Ezekiel Emanuel “I do think at a certain point you’ve
made enough money lived long enough.” [Darleen Click]
If it’s not Obama wanting to set the parameters of your earnings –
It’s Dr. Death Panels wanting to set the parameters of your life
By the time I reach 75, I will have lived a complete life. I will have loved and been loved. My children will be grown and in the midst of their own rich lives. I will have seen my grandchildren born and beginning their lives. I will have pursued my life’s projects and made whatever contributions, important or not, I am going to make. And hopefully, I will not have too many mental and physical limitations. Dying at 75 will not be a tragedy. Indeed, I plan to have my memorial service before I die. And I don’t want any crying or wailing, but a warm gathering filled with fun reminiscences, stories of my awkwardness, and celebrations of a good life. After I die, my survivors can have their own memorial service if they want—that is not my business.
Am I being flip? I don’t think so …
Nor am I talking about waking up one morning 18 years from now and ending my life through euthanasia or suicide. Since the 1990s, I have actively opposed legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. People who want to die in one of these ways tend to suffer not from unremitting pain but from depression, hopelessness, and fear of losing their dignity and control. The people they leave behind inevitably feel they have somehow failed. The answer to these symptoms is not ending a life but getting help. I have long argued that we should focus on giving all terminally ill people a good, compassionate death—not euthanasia or assisted suicide for a tiny minority.
Now, if that seems contradictory, it is not. It is part and parcel of Emanuel’s support of State-run medical care using a rationing system based on “Complete Lives System” (see page 6 at PDF)
[note: I recall writing an analysis of Emanuel's Lancet article sometime in 2010, but those posts were never recovered]
Emanuel’s current “Death begins at 76″ soliloquy is more of the same that only the subset of the population who are healthy, productive and between ages of 15-55, deserve actual medical care, the rest will have to muddle through with some palliative care.
His bigotry against the elderly is pretty stark. First off, is his idea that old farts just are of little use to society
Even if we aren’t demented, our mental functioning deteriorates as we grow older. Age-associated declines in mental-processing speed, working and long-term memory, and problem-solving are well established. Conversely, distractibility increases. We cannot focus and stay with a project as well as we could when we were young. As we move slower with age, we also think slower.
It is not just mental slowing. We literally lose our creativity. [...]
[T]he fact is that by 75, creativity, originality, and productivity are pretty much gone for the vast, vast majority of us. Einstein famously said, “A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so.” He was extreme in his assessment. And wrong. Dean Keith Simonton, at the University of California at Davis, a luminary among researchers on age and creativity, synthesized numerous studies to demonstrate a typical age-creativity curve: creativity rises rapidly as a career commences, peaks about 20 years into the career, at about age 40 or 45, and then enters a slow, age-related decline. There are some, but not huge, variations among disciplines. Currently, the average age at which Nobel Prize–winning physicists make their discovery—not get the prize—is 48. Theoretical chemists and physicists make their major contribution slightly earlier than empirical researchers do. Similarly, poets tend to peak earlier than novelists do. Simonton’s own study of classical composers shows that the typical composer writes his first major work at age 26, peaks at about age 40 with both his best work and maximum output, and then declines, writing his last significant musical composition at 52.
Are you now to argue that even if at 76 you’ve suddenly lost your ability to meaningfully contribute to The Hive, you are still a valued member of your own family?
Perish the thought:
Living parents also occupy the role of head of the family. They make it hard for grown children to become the patriarch or matriarch. When parents routinely live to 95, children must caretake into their own retirement. That doesn’t leave them much time on their own—and it is all old age. When parents live to 75, children have had the joys of a rich relationship with their parents, but also have enough time for their own lives, out of their parents’ shadows.
It is your duty to die at 75 — Do it for your children.
I’d advise Emanuel’s parents to hire a food taster if they holiday at Ezekiel’s home.
Last night I commented on the Scottish vote to stay in the United Kingdom by stressing the welfare state aspect with the following:
[The Scots] find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. With the English they can’t vote in a complete worker’s paradise. Without the English they’d actually have to find the funds for it.
A vote no shouldn’t necessarily be read as a conservative vote. A great percentage of those no votes are also voting for the greatest possible welfare state that they consider to be possible.
I’m sure everyone has read similar thoughts elsewhere as well. Geoff recommends a good post by Richard Fernandez and some of resulting comments.
Our ol’ pal Silver Whistle offered his thoughts:
bh, it is the exact inverse.
