The Banality of Evil

[NYcarbineer]

1a. Here is the very center of ObamaCare, and the basis for its rationing and death panels:

"... comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases. In 2006, older patients with macular degeneration, which causes blindness, were told that they had to go totally blind in one eye before they could get an expensive new drug..." The American Spectator : Downgrading American Medical Care




How did "progress" come to mean that human beings are no more significant than a cypher, a number, a bean to be counted?

Is this your 'brave new world?'

Are you arguing for Medicare (and senior Medicaid) funding to be open ended and unlimited??

Well...it seems you are ready to pretend that Obama attempted to sell the scam to the American people, in addition to lies about keeping your plan, and your doctor, and seeing huge reductions in the cost of your policy, the snake oil salesman boasted...

.."And we will reduce costs of healthcare by rationing both access to medical professionals and costly medicines that reduce suffering and prolong life, through the imposition of mandates by Death Panels!"


Did he say that?


That would have been the truth, wouldn't it?

I asked you if Medicare/Medicaid funding should be unlimited.

You didn't answer because the answer would be 'no', and that demolishes your 'death panel' attack because it puts you right on the pro- side of death panels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. When political theorist Hannah Arendt, originated the term of art, "the banality of evil," she was correctly encapsulating the idea that for much of the evil done by mankind, the horrors, its origin is no more than the desire for efficiency, a business-as-usual outlook.



a. "Arendt states that aside from a desire for improving his career, [Adolf] Eichmann showed no trace of antisemitism or psychological damage. Her subtitle famously introduced the phrase the "banality of evil," which also serves as the final words of the book. In part, at least, the phrase refers to Eichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job" Eichmann in Jerusalem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Amazing? Events that rank as some of the most heinous in history, simply getting the job done.

I don't think you can dismiss Nazism as a banal exercise simply by slicing out one individual example of a Nazi who appears to fit the description.

I would submit that Adolph Hitler, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, and ideologically,

was hardly an example of banality.

Perhaps you'd re-read the parts you quoted....and note, this time, that it makes a specific reference to Eichmann, and his motivation.

There is no reference to either Hitler, nor Nazism.

Now, focus like a laser, and pay special attention to "Eichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job"...

...just as Obama's 'bioethicists' see Death Panels:' just doing their jobs.





You see, this is where your A.D.D. got in the way of your acquiring an education.

Had you gone on to peruse the rest of the OP, you might.....might.....have noticed the theme documenting that those without morality and/or conscience have no problem seeing murder, and slaughter of innocents as, simply, 'part of their job.'


It is a very important point.

Note, also, how it indicts Progressivism, Liberalism....and how anti-American system an 'administrative state' concept is.


Is this going too fast for you?



Don't hesitate if you have any further questions.

So in short, Arendt's profound 'eureka' moment is to have realized that there are sociopaths in the world,

because isn't that pretty much what Eichmann was?

 

[Crackerjaxon]

PC continues an incoherent array of 'articles' full of cut and paste, with little evaluation and analysis.

Dutch will mangle her arguments if she is silly enough to try.

It is perfectly obvious that you reading skills are inadequate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Are you arguing for Medicare (and senior Medicaid) funding to be open ended and unlimited??

Well...it seems you are ready to pretend that Obama attempted to sell the scam to the American people, in addition to lies about keeping your plan, and your doctor, and seeing huge reductions in the cost of your policy, the snake oil salesman boasted...

.."And we will reduce costs of healthcare by rationing both access to medical professionals and costly medicines that reduce suffering and prolong life, through the imposition of mandates by Death Panels!"


Did he say that?


That would have been the truth, wouldn't it?

I asked you if Medicare/Medicaid funding should be unlimited.

You didn't answer because the answer would be 'no', and that demolishes your 'death panel' attack because it puts you right on the pro- side of death panels.

My answer was befitting the import of the post.

If you can't handle it....don't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I don't think you can dismiss Nazism as a banal exercise simply by slicing out one individual example of a Nazi who appears to fit the description.

I would submit that Adolph Hitler, intellectually, emotionally, philosophically, and ideologically,

was hardly an example of banality.

Perhaps you'd re-read the parts you quoted....and note, this time, that it makes a specific reference to Eichmann, and his motivation.

There is no reference to either Hitler, nor Nazism.

Now, focus like a laser, and pay special attention to "Eichmann's deportment at the trial, displaying neither guilt nor hatred, claiming he bore no responsibility because he was simply "doing his job"...

...just as Obama's 'bioethicists' see Death Panels:' just doing their jobs.





You see, this is where your A.D.D. got in the way of your acquiring an education.

Had you gone on to peruse the rest of the OP, you might.....might.....have noticed the theme documenting that those without morality and/or conscience have no problem seeing murder, and slaughter of innocents as, simply, 'part of their job.'


