PrintAugust 30, 2009
Statist Healthcare Logic and Mary Jo
When the US Army entered Dachau concentration camp in Germany, they found evidence of horrific medical experiments of placing prisoners in ice water tanks and documenting how long they could survive in freezing water(s). The Nazi doctors wanted research on how to design clothes for pilots who would be downed in Russia or the wintry North Sea. As horrible as this was, the US kept the research reports and used the data to design suits that have since saved US pilots' lives, believing that the U.S. would not repeat such inhumane experiments again.
Today I am not so sure as to what the statists in the country are willing to do in having the less politically connected sacrificed for "the Good of the State." You think this statement is over the top? Let us look at what the advocacy of the cheapening of ordinary people's lives that was advocated in the Huffington Post this week concerning Mary Jo Kopechne.
Although Big Fur Hat has compared Melissa Lafkey's despicable Huffington Post article to something in the Onion, I do not have such a benign view of such disgusting leftist sophistry and extension of moral relativism (the author's use of the words). Ms. Lafkey's article stating that Mary Jo Kopechne might have considered her own death a worthy sacrifice to "launch" the long Senate career of Ted Kennedy was more like something from Julius Streicher's pro-Nazi organ "Der Sturmer" in tone and propagandistic intention. Streicher was tried by the Allies largely for inciting genocide with his paper's writings. As people become numbed and indifferent to the probable manslaughter or worse of one person in a car going off a bridge, the elimination of more people becomes easier to ignore.
It makes us feel better to think that the hard left wouldn't advocate the killing of what they might consider American Kulacks, the small town guns-and-religion "bitter clingers." But Bill Ayers has advocated as much -- openly. A. M. Mora y Leon has translated for us Ayer's current biographical self-description as an anti-capitalist revolutionary at American Thinker last year.
Many liberals are in favor of "Sacrificing for the Greater Good" -- as long as the sacrificing can be passed along to someone else in the society. But as more jobs are lost, more real inflation occurs (I'm talking about what you pay for items in stores, not some wishful doctored figures coming out of Washington), and less money is available for medical research by both drug companies and hospitals, something becomes more apparent. The Obama administration definition of "Sacrificing for the Greater Good" has Mr. Obama and a small clique being defined as that "The Greater Good," not the American people. Or perhaps I should have said "Sacrificing for the Greater God" because Obama's believers/supporters see him as a just that, in a secular society where all men and women have become gods unto themselves. Yet some are more godlike than others.
Obama's Health Care Czar, like all the other czars, is not accountable to the US Congress or the Supreme Court. Liberals who feared wiretapping that was reviewed by a judge under the Bush Administration now miraculously assume that an absolute czar will rule in their favor in the cases of both wiretapping and most or all medical treatments. Or let us, for arguments sake, assume that the current group of "wonderful, caring people" Obama has appointed to office will take the best interests of those that voted for them to heart. What happens when you are thirty or forty years older and the government officials are of a different generation of "non-sentimentalist non-bourgeois" sentiment and consider you an old fart not worth spending money on to keep alive? In fact, the situation is a lot grimmer than that.
There is an old story about two young men who are walking in a park. One has a box with a brand new pair of running shoes under his arm. They spot a mountain lion that has escaped from the zoo. The man with the shoes starts to put his shoes on.
His companion says, "Why are you wasting your time with that? The mountain lion can outrun us."
To this, his companion replies, "I don't have to outrun the lion. I just have to outrun YOU."
Of course, the two men could have chosen to band together to fight the lion, but what if the one fortunate enough to have a new pair of running shoes had decided that he should grow old as a Lion of the Senate -- and considered the other person as expendable? For the good of the State, of course. You see, it isn't simple greed like those right wing types, but complex, sophisticated, nuanced greed. That makes it -- you should pardon the religious expression -- kosher. Unless you're the one without the running shoes.
Today I am not so sure as to what the statists in the country are willing to do in having the less politically connected sacrificed for "the Good of the State." You think this statement is over the top? Let us look at what the advocacy of the cheapening of ordinary people's lives that was advocated in the Huffington Post this week concerning Mary Jo Kopechne.
Although Big Fur Hat has compared Melissa Lafkey's despicable Huffington Post article to something in the Onion, I do not have such a benign view of such disgusting leftist sophistry and extension of moral relativism (the author's use of the words). Ms. Lafkey's article stating that Mary Jo Kopechne might have considered her own death a worthy sacrifice to "launch" the long Senate career of Ted Kennedy was more like something from Julius Streicher's pro-Nazi organ "Der Sturmer" in tone and propagandistic intention. Streicher was tried by the Allies largely for inciting genocide with his paper's writings. As people become numbed and indifferent to the probable manslaughter or worse of one person in a car going off a bridge, the elimination of more people becomes easier to ignore.
It makes us feel better to think that the hard left wouldn't advocate the killing of what they might consider American Kulacks, the small town guns-and-religion "bitter clingers." But Bill Ayers has advocated as much -- openly. A. M. Mora y Leon has translated for us Ayer's current biographical self-description as an anti-capitalist revolutionary at American Thinker last year.
Many liberals are in favor of "Sacrificing for the Greater Good" -- as long as the sacrificing can be passed along to someone else in the society. But as more jobs are lost, more real inflation occurs (I'm talking about what you pay for items in stores, not some wishful doctored figures coming out of Washington), and less money is available for medical research by both drug companies and hospitals, something becomes more apparent. The Obama administration definition of "Sacrificing for the Greater Good" has Mr. Obama and a small clique being defined as that "The Greater Good," not the American people. Or perhaps I should have said "Sacrificing for the Greater God" because Obama's believers/supporters see him as a just that, in a secular society where all men and women have become gods unto themselves. Yet some are more godlike than others.
Obama's Health Care Czar, like all the other czars, is not accountable to the US Congress or the Supreme Court. Liberals who feared wiretapping that was reviewed by a judge under the Bush Administration now miraculously assume that an absolute czar will rule in their favor in the cases of both wiretapping and most or all medical treatments. Or let us, for arguments sake, assume that the current group of "wonderful, caring people" Obama has appointed to office will take the best interests of those that voted for them to heart. What happens when you are thirty or forty years older and the government officials are of a different generation of "non-sentimentalist non-bourgeois" sentiment and consider you an old fart not worth spending money on to keep alive? In fact, the situation is a lot grimmer than that.
There is an old story about two young men who are walking in a park. One has a box with a brand new pair of running shoes under his arm. They spot a mountain lion that has escaped from the zoo. The man with the shoes starts to put his shoes on.
His companion says, "Why are you wasting your time with that? The mountain lion can outrun us."
To this, his companion replies, "I don't have to outrun the lion. I just have to outrun YOU."
Of course, the two men could have chosen to band together to fight the lion, but what if the one fortunate enough to have a new pair of running shoes had decided that he should grow old as a Lion of the Senate -- and considered the other person as expendable? For the good of the State, of course. You see, it isn't simple greed like those right wing types, but complex, sophisticated, nuanced greed. That makes it -- you should pardon the religious expression -- kosher. Unless you're the one without the running shoes.