I offer this as an illustration, not dispositive proof:
Bringing my eldest and his room mate back from college in Perth last week, there was not one single ‘Yes’ poster from my west coast village to Perth. This is a very conservative with a small ‘c’ country, especially in the sticks where there isn’t a plurality of the population dependent on welfare. The main support for ‘Yes’ was in Glasgow and Dundee. It is no secret that the ‘Yes’ campaign was an attempt to thrust socialism on Scotland which couldn’t be delivered from Westminster. Nationwide, every election around 400,000 vote Conservative in Scotland. These votes may be lost in a constituency first past the post election, but in a national referendum, vital.
Then Silver Whistle was nice enough to extend his remarks:
The other morning, while we were listening to referendum coverage on BBC Radio5Live at breakfast my youngest said “As far as I can tell, all the ‘Yes’ arguments are based on childish appeals to emotion.”
A bit harsh, perhaps, but here in Scotland, my sense of the depth of the country’s attachment to the Union has never wavered. My youngest is in high school, and for the first time, 16 year olds were allowed to vote in the referendum. Alex Salmond was probably allowing himself a wee smirk over his porridge when he unleashed the votes of high school children. Recent polls have suggested that Salmond miscalculated badly, with 57% of under 18s voting to stay with the Union.
This vote did not follow strict party lines, with a large number of officially anti-independence Labour voters voting ‘Yes’. Scotland provides a crucial number of Labour MPs to Westminster, so the UK Labour party was desperate not to lose these seats. Numbers of Scottish National Party voters voted ‘No’, as many of them are disgruntled Labour voters first and not nationalist at all. And, as I mentioned in my comment here, Scotland is a very conservative with a small ‘c’ country, with deep ties to the Union that may be from the military, shared experience of the last war, and other cultural ties with the wider UK. Incomers make up about 16% of the population so it would be interesting to see the breakdown on their vote, but it is clear that native Scots themselves are overwhelmingly responsible for saying ‘No’.
Nice bit of context all around there and perhaps a helpful caution against throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
What say all of you? Or, open thread, take your pick.
I regard heterosexual marriage as a much more important feminist issue and bigger oppressor of women than the burka.
— Catherine Deveny (@CatherineDeveny) September 16, 2014
Don’t you just hate it when this happens?
MEMPHIS, Tenn. (WREG) —A Memphis man who went to police after he saw a severed head in a man’s backyard says it’s an image he can’t forget. [...]
Michael Wilson, Jr., is now facing charges of second-degree murder and abuse of a corpse.
Lacedric Ruffin said he went to Wilson’s home on Dunn to pick up some scrap metal Wilson said he could have.
While he was loading items on to his truck, he noticed Wilson pull a large black bag out of a garbage can and try to place it in a metal bucket.
Ruffin said the bag started ripping, and a head fell out of it.
“I’m like, man, what the hell you got going on, bro? He said something like he didn’t mean to kill him. I said, kill who brother? I don’t want to know who that is, I don’t want to know. You don’t got to tell me,” Ruffin said.
He said Wilson told him there were also two hands inside the garbage bag.
He thinks Wilson was planning on putting the severed head on the back of his truck along with everything else.
The “Palestinian” branch.
Israel’s Channel 10 on Wednesday night broadcast what it said was footage from a recent “Islamic State gathering” on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.
The report, which is to be broadcast in full next week, said the gathering underlined that Islamic State intends to focus on Israel in the future
Formally, the gathering, attended by thousands, was organized by the Tahrir party, which the report described as being the “Palestine branch” of Islamic State.
Speakers were filmed anticipating the liberation of Jerusalem and decrying Jewish pollution of the city. Several black IS flags were seen in the footage.
Every immigrant group in this country has variously adapted to the heritage culture, integrating more or less seamlessly by the second generation. However, second-generation Muslims are increasingly being radicalized, some going off to fight with jihadist militias in the Middle East and Africa, others plotting terror attacks on the very country that has offered them freedom, health care, education and the opportunity to prosper.
The common denominator along this spectrum of cultural invasiveness is the sentiment of vested ascendancy and pre-eminence minus the obligation of having to earn them. It bespeaks the spirit of natural entitlement that goes hand in hand with Islam, and which is instinct throughout the Muslim holy book, in which the true believer is exalted as superior to all other people (see, e.g., Koran 3:110) and enjoined to conquer, enslave, tax and slay the kafir, or infidel, who rejects the dominion of the Prophet (see, e.g., Koran 4:89, 9:29, 33:50, 47:4, among numberless other ayat). The violence we have seen both everywhere in the Muslim world and everywhere immigrant Muslims reach a certain critical census in their host societies is the inevitable consequence of the inherent conviction of higher status and mandated predominance — even in comparatively innocuous situations like a ring of Muslims commandeering a public venue or three obtrusive men breaching without the slightest compunction or embarrassment a local standard of behavioral propriety.