It is a very important point.

Note, also, how it indicts Progressivism, Liberalism....and how anti-American system an 'administrative state' concept is.


Is this going too fast for you?



Don't hesitate if you have any further questions.

So in short, Arendt's profound 'eureka' moment is to have realized that there are sociopaths in the world,

because isn't that pretty much what Eichmann was?

You are labeling Woodrow Wilson, the Progressives and Obama as sociopaths.

Seems I was wrong in assuming that you missed the point of the OP.
Very good.

 

[eagle1462010]

In regard to Woodrow Wilson, I've called him the worst President in our History on another thread.

His obsession with power was legendary. Sedition Act to destroy anyone who dared oppose him. Throwing Americans into Jail for speaking out against the Gov't or any of their actions. Shutting down radio stations, taking businesses, and etc.........

He was OPENLY AGAINST the CONSTITUTION, and desperately wanted to Transform America into his OWN IDEOLOGY. Destroyer of State's Rights. Creator of the IRS.

FDR continued the Ideology of the left. Ditching the Constitution, and even going into Rages against anyone who opposed his IDEOLOGY. When beaten by a bunch of Chicken Farmers in the SCOTUS his RAGE WAS LEGENDARY. Wanting to Change the SCOTUS to increase the NUMBER OF Judges so he COULD APPOINT THEM. He was given a TIME OUT on that one. He lost that battle.

Then he attacked the Constitution under the common good clause. Saying there should be NO LIMIT TO GOV['T FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

The Statist Machine and Progressive IDEOLOGY increased the size of Gov't to Massive Degrees until we are here today suffering the consequences of CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION. The Founding Fathers WARNED us against all of this. Over time, these Warnings have been disregarded by those with TEMPORARY POWER, and continue to Transform us into DECLINE.

Obama continues the ATTACK against the Constitution. Violates Laws as he chooses, believing his Supreme IDEOLOGY is the Way of the Land. And Progressive IDEOLOGY marches on, taking our COUNTRY INTO THE ABYSS.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Evil Legacy of Teddy and Woodrow ? LewRockwell.com

One of the criticisms of the Constitution by the Progressives, and one still heard today, is that the Constitution is so hard to amend that judges have to loosen its restrictions on the power of the federal government by judicial reinterpretations. Judicial activism is one of the enduring legacies of the Progressive era.

In reality, the Constitution was amended four times in eight years during the Progressive era. But facts carried no more weight with crusading Progressives then than they do today.

Theodore Roosevelt interpreted the Constitution to mean that the President of the United States could exercise any powers not explicitly forbidden to him. This stood the 10th Amendment on its head, for that Amendment explicitly gave the federal government only the powers specifically spelled out, and reserved all other powers to the states or to the people.

Woodrow Wilson attacked the Constitution in his writings as an academic before he became president. Once in power, his administration so restricted freedom of speech that this led to landmark Supreme Court decisions restoring that fundamental right.

Whatever the vision or rhetoric of the Progressive era, its practice was a never-ending expansion of the arbitrary powers of the federal government. The problems they created so discredited Progressives that they started calling themselves “liberals” — and after they discredited themselves again, they went back to calling themselves “Progressives,” now that people no longer remembered how Progressives had discredited themselves before.

Barack Obama’s rhetoric of “change” is in fact a restoration of discredited ideas that originated a hundred years ago.

“Often wrong but never in doubt” is a phrase that summarizes much of what was done by Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, the two giants of the Progressive era, a century ago.

Their legacy is very much alive today, both in their mindset — including government picking winners and losers in the economy and interventionism in foreign countries — as well as specific institutions created during the Progressive era, such as the income tax and the Federal Reserve System.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

FDR and Wilson absolutely hated the constitution because of its limited scope it gave to govt. Two of the worst presidents in us history.

 

[eagle1462010]

And today the Gov't Attacks those who disagree with them.

Using the IRS to Attack those who oppose them. Then saying we didn't know this was going on. We will bring those to justice and all that BS.

Standard Tactics of Statist. We will get our way or else, no compromise, no turning back. The only difference is that the other 2 Liberal Presidents already mentioned threw those who opposed them in Jail for DARING TO CHALLENGE THEM.

And the Statist Machine goes on.......................

 

[PoliticalChic]

While some of PC's article is worthy, the 'banality of evil' in America would be best characterized by the people who supported Jim Crow and segregation through the 1960s and currently the Tea Party membership and the social conservatives.

1. "While some of PC's article is worthy,...."
C'mon....we both know it was brilliant!

2. "... the 'banality of evil' in America would be best characterized by the people who supported Jim Crow and segregation...."

