School Activity Choices: Basketball, Dance, or Gang Rape?

Are we on the eve of destruction?
Psychologists, sociologist and press apologists are trying to explain the brutal gang rape of a 15 year old girl at a homecoming dance, and the actions of the diseased orangutans who cheered it, joined in, or just kept silent.

The disgusting turd pictured above was one of the perpetrators.  He will experience the other end of gang rape in prison.  He's young, so he should be popular.

(CNN) -- For more than two hours on a dark Saturday night, as many as 20 people watched or took part as a 15-year-old California girl was allegedly gang raped and beaten outside a high school homecoming dance, authorities said.

"As people announced over time that this was going on, more people came to see, and some actually participated," Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department told CNN.

The witnesses failed to report the crime to law enforcement, Gagan said.

The rest of the article is full of liberal psychobabble struggling to explain degenerate criminal behavior and is not worth reading. 

It's the Morals, Stupid!

You see, the hooting idiots who laughed traditional Christian morality off the national stage failed to replace it with anything.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and degenerate, diseased chimpanzees disguised as human beings have filled the empty space with the law of the jungle.

Another victory for empty-headed, multi-cultural, non-judgmental liberalism. 

Congratulations America.  We're on the eve of destruction, but it won't be a foreign war that pushes us over the edge...

CNN - Gang Rape
Fox - Degenerates in Custody

Mercury News - More Arrests

Obama's Embryonic Ideas: The New Anti-Intellectualism

Embryonic Stem Cells: The science is not settled and neither are the ethical questions

Both sides of the stem cell debate have brought up valid arguments, but the President is seemingly uninterested in them. In a dramatic rhetorical flourish, he has imperiously declared that he is throwing back the curtain on President Bush's scientific dark ages. Good politics, but bad for our humanity.

While our still-Christian society in the US grapples with concepts like euthanasia and abortion, the President blithely brushes these issues aside. His attorney general wants us to stop being cowardly and to start talking about race, but this administration runs and hides from deep moral questions concerning life, how we view it, and what that says about us a a society. Who's the coward now?

Let's put aside the ontological and meta-ethical questions, which we obviously won't settle here. The intellectual argument over what constitutes life, and if and when it may be taken, will always exist.

Let's also put aside the inflated hope of embryonic stem cell research. This article from the NY Times deflates the hype and conjecture about saving Christopher Reeve and curing President Reagan's Alzheimers. Sadly, it also faces the reality that hundreds of thousand of chronically sick in this country will not get the miracle cures that some non-scientist political types have so recklessly promised them.

“People need a fairy tale,” Ronald D. G. McKay, a stem cell researcher at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, explained to The Washington Post in 2004.

Recently, Nicholas Wade in the Science section of The New York Times summed this all up: “Members of Congress and advocates for fighting diseases have long spoken of human embryonic stem cell research as if it were a sure avenue to quick cures for intractable afflictions. Scientists have not publicly objected to such high-flown hopes, which have helped fuel new sources of grant money like the $3 billion initiative in California for stem cell research.”

“In private, however,” the article continued, “many researchers have projected much more modest goals for embryonic stem cells.”

Where do we draw the line, and what does that say about us as a society?

Science, like fire, a knife or a piano, is morally neutral. It is a wonderful tool in mankind's hands. How we use it says much about us as a society.

Charles Krauthammer, doctor, lawyer, and a conservative agnostic paraplegic who supports embryonic stem cell research, has written a good criticism of this administration's approach.

I am not religious. I do not believe that personhood is conferred upon conception. But I also do not believe that a human embryo is the moral equivalent of a hangnail and deserves no more respect than an appendix. Moreover, given the protean power of embryonic manipulation, the temptation it presents to science, and the well-recorded human propensity for evil even in the pursuit of good, lines must be drawn.

Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men. Such as his admonition that we must resist the "false choice between sound science and moral values." Yet, exactly 2 minutes and 12 seconds later he went on to declare that he would never open the door to the "use of cloning for human reproduction."

Does he not think that a cloned human would be of extraordinary scientific interest? And yet he banned it.

Is he so obtuse not to see that he had just made a choice of ethics over science? Yet, unlike President Bush, who painstakingly explained the balance of ethical and scientific goods he was trying to achieve, Obama did not even pretend to make the case why some practices are morally permissible and others not.

President Obama has provided no moral, philosophical or logical framework for his decision other than the pharaohnic "So let it be written, so let it be done!" Compared to President Bush's nuanced approach and detailed explanation to the nation, President Obama looks downright anti-intellectual. This is what Krauthammer critiques in his article. Please take a few moments to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/14beliefs.html?_r=1&ref=us&pagewanted=all
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303058.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/using_embryoswithout_limit.html

No Morals No Freedom, Know Morals ...

Two apparently unrelated bits of news:

Global despotism is on the rise and freedom take a beating around the world.

Free market ideals are taking a real beating as they are replaced by centrally planned, statist economies.

Actually, they are related. The champions of freedom have lost their moral authority. Yes, we had successes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, The Philippines and other more obscure places, and no, free market capitalism did not cause the economic debacle we now face.

But the Western press, resentful of the system that put them in their place of prosperity, want to bring it all down, man! "That'll teach those Bu$hies to try to free all those people!" They will never forgive Ronald Reagan for building the economic juggernaut that drove the decades-long global prosperity boom that enabled literally millions world-wide to pull themselves out of poverty. This model is still the envy and blueprint for successful economies worldwide.

Claudia Rosett writes in Forbes:

The basic cause for concern is not that there are more dictatorships than a few years ago, but that the global ethos has shifted. There is a growing swagger among despots.

since the wave of democratization that swept parts of Asia in the late 1980s and rolled on in 1991 to the Soviet collapse, despots have had a chance to rethink, regroup, and--like the opportunistic crowd they are--adapt. Where there is an opening, whenever the pressures come off, they tend to find and exploit it.

Freedom House notes the "continuation of a negative global trend with respect to freedom of expression, freedom of association and the rule of law." In Europe and the U.K., politically correct fear of giving offense has put a damper on free speech and honest discourse. This reaches even into the U.S., where open debate has come under attack by way of both the same political correctness...

Steven Malanga brings it all home the simple question: "Can free markets survive in a secularized world?" Weber's Protestant Work Ethic got us here, but we've abandoned it:

The gradual disappearance of the Protestant ethic has shifted the emphasis in our economy from work and production to work and consumption—but most of all to consumption. A culture of thrift has become a culture of debt, and in the process many people have blurred the line between the legitimate competitive activity that is so essential to capitalism and criminality.

Professor Gavin Kennedy of Edinburgh reminds us that Adam Smith first wrote on morals before penning his famous work, The Wealth of Nations.

That the discourse of public life is dominated by ideological assaults on the idea of freer markets, and the supposed blessings of ‘regulation’ by bureaucracies, instead of by the justice system, is a symptom of the misjudged tendency to blame markets, which are not free, for the failings from political interventions that are not capable.

Throwing good money after bad is a weakness of poor management; ever tighter regulation to cover the deficiencies of regulations that don’t work as intended is congenital to micro-regulators.

In business markets, incompetence is terminated by losses; in political regulation, incompetence is cushioned by the public purse.

The Founding Fathers knew it. Adam Smith Knew it: A free market or a free society without morals is like a structure without a foundation.

Can you feel the sand shifting beneath your feet?

http://www.forbes.com/2009/01/28/qaddafi-korea-dictators-opinions-columnists_0129_claudia_rosett.html?feed=rss_opinions

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/01/can_free_markets_survive_in_a.html
http://www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com/2009/01/markets-and-morals.html