“They feel entitled,” writes Daniel Greenfield, “that everything be done according to their cultural expectations.” Greenfield is referring to a group of Muslim asylum-seekers in the Italian hamlet of La Secca who have staged a demonstration, replete with flying furniture and slashed tires, to protest the cultural trauma of having to eat “monotonous” Italian food, a culinary insult of pasta with tomato sauce, bread and eggs, instead of being served the food of their own countries. A police official was not impressed. “There are thousands of Italians living in poverty and who aren’t even eating one meal a day, let alone two or three,” he said. The Muslim migrants were not impressed either; they demanded their due, a right pertaining to their faith and very being. Greenfield’s conclusion is apt: “They aren’t immigrating. They’re colonizing.” This is not only Italy’s problem. Think Norway, Sweden, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK.
These Islamonazis are a problem for all Western civilization. We cannot go Vichy.
No wonder Obama and Billary Clinton can’t stand Bibi
In a speech on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu compared Islamist terrorist groups such as ISIS, Hamas and Hezbollah to Nazis: “We know this. We’ve seen this before. There’s a master race; now there’s a master faith.”
“The tactics are uniform. Terror first of all against your own people,” Netanyahu told attendees at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism’s (ICT) 14th annual conference held at Herzliya, an Israeli technology center located about six miles north of Tel Aviv.
“There’s a master race; now there’s a master faith. And that allows you to do anything to anyone, but first of all to your own people and then to everyone else,” Netanyahu continued, in a reference to Nazi ideology stemming from Adolf Hitler’s belief, detailed in his speeches and writings, that Aryans were the “master race.” [...]
Netanyahu emphasized that, despite their internal divisions, all the various Islamic terror groups use violence to achieve their “one common goal.”
“These groups have absolutely no moral or other impediment to their mad desires. Once they have massive power, they will unleash all their violence, all their ideological zeal, all their hatred, with weapons of mass death.
“What we’ve seen is old regimes collapse and Islamist forces come to the surface, old hatreds – Shiite against Shiite, but primarily Shiite against Sunni, Sunni against Sunni – all come bursting from subterranean layers of history and frustration,” he explained.
“And they all have one common goal. The goal is we establish a new Islamist dominion, first in the Middle East and in their warped thinking, throughout the world. They all agree on that. They are not limited in their scope to a territory. They’re not limited to borders… they may be anchored in a particular place, but their goal is to take the entire world, to cleanse it of infidels – first their own people, Muslims, and then everyone else. Madness.” [...]
Netanyahu concluded that fighting the militant Islamic extremists “requires weapons, defensive and offensive, but above all it requires, I believe, clarity and courage – clarity to understand they’re wrong, we’re right; they’re evil, we’re good. No moral relativism there at all.
“These people who lop off heads, trample human rights into the dust, are evil and they have to be resisted. Evil has to be resisted,” he said.
Prez IWonPenPhone is adamant that there will be no ground troops evah to deal with the un-Islamic-non-State Jr. Varsity ISIS but he is quick to commit 3,000 combat troops to Africa to deal with ebola.
Hospitals and clinics in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone — the countries hit hardest by the outbreak — are overwhelmed by what the WHO is calling the deadliest Ebola outbreak in history.
The virus has killed at least 2,400 people, and thousands more are infected. And there are now cases in Nigeria and Senegal.
“The number of new cases is increasing exponentially,” the WHO said, calling the situation a “dire emergency with … unprecedented dimensions of human suffering.”
On Tuesday, President Obama will announce that more help is on the way. He’ll visit the Atlanta headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a briefing on the outbreak.
The U.S. efforts already under way to fight Ebola are considered more extensive than any previous American response to an epidemic. [...]
Working through the Defense Department, the United States will plan and construct treatment centers that could house up to 1,700 additional beds. With a U.S. general leading the effort from Monrovia, American military personnel in the region could increase by 3,000, administration officials say, under the name Operation United Assistance.
Not that this is much of a surprise. The Left is notorious for using, or creating, crises — Global Warming, fracking, ZPG, whales, polar bears, wage “inequality”, etc — as the measure of Moral Good.
Fighting evil that can shoot back is none of their concern.
And that was said by Tom Harkin in praise of the Red Queen.
Harkin praised Clinton’s longtime commitment to health care overhaul, which passed while she served as Obama’s secretary of state. “Her fingerprints are all over that legislation. It would not have happened but for her strenuous advocacy all those years,” he said.
