In his documentary on Friday, a big portion of it was spent talking about devastation of eugenics among communist countries in the early 20th century. He had a clip of George Bernard Shaw talking about it as a good thing.
"I do not want to punish anybody, but there are an extraordinary number of people whom I want to kill. I think it would be a good thing to make everybody come before a properly appointed board just as he might come before the income tax commissioners, and say ever 5 years or every 7 years...Just put them there and say, Sir, or madam, will you be kind enough to justify your existence. If you're not producing as much as you consume or perhaps a little more, then clearly we cannot use the big organization of our society for the purpose of keeping you alive because your life does not benefit us and it can't be of very much use to yourself."and at another time, he said,
"I appeal to the chemists to discover a humane gas that will kill instantly and painlessly: in short, a gentlemanly gas-deadly by all means-but humane not cruel."Now today, here is an article about another well known and current author, Martin Amis, declaring that there should be euthanasia "booths" where people could die with a "martini and medal".
"They'll be a population of demented very old people, like an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafes and shops," he said. "I can imagine a sort of civil war between the old and the young in 10 or 15 years' time. There should be a booth on every corner where you could get a martini and a medal,"
Euthanasia is a difficult subject with similar moral implications as abortion, i.e., the intrinsic value of life.
We have all seen or heard of an elderly or very sick person who wants to escape the pain and suffering of a terminal disease by bringing death on prematurely, as to find peace instead of pain. It would be the ultimate sleeping pill. When, it's better to sleep than to wake up, one can imagine the dilemma. And the dilemma isn't harder for anyone except for the family member witnessing the decline and request of their loved one to escape this life.
We have also seen or heard of people who are so far gone, as to not seem to have any connection to reality anymore. As a family member in charge of their treatment, many have had to make the agonizing decision as to whether to continue life supporting intervention or to let nature take its course - perhaps even with a drug that would make the suffering accompanied with starving or such less painful for their loved one.
Right or wrong, these forms of euthanasia, while morally confusing, are driven by compassion. In Martin Amis' idea of euthanasia, we see an action not born of compassion, but rather of simple practicality. I would suggest that George Bernard Shaw's (and eventually Hitler and other dictators of the 20th century) idea of euthanasia was driven, not even from practicality, but by pure evil.
We saw a similar sentiment driven by practicality from Obama, himself, from a piece of an interview mentioned in a previous blog (ALARMING):
"So that’s where I think you just get into some very difficult moral issues. But that’s also a huge driver of cost, right? I mean, the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here."Reminiscent of George Bernard Shaw's statement that
"to make everybody come before a properly appointed board"Obama continued in that interview saying that
"And that’s part of why you have to have some independent group that can give you guidance"Like him or not, Glen Beck has been onto something. His style is to make an argument for the current state of affairs based on actual footage or recorded radio quotes of our leaders and those close to and having influence over them saying things similar to or sympathetic to those of the worst types of dictators. The White House has blasted Beck as a right wing crazy person, but has never actually denounced his conclusions. They'll say he's using scare tactics, but won't relieve those fears by defending their quotes as meaning something other than they say. And, if they do try, the attempt is feeble and unconvincing, versus the original statement made unashamedly and with conviction.
Glen Beck sees us, if unchecked, as heading toward a "progressive" country that ultimately leads to communism. In all of his ranting, however, he always offers the hope of our democracy and the every day man/woman stepping up (while we still have our rights to free speech and press) to stop the progressives from getting their way and turning our beloved America into something we don't recognize. Scott Brown's election is evidence that this is happening. He uses the lessons from history to make his points. We are not destined to fall into communism; we just have to being paying attention.
When I read comments on certain blogs, I am always astonished and baffled by some people's misunderstandings of what radical liberalism and the progressive moment is, as well as what the Tea Party movement is not. I think that Glen Beck's next series is going to focus on teaching his audience history. You have to study to really learn all of history, because school text books and the media often don't give the whole picture, and sadly the choices of what to record and/or leave out are often politically driven, presented in a politically correct way. History is not politically correct. It is full of horrors that we can't forget and must learn from.
Related: Here is another view of Obama's presidency and the blast to the past policies that didn't work the first time.
SILICON GRAFFITI: Barack to the Future!