The sick, the lame and the halt: Hallelujah! It seems that now someone who needs a lung can get one from a smoker with lung cancer. This is because tests revealed that the recipient does as well with a “clean” lung from a non-diseased donor as it does with a “dirty” lung from a smoker. Here is what I am hoping: that in all those clinical trials the guys with lung cancer died before giving up their lungs. That they only took one lung from each of the smokers. And that they did not actually put a pillow over the smokers’ faces in order to speed up those organ donations. If you go to the article linked below, you will see how desperate hospitals are for lung donations. They don’t know where to turn or what to do to improve the situation. And let’s face it, on the Quality of Life Index alone you could make a case for euthanasia, since the smoker has zero points on that government scale. Hard not to beat that score, as long as you’re dying from a different form of lung disease.
We are being murdered by our totalitarian bureaucracy, drowned in rules and life-or-death decisions handed down by morons. Doesn’t Kathleen Sibelius look like your least-favorite boss or the teacher who just took an irrational dislike to you? Those mean thin lips compressed into a little dash of disapproval, that helmet-like hair, her air of sanctimony? Do you really want this caricature of left-wing fury and indignation running your life?
The bureaucrats are now reshaping our health care into the same low-quality care Europeans enjoy (check out some Euroteeth if you want to know what our nation’s future generations look like). The Death Panels, whose edicts will be set in concrete, without appeal, will be the pathway to significantly thin out the ranks of the non-working population. I find it entirely likely that our tyrants will devise a way to dispatch people who might not yet be old, but are nevertheless undesirables. Such as smokers and fat people who aren’t Michael Moore and people who name their kids after the wrong heroes. Now if they would just throw in anybody under 70 with a tattoo ….
In Monty Python’s Meaning of Life there is a segment about NHS organ collectors actively tracking down anybody who filled out an organ donor card to press for an immediate donation. And in the US, special teams already go around to traffic accidents involving an organ donor to make sure they get what’s theirs.
Is this predatory, or is it only me?
No limits to power – Do you remember the couple who had their children taken away because they gave them offensive names? I repeat below a short article on the case, as reported by Fox News:
The Express-Times reported late Friday that Deborah Campbell gave birth Thursday to a son named Hons Campbell. She and her husband Heath Campbell, of Holland Township, N.J., made news in 2008 when a supermarket refused to inscribe a birthday cake with the words “Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler.” Adolf Hitler Campbell and his sisters Joyce Lynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell were removed from the custody of Heath and Deborah Campbell by the Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS) in January 2009. The young children have been in foster care since.
According to the report, Deborah Campbell said the doctor who delivered Hons called DYFS, and officials accompanied by police officers arrived at the hospital to take the newborn into custody about 17 hours after his birth.
The couple claimed DYFS officials gave no reason for taking the baby and had no court order to do so.
“It’s basically a kidnapping, but they use different terms,” said Heath Campbell.
A spokesperson for DYFS said she was legally prohibited from commenting on the case.
First of all, where do these people derive their power to take away a couple’s children because they find the children’s names offensive? Is there actually a law in New Jersey that says “names anybody finds offensive” are grounds for taking children from their homes? I mean, it isn’t as if they named the kids “Poo Poo” or something much more vulgar. They named them, somewhat illiterately, after their heroes, Hitler and Hinler and Hons and then, just for fun, Aryan Nation. Adolf Hitler was a monster of a man, but his is a real name and its use has not been outlawed anywhere that I know of. As we all know, there are people around the world who even venerate him. And think about this: why did they take away infant Hons? I am sure you could dig up a million ex-Nazis named Hans, but offhand I can’t think of a single top dog with the name. It must be because it sounds German that the infant had to be snatched away by the State. But still … he has a sister named Honszlynn … could they have been thinking of Hansel and Gretel? Is that fairy tale off limits now?
Is this an appropriate response to finding a kid’s name distasteful? Or is ugly ideology behing the deed?