Let’s see if the Stupid Party can do anything with that unforced quote.
Feature, not bug …
A fascinating read for anyone wanting to understand British hostility towards the nascent Jewish state.
A major hurdle when studying the 1948 war is the lack of access to Arab archives. The Syrian documents, obtained by French intelligence – which contain uncensored private correspondence and secret agreements between the Arab leaders, as well as diplomatic exchanges – give scholars a closer look at the Arab stand toward a Jewish state in Palestine without having to rely solely on Israeli and Western archives, Arab rulers’ inflammatory public rhetoric and memoirs, or newspaper articles.
The Syrian documents reveal that the Arab leaders’ attitudes toward the Zionists’ aspirations derived not only from their hostility toward a Jewish state, but were far more complex. This emphasizes the need for scholars to study the Arab-Zionist conflict in the context of Anglo-Arab and inter-Arab rivalries, rather than merely Anglo-Jewish or Arab-Jewish relations.
The thousands of Syrian and other Arab documents found in the French archives, together with British intelligence reports obtained by French intelligence, confirm that the role of the British secret services in the Middle East during and after World War II comprises the “missing dimension” in the historiography of the region in the 1940s.
Two conclusions can be drawn from research into these documents, which are relevant to the role of British intelligence in the war in Palestine.
The first is that, in the 1940s, Britain conducted a two-track policy in the Middle East: one, a well-documented, official policy defined by Whitehall under both the Conservative and Labour parties; the second was informal and secretive, which can be termed “regional,” implemented by “agents in the field,” which left few traces in British archives.
It was perpetrated by a small, influential group of Arabist secret agents who manipulated the cabinet in London and implemented their own policies, which deviated from the official position. These agents enjoyed a unique status as intermediaries between Whitehall and local Arab leaders. Either intentionally, or because of deep-seated personal beliefs, they provided biased assessments.
They did not merely gather and interpret information and recommend policy, but controlled the flow of information and implemented their own policies while keeping the London decision makers in the dark. They joined forces with Arab rulers, whom they portrayed as voicing the Arab view, in order to mislead their government. Their tactics, which were backed by senior military officers in Cairo, gathered momentum under the post-WWII Labour government and during the crisis in Palestine in 1947-48.
The second conclusion is that the British secret agents succeeded in implementing their policies due largely to their use of indirect control over local “agents of influence.” They employed undercover political operations, clandestine diplomacy and covert propaganda to manipulate Arab leaders and public opinion – methods widely used in the Middle East during World War II.
The Syrian and British documents provide a unique insight into the modus operandi of the British secret services in co-opting prominent Arab leaders, and helping them to positions of power in return for their collaboration. President Quwatli and Prime Minister Mardam Bey in Syria; President Khuri and Prime Minister Sulh in Lebanon; Arab League Secretary-General Abd al-Rahman al-Azzam – these are prime examples, but there were many others.
For the British, the Arabs were the ones they felt were reliably subordinate to British influence, so the Jewish state was either to be prevented from coming into existence or summarily strangled in the cradle.
Apart from political and financial bribery – and, when necessary, pressure and extortion – an effective tactic was to convince them that collaborating with Britain was in their own and their country’s interests. But such maneuvers, as was the case with President Quwatli, did not always succeed. After World War II, as Britain’s prestige waned and its military and economic standing diminished, undercover political operations were stepped up, becoming an essential tool for the Arabist secret agents to safeguard their country’s strategic and economic interests in the Middle East. [...]
The May 11 report from the French military attaché in Beirut, on the secret discussions of the Arab League’s political committee in Damascus, reveals that, apart from King Abdullah, the other Arab leaders were hesitant, seeking a way to delay an invasion of Palestine. It also exposes the British agents’ direct intervention in their decisions. At the last minute, King Faruq overruled his reluctant prime minister and commanded his army to go to war.
The 1948 war swept away the anciens régimes and opened the road to power for a young generation of radical Arab-nationalist officers, determined to avenge their countries’ defeat and bring an end to Britain’s dominance in the region.
The old Arab rulers, victims of British machinations and their own ambitions, were to pay dearly. King Abdullah, Iraqi Prince-Regent Abd al-Ilah, Nuri al-Sa’id, Sulh and Nuqrashi all lost their lives. King Faruq and President Quwatli were more fortunate, losing only power.
The British secret agents, diplomats, military officers and civil servants returned home, leaving behind their legacy of a divided, violent Middle East, in which the states formed by two colonial powers in the aftermath of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement failed to withstand the test of time.
Karma is quite the bitch, eh, mates?