You're almost there!
Bring yourself to say it: Democrats!

a. " So, the struggle ended: Thurgood Marshall had won his cases in the Supreme Court, Eisenhower used the military to enforce the victories, Nixon desegregated the schools and building trades, and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama. And, finally, even a majority of Democrats supported civil rights. Democrat segregationists were defeated.
This was the precise moment when liberals decided it was time to come out strongly against race discrimination!"
Coulter, "Mugged," chapter one.

b. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…”
Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425






3. "....who supported Jim Crow and segregation through the 1960s and currently the Tea Party membership and the social conservatives."

Oh....see, and you were on your way to verisimilitude....and then you went back to your default lying.

Dare you to prove that the Tea Party, or conservatives endorse " Jim Crow and segregation."




Otherwise...you remain within the rolls of the slimy, bottom feeding, mouth breathing, midden-dwelling lice.

Is that how you wish to be remembered?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well...it seems you are ready to pretend that Obama attempted to sell the scam to the American people, in addition to lies about keeping your plan, and your doctor, and seeing huge reductions in the cost of your policy, the snake oil salesman boasted...

.."And we will reduce costs of healthcare by rationing both access to medical professionals and costly medicines that reduce suffering and prolong life, through the imposition of mandates by Death Panels!"


Did he say that?


That would have been the truth, wouldn't it?

I asked you if Medicare/Medicaid funding should be unlimited.

You didn't answer because the answer would be 'no', and that demolishes your 'death panel' attack because it puts you right on the pro- side of death panels.

My answer was befitting the import of the post.

If you can't handle it....don't.

Your complaint is about so-called death panels.

The fundamental premise of so-called death panels is that the government would refuse to pay for certain treatments for those depending on government healthcare.

The alternative is for the government to pay for all of those treatments for such persons on demand.

Which do you support?

1. unlimited government funds for any and all treatment those on government healthcare demand,

at the taxpayers' expense, or,

2. some degree of what you call a 'death panel'.

?

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC continues an incoherent array of 'articles' full of cut and paste, with little evaluation and analysis.

Dutch will mangle her arguments if she is silly enough to try.

So very sorry.....

...I destroyed your reputed ally in my post#10.


Now, who have you got??? Billy-ZeroIQ??

 

[NYcarbineer]

While some of PC's article is worthy, the 'banality of evil' in America would be best characterized by the people who supported Jim Crow and segregation through the 1960s and currently the Tea Party membership and the social conservatives.

1. "While some of PC's article is worthy,...."
C'mon....we both know it was brilliant!

2. "... the 'banality of evil' in America would be best characterized by the people who supported Jim Crow and segregation...."

You're almost there!
Bring yourself to say it: Democrats!

a. " So, the struggle ended: Thurgood Marshall had won his cases in the Supreme Court, Eisenhower used the military to enforce the victories, Nixon desegregated the schools and building trades, and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama. And, finally, even a majority of Democrats supported civil rights. Democrat segregationists were defeated.
This was the precise moment when liberals decided it was time to come out strongly against race discrimination!"
Coulter, "Mugged," chapter one.

b. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…”
Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425






3. "....who supported Jim Crow and segregation through the 1960s and currently the Tea Party membership and the social conservatives."

Oh....see, and you were on your way to verisimilitude....and then you went back to your default lying.

Dare you to prove that the Tea Party, or conservatives endorse " Jim Crow and segregation."




Otherwise...you remain within the rolls of the slimy, bottom feeding, mouth breathing, midden-dwelling lice.

Is that how you wish to be remembered?

Many in the Tea Party, beginning with one of the most prominent tea partiers, Rand Paul,

support the right of businesses to refuse service to people based on their skin color.

 

[NYcarbineer]

My, my, the world is going to end tomorrow, and the Democrats are going to make us all drive Yugo's and eat tofu.

Well, which is the most reasonable. Judging whether someone should get an operation or organ based on their probable lifespan and habits, or whether that person should get an operation or organ based on whether the health insurance companies CEO has made enough tens of millions this year?

In your world, a boozing, smoking, overweight rich person deserves that heart far more than a healthy non-smoking, non-alcoholic younger medical researcher. Because, obviously, the wealthy individual has 'earned it'.

In your world, you believe that you have the right to judge based on "objective" criteria.

That's scary as hell.

So who do YOU think should decide whether or not the taxpayers will pay for any given medical treatment for someone on Medicare, Medicaid, or a combination of the two?

Be specific.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It's funny that so many characterize so-called death panels as evil, and yet,

none of them really oppose them, in principle.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It's funny that so many characterize so-called death panels as evil, and yet,

none of them really oppose them, in principle.

It's funny how you missed the entire point of this thread Carbine.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you arguing for Medicare (and senior Medicaid) funding to be open ended and unlimited??

