Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Just the Facts, Ma'am: A Compendium of Liberal Fiction -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (72859)	7/22/2009 4:09:52 AM
From: Sully-	2 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended cancer care? By James Lewis American Thinker Senator Ted Kennedy, who is now 76 years old and was diagnosed with brain cancer in May of last year, is telling the world that nationalized medical care is "the cause of his life." He wants to see it pass as soon as possible, before he departs this vale of tears. The prospect of Kennedy's passing is viewed by the liberal press with anticipatory tears and mourning. But they are not asking the proper question by their own lights: That question -- which will be asked for you and me when we reach his age and state in life --- is this: Is Senator Kennedy's life valuable enough to dedicate millions of dollars to extending it another month, another day, another year? Because Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy agree with each other that they of all people are entitled to make that decision. Your decision to live or die will now be in their hands. Ted Kennedy is now 76. Average life expectancy in the United States is 78.06. For a man who has already reached 76, life expectancy is somewhat longer than average (since people who die younger lower the national average); for a wealthy white man it may be somewhat longer statistically; but for a man with diagnosed brain cancer it is correspondingly less. As far as the actuarial tables of the Nanny State are concerned, Kennedy is due to leave this life some time soon. The socialist State is not sentimental, at least when it comes to the lives of ordinary people like you and me. The socialist question -- and yes, it is being asked very openly in socialist countries all around the world, like Britain and Sweden -- must be whether extending Senator Kennedy's life by another day, another month or year is socially valuable enough to pay for what is no doubt a gigantic and growing medical bill. Kennedy is a US Senator, and all that money has been coughed up without complaint by the US taxpayer. Kennedy is already entitled to Federal health care, and it is no doubt the best available to anyone in the world. Before he dies, Senator Kennedy wants to feel sure that you and I and our loved ones can put that personal decision about life or death safely in the hands of a Federal bureaucrat. It is "the cause of his life," we are told. Now there are many people in this country who believe that Ted Kennedy has not spent his life very constructively. Mary Jo Kopechne's family might still want to trade his life for hers, if she could be brought back. Senator Kennedy has exercised more power over our immigration chaos than any other person in the last half century. 9/11 was committed by illegal entrants who slipped through our deliberately full-of-holes borders, using all manner of Kennedy-authored loopholes and enforcement gaps. Others might point to the socialist habit of importing vast numbers of voters from Pakistan and Somalia into Western Europe, to make for cheap socialist votes in order to defeat and scapegoat native Europeans. Socialism by immigrant vote buying is happening in every single socialist country in Europe. It is what keeps socialist parties there in power. Kennedy has opened our borders for precisely that kind of takeover by masses of illegal immigrants. So there might be a rational debate over the social utility of Senator Kennedy's life. We could all have a great national debate about it. Maybe we should do exactly that, to face the consequences of what the Left sees as so humane, so obviously benevolent, and so enlightened. Consider what happens in the Netherlands to elderly people. The Netherlands legalized "assisted suicide" in 2002, no doubt in part for compassionate reasons. But also to save money. There is only one money kitty for medical care in the socialist Netherlands. When you get old, the question is asked, either explicitly or by implication: Do you deserve to live another year compared to young refugees from Somalia, who can use the same euros to have many years of life? There's only so much money available. The Netherlands radio service had a quiz show at one time, designed to "raise public awareness" about precisely that question. Who deserves to live, and who to die? But nobody debates any more about who has the power to make that decision. In socialist Europe the State does. It's a done deal. The Netherlands legally recognizes four categories of euthanasia. One of them is: <<< Passive euthanasia: A physician may choose not to treat an recurrent disease or event in a patient with a terminal progressive disease. >>> I don't know enough about Senator Kennedy's condition, but I would suppose that he has "a recurrent disease or ... a terminal progressive disease." That would be the case if his brain cancer is not curable. In the socialist Netherlands Kennedy would be a perfect candidate for passive euthanasia. Has anyone raised this question with Senator Kennedy? I know it seems to be in bad taste to even mention it. But if ObamaCare passes in the coming weeks, you can be sure that that question will be raised for you and me, and our loved ones. And no, we will not have a choice. americanthinker.com

To: Brumar89 who wrote (72859)	7/23/2009 1:53:44 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 90947

Walter Cronkite Without Tears By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Monday, July 20, 2009 4:20 PM PT Journalism: After the eulogies, the fact remains that "the most trusted man in America" betrayed that trust. He helped snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam and tried hard to do the same in Iraq. Obama on Friday praised Walter Cronkite as a journalistic icon, calling the CBS anchor the "voice of certainty in an uncertain world." More to the point, he was the father of advocacy journalism, the patron saint of media bias. He went from reporting news to recreating it in his own image. Far from the image of the patriotic war correspondent, Cronkite was a World Federalist who couldn't wait for what was called "the American Century" to end. In this Aug. 25, 1998, photo, Walter Cronkite is joined by President Bill Clinton, wife Hillary and daughter Chelsea on a sailboat near Edgartown, Mass. Best known as anchorman for the 'CBS Evening News' for 19 years, Cronkite died Friday night at 92. In a profile by Newsday TV writer Verne Gay in the Jan. 21, 1996, issue of Los Angeles Times Magazine, Cronkite spoke of his dream for America. "We may have to find some marvelous middle ground between capitalism and communism," Gay quotes Cronkite as saying. Let's call it socialism, and Cronkite at least lived long enough to see it unfolding before his eyes and ours. Cronkite said that for the United States "the first priority of the new order must be a revision of the educational system to . . . guarantee that each of our citizens will have equal resources to share in the decisions of the democracy, and a fair share of the economic pie." For him, equal opportunity was not enough; equal success must be guaranteed. And he was ahead of his time in suggesting we should spread the wealth around. In October 1999, Cronkite accepted the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award from the World Federalist Association. In accepting the award, he said "we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government" and that "Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty." Cronkite was also bothered by American wars against oppression and tyranny. The "most trusted man in America" said Vietnam was unwinnable and helped to make it so. Then-President Johnson reportedly told an aide, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." Except that Cronkite's analysis was almost pure fiction and dead wrong. His report after the Tet offensive of 1968 was a total misreading of the situation on the ground, which was that Tet was an American and South Vietnamese victory and a Viet Cong defeat. His report did succeed in fueling the anti-war movement Hanoi counted on for victory. The Viet Cong didn't reach a single one of their objectives and lost most of their 45,000 troops in their attacks on 21 South Vietnamese cities. So massive was their defeat that it convinced Hanoi to send North Vietnamese Army regulars south to carry on the fight. But that's not what Cronkite reported. What Cronkite never mentioned is that defeat came not on the battlefield but in the halls of Congress, when the "Watergate babies" of 1974 cut off aid to the valiant South Vietnamese who'd been successfully defending their country. The Democrats de-funded that war, and they wanted to defund the latest one too with his blessing. In 2007, Cronkite said the Iraq War "is being carried out by a stubborn president." Stubborn like Churchill and Reagan. In an op-ed in the Japan Times, Cronkite said that we "have lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, and victory no longer seems to be a remote possibility." The reporters and talking heads who revered him and sought to emulate him also manipulated the true facts, focusing on body counts and ignoring the millions of purple fingers, casting their first votes, their hearts and minds clearly with us. To the Cronkites of the world it will always be 1968, and only global governance can save us from our quagmires. And that's the way it is . . . ibdeditorials.com