Personally, I find names like Twanda and Beyonce and DoRayMi offensive; I also detest names like Mervin or Willard and wonder what their parents were thinking. I do not propose to sue for the removal of the children from their homes on that basis, but it reminds me that I have never heard of anybody losing their children because he and the wife called the kid Lenin. This name is not at all uncommon among Latin American men, and it is not uncommon because there were a lot of marxist guerrillas around who had babies. I did a name search for Lenin Martinez and there were dozens and dozens of them across the country. Shouldn’t the authorities be checking on those people and forcing them to change their names and disown their parents? And while they’re at it, they can take away the guy’s kid who was named after him. Otherwise it wouldn’t be fair.
Or, they could keep their noses out of other people’s business. One day perhaps Adolf Hitler Campbell would have sued his parents big-time for naming him that. That would be his business. Not the State’s.
And one last thought on this. If the State is going to wrest a child from its mother for having the wrong name, shouldn’t the State issue a list of names deemed objectionable so the parents don’t have to wait with bated breath for a knock at the door? A list would allow people to avoid the loss of their children by knowing which names are prohibited. Solving this on a case by case basis won’t do. And such a list would confirm or debunk the idea that the authorities of New Jersey have a bias against right-wingers, but none against the left or people with terrible taste in names.
Gun control – I was chatting with a highly educated and fairly conservative professional and the topic was gun control. He strongly favors further restriction on the sale of the more military-like weaponry. He didn’t understand why the conservatives could not agree on some reasonable changes. I said reasonable was good, and reasonable restrictions are good, even if nobody agrees on what is reasonable. I also reminded him that the people who today control our lives don’t do reasonable. Every issue is a wedge issue, because the left has an agenda. A reasonable amount of control for the moment. To be augmented relentlessly at every opportunity. Every compromise for them is only for the moment, and if we forget that simple fact we are criminally negligent before our children and future generations.
My friend was baffled by the numbers of guns in the country. I offered my opinion that what was prompting the massive gun buys was fear of the government and its intentions toward us. It was also an act of defiance. I had bought a revolver myself at Christmas just to make a point. And I qualified for concealed carry, too. Even if I never carry it, I wanted that license. He agreed that people were spooked, but they were being jacked up by the gun lobby. The government couldn’t possibly get all the guns in the country by force, when there were millions in just a few mid-western states.
I would tend to agree with him, but guess what? They took all the guns away in Russia, in China, in Cuba, in North Korea, in East Germany and Poland and Latvia and Lithuania. And in western Europe, too, they’ve taken the guns away from the people they rule. Now the only people with guns are criminals, and the only people with sufficient force to compel obedience is the State. In Russia before the Revolution, everybody had guns, guns to kill wolves and crazed peasants and your wife occasionally. Then the Reds won and proceeded to gather up all the weapons, offering vivid examples of the harsh punishment handed down to those who failed to cooperate. Fear is a great motivator of compliance.
Do you think the USG would be willing to make exceptions for people in dire jeopardy? May Americans living along our southern border and fighting organized crime flooding in from the south have high capacity weapons and ammunition? Can they have more than five bullets? Can they keep their weapons loaded? I wouldn’t be asking these questions, except there is no longer reasonable control over our southern border and I guess maybe the Regime has its own reasons for keeping that border porous. But I’m doubtful about the exception for those poor border residents.
The left wants exclusive control of force. If you remember this, you won’t be lulled by their deceptive rhetoric about the need to be reasonable.
Brave New World - watch for nationwide de-criminalization of pot-smoking and maybe other “light narcotics,” too. The trend is already well under way. It has a couple of benefits from the viewpoint of government: it allows the State to raise taxes on a new product; and it keeps the folks happy, especially those who have the most to be blue about (today’s youth, the unemployed, the mentally ill). In Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, a drug called soma is given to all the underclasses to make them content with their lots in life, doing the world’s drudgery, a status assigned to them from their test-tube births. Drug, drink and endless sex in endless combinations. No Constitution and no Bill of Rights or at least not the rights you might recognize. And this is utopia?