The Rotten Fruit of Secular Society

• a clockwork (mechanical, artificial, robotic) human being (orange - similar to orang-utan, a hairy ape-like creature), and
• the Cockney phrase from East London, "as queer as a clockwork orange" - indicating something bizarre internally, but appearing natural, human, and normal on the surface

******

British man jailed for urinating on disabled woman as she lay dying in street

The Associated Press

LONDON — A man who urinated on a disabled woman as she lay dying in the street while his friend filmed the incident was sentenced Friday to three years in prison.

Anthony Anderson, 27, was found guilty of the charge of outraging public decency in the attack on Christine Lakinski, 50, who collapsed in a street in Hartlepool, northeast England, in July.

Lakinski, who had physical and learning disabilities, fell and hit her head while walking home. A post mortem determined she died of pancreatic failure.

Prosecutors said Anderson, who was celebrating his birthday with friends, kicked Lakinski on the foot, poured a bowl of water over her, then urinated on her as a friend filmed the assault on a mobile phone. He also sprayed her with shaving foam in the attack which lasted half an hour.

Prosecuter Sue Jacobs said one of the group shouted "This is YouTube material" during the attack.

The group left Lakinski motionless on the sidewalk and called an ambulance about 20 minutes later after they got ready to go to a nightclub. Paramedics arrived around an hour after Lakinski collapsed and found no sign of life.

Anderson, a former soldier, pleaded guilty last month. At the end of the trial his lawyer, Paul Cleasby, apologized to Lakinski's family on behalf of his client.

"He cannot explain why he did it," Cleasby said.

Judge Peter Fox called the episode "a shockingly sad story."

"You violated this woman in an incredible way and the shocking nature of your acts over a prolonged period of time must mean that a prison sentence of greater length is appropriate in this case," he said in passing the sentence at Teesside Crown Court.

*****

He can't explain why he did it? Maybe this will: England has a drinking problem. When I read this story my first thought was A Clockwork Orange.

Set in a future England (ca. 1995, imagined from 1965), the film follows the life of a teenage boy named Alex DeLarge (McDowell) whose pleasures are classical music (most especially Beethoven), rape, and ultraviolence. He is leader of a small gang of thugs, whom he refers to as his "droogs" (from the Russian word друг meaning friend or buddy). Alex narrates most of the film in "nadsat"; the fractured, contemporary adolescent argot comprising Slavic (especially Russian), English, and Cockney rhyming slang. The boy Alex is irreverent and abusive of others; he lies to his parents to skip school and has an expensive stereo sound deck blasting a classics recordings collection.

After drinking narcotic-laden milk at the Korova Milk Bar, Alex and his droogs beat an old drunken tramp (an Irish immigrant) under a motorway flyover. They then proceed to a derelict casino, where a rival gang led by Billyboy are about to rape a woman. A fight between the two gangs ensues; Alex and his droogs emerge victorious and leave before the police arrive. Alex and the gang steal a Durango 95 (a fictional sports car) for a drive into the countryside, where he leads his droogs in a home invasion, beating a reclusive writer named Mr. Alexander and raping his wife while singing and dancing to "Singin' in the Rain".

It is a sad thing to watch a society as it's soul dies but that's what we are witnessing throughout the world today. The rotten fruit of secular society.

Can a Drug Addled, Feminized Western Culture Survive?

Success in Afghanistan seems contingent upon something that seems highly unlikely; NATO sending adequate troops. I don't like the sound of this:

From a SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH NATO COMMANDER JOHN CRADDOCK

SPIEGEL: If NATO fails in Afghanistan, would it be the end for the most powerful security alliance in the world?

Craddock: I think it would put the alliance in jeopardy. It is the most important mission in NATO and I think it's critical that the alliance come together and support it totally and completely.

SPIEGEL: Do you think NATO is up to the task?

Craddock: I am encouraged and I am confident. But I don't promise. I can't guarantee a thing. If we get what we need to do that mission, the forces, then there is a reasonably good to very good probability of success. We have yet to get that. What we still don't have is the full force which allows us not only to provide security throughout the country but also to provide the capacity to get into the reconstruction. If we had the full forces we could lay those forces down and would not have to move them around.

---

---

I am not faulting the General. It's the message that I am hearing; that unless the NATO gets serious and commits, the chances for success in Afghanistan are "not so good." Police training lags military training by four to five years. We can't or won't pay military and police wages commensurate with the Taliban pay scale and we don't have enough boots on the ground. Add to that, the poppy situation. Where's the opium money going? Private armies or tribute for the jihadis. I don't blame the General for not promising what he can't deliver. I seriously doubt that he's going to get the manpower that he needs in Afghanistan. Certainly not from the Europeans and "likely" not from the United States. In other words, "he's screwed."

