols the virtues of a consensual incestuous relationship between a brother and sister. Okay, so some lady anonymously reveals her story, without guilt.
The comments contain the interesting social commentary, though. After reading them, I’m figuring, Britain isn’t luging down the shitter, it’s already there. Here are just a couple:
My moral compass isn’t based on antiquated notions of morality. It’s based on harm. If someone is unintentionally harmed or abused by your actions, it’s probably wrong. If it’s consensual, have at it. There’s no reason to base moral judgments on anything else. That’s just absurd.
A beautiful, honest and from the heart article. I could not begin to imagine the emotion you felt when writing it.
James, Bournemouth, England
It was really nice to read indeed. I think the lady is very lucky to have such a fantastic relationship with her brother.
Of all the comments, it is refreshing to note that there were only a couple of judgemental, fearful ones. It was a wonderfully honest account of what was real for two people! It happened! Humanity is amazing and evolving-as Fred from Bristol said, years ago it would have been about homosexuality!
Ellegee, Purbeck, UK
Her brother moved on, but would choose her. She is in a relationship, but still thinks of him. Their family would be destroyed should their secret be revealed. Their current relationships would probably be deeply troubled, if not undone. Should a child have come from the relationship, genetic problems, etc. would have resulted (but they were “careful about birth control”). Um, yeah, but how many kids are walking around today who were born in spite of diligent birth control? If one is heart-broken, he or she has the anguish of seeing the person at every family get together. There is no escape. An incestuous relationship, even a consensual one, is fraught.
And these ramifications were lost on the readers of the article. What in the hell? As one anthropologist commented, “There are few universal social taboos, incest is one of them. Millions of years of evolution can’t be wrong.”
Progressives snort about the whole notion of a slippery slope, but if Western Civilization isn’t skiing down one right now, I don’t know what qualifies. The ultimate goal of post-modern thought is to make all behavior equal. There is no right and wrong. There are just experiences. Well, experiences have consequences. People are affected. Families are affected. Society is affected for society is made up of people.
And right now, society is getting sicker because the people who make up society are getting sicker.