Well...it seems you are ready to pretend that Obama attempted to sell the scam to the American people, in addition to lies about keeping your plan, and your doctor, and seeing huge reductions in the cost of your policy, the snake oil salesman boasted...

.."And we will reduce costs of healthcare by rationing both access to medical professionals and costly medicines that reduce suffering and prolong life, through the imposition of mandates by Death Panels!"


Did he say that?


That would have been the truth, wouldn't it?

I asked you if Medicare/Medicaid funding should be unlimited.

You didn't answer because the answer would be 'no', and that demolishes your 'death panel' attack because it puts you right on the pro- side of death panels.

Apparently you do. You want these programs to exist for an indefinite amount of time with an indefinite amount of funding, just as all entitlement driven government programs do these days. Essentially, people are being paid to slowly waste away and die a slow painless death.

The banality of evil here is funding these programs with no clear end goal. Help the poor? That's overly broad. To what end? Help the sick? This too. To what end? Political gain? Such undefined goals lead to open ended legislation which leads to more money being thrown at an irreconcilable problem. And if you think government dependence is the end all be all, guess again.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While some of PC's article is worthy, the 'banality of evil' in America would be best characterized by the people who supported Jim Crow and segregation through the 1960s and currently the Tea Party membership and the social conservatives.

1. "While some of PC's article is worthy,...."
C'mon....we both know it was brilliant!

2. "... the 'banality of evil' in America would be best characterized by the people who supported Jim Crow and segregation...."

You're almost there!
Bring yourself to say it: Democrats!

a. " So, the struggle ended: Thurgood Marshall had won his cases in the Supreme Court, Eisenhower used the military to enforce the victories, Nixon desegregated the schools and building trades, and Democrat “Bull” Connor was voted out of office by the people of Alabama. And, finally, even a majority of Democrats supported civil rights. Democrat segregationists were defeated.
This was the precise moment when liberals decided it was time to come out strongly against race discrimination!"
Coulter, "Mugged," chapter one.

b. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…”
Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425






3. "....who supported Jim Crow and segregation through the 1960s and currently the Tea Party membership and the social conservatives."

Oh....see, and you were on your way to verisimilitude....and then you went back to your default lying.

Dare you to prove that the Tea Party, or conservatives endorse " Jim Crow and segregation."




Otherwise...you remain within the rolls of the slimy, bottom feeding, mouth breathing, midden-dwelling lice.

Is that how you wish to be remembered?

Many in the Tea Party, beginning with one of the most prominent tea partiers, Rand Paul,

support the right of businesses to refuse service to people based on their skin color.

Are those private businesses?

What, exactly does 'private' mean in terms of the Constitution?



Regulating one's own business is to equated with "supported Jim Crow and segregation"?
Really?

Only a fawning 'Big Government' dilettante would suggest that the total regulation of all private property is within the purview of the federal government.
And, of course, that is the view better suited to one living in a monarchy....such as you.




And that same type of individual would call Senator Goldwater a racist.


1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.

2. Seems like everyone is familiar with Republican Senator Goldwater’s vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act…and some even know that he explained, as a constitutionalist, that the reason was the belief that the Congress had no right to mandate how individuals must use their private property…in other words, the limits of the commerce clause.

3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”
Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

 

[Vox]

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:9

or if one wants to read the whole part:


A generation goes, and a generation comes,
but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises, and the sun goes down,
and hastens to the place where it rises.

The wind blows to the south
and goes around to the north;
around and around goes the wind,
and on its circuits the wind returns.

All streams run to the sea,
but the sea is not full;
to the place where the streams flow,
there they flow again.

All things are full of weariness;
a man cannot utter it;
the eye is not satisfied with seeing,
nor the ear filled with hearing.

What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there a thing of which it is said,
“See, this is new”?
It has been already
in the ages before us.

There is no remembrance of former things,
nor will there be any remembrance
of later things yet to be among those who come after.

Ecclesiastes 1:4-11

 

[TemplarKormac]

My, my, the world is going to end tomorrow, and the Democrats are going to make us all drive Yugo's and eat tofu.

Well, which is the most reasonable. Judging whether someone should get an operation or organ based on their probable lifespan and habits, or whether that person should get an operation or organ based on whether the health insurance companies CEO has made enough tens of millions this year?

In your world, a boozing, smoking, overweight rich person deserves that heart far more than a healthy non-smoking, non-alcoholic younger medical researcher. Because, obviously, the wealthy individual has 'earned it'.

In your world, you believe that you have the right to judge based on "objective" criteria.

That's scary as hell.

So who do YOU think should decide whether or not the taxpayers will pay for any given medical treatment for someone on Medicare, Medicaid, or a combination of the two?

Be specific.

The taxpayers?