Why won't western people support the effort to beat back fundamentalist Islam? Is the West no longer a serious society? Has it has become so sick, so nihilistic that, believing in nothing, it will fight for nothing? Have multiple generations of post WWII agnostics been trained to depend on the nanny state from cradle to grave? Have we trained the Ritalin boys that via conflict resolution and anger management every thing can be worked out by dialog? Have our fat, increasingly illiterate kids been trained to believe that guns are evil and self-defense should be left to the police? Do our daughters worship the "Pop tarts of the popular culture?" Has each succeeding generation gotten fatter and fatter on the "light bread" of humanism? Is this "rich, multi-ethnic, rainbow of diversity" culture going to succeed or will it be cast down like the Tower of Babel? Is Islam like the Borg; an irresistible force which assimilates or destroys everyone within it's path?

Stay tuned, but be warned, you may not like what you see as the west retreats from yet another distasteful war.

Softspoken, Kind, Tolerant, Bi-partisan

Referring to the expected veto of Democrat legislation setting a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq to begin October 1 and be completed six months later, Harry Reid yesterday said:

"If the president disagrees, let him come to us with an alternative. Instead of sending us back to square one with a veto, some tough talk and nothing more, let him come to the table in the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans demand and deserve."

I guess that "spirit" was not what Reid was thinking about when he also said:

"No more will Congress turn a blind eye to the Bush administration's incompetence and dishonesty.

It is a sad commentary on our society and culture when the Majority leader in the Senate resorts to such vile disrespect simply for the purpose of pandering to the base of his party. Evidently he has done the political calculus and determined that there is no political price to be paid for calling the President of the United States an incompetent liar living in a state of denial. He may wish to recalculate when he sees that Senator Chuck Hagel, R, Nebraska is 9 points behind in his Senate race. Evidently, Nebraskans do not approve of the anti-war Republican and only 37% think he would make a good President. But back to the Senate Majority Leader - Perhaps the "distinguished" Senator from Nevada feels that he is speaking in measured, moderate, bipartisan terms. After all, by the standards of his Democrat constituents they probably are moderate and measured. Call me old fashioned, but when the Senate leader also refers to the Vice-President as the president's "chief attack dog," I shudder for the future of our society. But why shouldn't we expect to hear this kind of language from the Democrat leadership? In March, Charles Krauthammer addressed this new low in society when he wrote about a 2,000 word New Republic article making the case that Vice-President Dick Cheney was demented as result of his heart condition.

According to Krauthammer, the NR article offered the following evidence of the Vice-President's dementia:

(a) Using a four-letter word in an exchange with Sen. Patrick Leahy. Good God, by that standard, I should have been committed long ago and the entire borough of Brooklyn quarantined.
(b)"Shoot a man in the face and not bother to call your boss 'til the next day?" Another way of putting that is this: After a hunting accident, Cheney tried to get things in order before going public. Not the best decision, as I wrote at the time, but perfectly understandable. And if that is deranged, what do you say about a young Teddy Kennedy being far less forthcoming about something far more serious -- how he came to leave a dead woman at the bottom of a pond? I am passing no judgment. I am simply pointing out how surpassingly stupid it is to attribute such behavior to mental illness.
(c) Longtime associate Brent Scowcroft quoted as saying, "Dick Cheney I don't know anymore." Well. After 9/11, Cheney adopted a view about fighting jihadism, America's new existential enemy, that differed radically from the "realist" foreign policy approach that he had shared a decade earlier with Scowcroft. That's a psychiatric symptom? By that standard, Saul of Tarsus, Arthur Vandenberg, Irving Kristol, Ronald Reagan -- to pick at random from a thousand such cases of men undergoing profound change of worldview -- are psychiatric cases. Indeed, by that standard, Andrew Sullivan is stark raving mad. (OK, perhaps not the best of counterexamples.)

At one time, the New Republic was the left's version of National Review. Now, it is simply a far-left rag. Maybe it still represents the mainstream thinking of liberal America. If so, God help us because we are seeing the beginning of a not so kind, not so tolerant, not so bipartisan America. Liberals will present their counter arguments and examples but those don't change the fact that our society has coarsened a little more with each successive, post WWII generation. Harry Reid is just "keeping it real" for his posse.

PETA - Serving the Creature,

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Romans 1:20 thru 1:25

---

Here's PETA summed up in a nutshell:

The madness of the animal rights movement
David Kupelinan, World Net Daily

Elevating animals up to the level of human beings -- as actor Steven Segal, one of PETA's celebrity advocates, puts it, "We have to view all life as equal" -- is a round about way of saying that human beings are no more than animals and therefore have no souls.

Why would anyone deny that human beings have a soul, you might ask. Why would that notion that we have a divine spark within us be repugnant? After all, whatever goodness we humans can muster, whatever kindness and consideration we have for each other, is based on the fact that we know we are dealing with another soul. If we are faithful to our spouse, honorable in business, truthful to each other, willing to sacrifice for our children - whatever we consider to be virtuous and noble is tied up in this conviction that we are more than animals, that we are spiritual beings also, esteemed by God.

For many, there is a great comfort and "freedom" in believing that there is no soul, because if there is no soul, there is no God, no divine judgment, no accountability -- you get the picture. We're animals, so we act like animals, we do what animals do. They eat each other, mate in the street, run around naked - kind of like the '60s again, with "sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll."

The radical animal rights folks are exactly like the multiculturalists. Do you think the multiculturalists really care about Eskimo music or how the Ubangis make their lips as big as pancakes? Do they really care that much about cultures that worship rats, cows and sex organs? No, their interest is not really in elevating other cultures, nor in celebrating diversity.

Their interest is in tearing down Western civilization, in denying God, in denying the immortal soul of man -- denying that we will be judged one day by One greater than us.

In the same way, the animal rights radicals don't really love animals. They don't even know the meaning of the word love. They just want to be their own gods. And the way you become your own god in this life is to deny the real One.

Animal-rights radicals loathe the idea of man having an immortal soul, of his being superior to the animals, because if we are superior to animals it is because we have a soul, and that reality makes us subservient to something greater than ourselves. And, as I said, some people just want to be their own god.

Besides, many people just don't get along with other people. After all, people give you a hard time, they can criticize you, they can even tell you the truth when you don't want to hear it. Animals never do that.

Eventually The Word "Marriage" Will Mean Nothing

Many argued that when Texas' anti-sodomy laws were overturned, there was no need to worry about the proverbial "slippery slope." Depending on the outcome, here's a case in a foreign court which the Supreme Court could consider and cite sometime in the not too distant future:

From Duetsche Welle:

German Incest Convict to Take Case to Highest Court

The lawyer representing a Saxon couple found guilty of incest said the siblings will take their case to Germany's Constitutional Court. It's the final step in a long and contentious legal battle.

Attorney Endrik Wilhelm said the siblings, Patrick S. and Susan K., would be filing their historic appeal after a district court in Dresden refused to override a jail sentence Patrick faces. The case, Wilhelm told the daily Dresdner Neueste Nachrichten newspaper, would be to challenge the constitutionality of paragraph 173 of the German Criminal Code, which outlaws sexual relations between close relatives.

The siblings have been in and out of the courts for the past five years. In 2002 Patrick S. was given a suspended sentence of one year in prison for sleeping with his sister. In 2004 he served 10 months in jail for violating the terms of the original conviction, and in 2005 he was sentenced to two-and-a-half years incarceration for incest.

Susan K. never received any jail time since she was always tried as an adolescent. The siblings have four children -- Susan K. has a fifth child from a different father.

The sentence Patrick S. currently faces contains no possibility of parole.

Unusual Family History

Patrick S. and Susan K. are immediate relatives, but they did not grow up as brother and sister. Patrick was adopted and raised by a family in Potsdam, while Susan spent her childhood with their mutual mother in Leipzig.

The two met in May 2000, after Patrick decided to contact his biological family. Their first child was born a year later.

Anti-incest laws have been taken off the books in a number of countries including France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, Japan, Argentina and Brazil.

Now the Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe will be asked to decide if Germany should follow those nations' lead or if it can retain its current legislation.

---

Today, the issue is whether Germany can say that incest is illegal. Soon, the arguments will be made that if incest is no longer illegal, how can society say that a brother and sister (or any combination of individuals) cannot be married.

The traditional definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman is being rewritten with New Jersey being the latest state to implement "Civil Unions". But, how can marriage or civil unions be limited to two "individuals"? Who can tell Patrick S. and Susan K. that their love is not as real or as valid as anyone else's? Who will be so bigoted and heartless?

The die is cast and it's only a matter of time before the word marriage will be made archaic in the West. It will be redefined until it no longer has meaning and eventually governments will no longer recognize "marriage" at all.