Saturday, September 28, 1996
Concerns of Immigration, Also Life and Death
LOOKING AHEAD by Wally Dobelis
The heritage of the great Communist dictators is haunting us. In former Yugoslavia, the absence of majority rule and minority rights (jus Marshall??), the civil rights orgs like NAACP, ACLU has brought on five years of rule by the gun. The same applies to colonialist-run countries like Rwana, Burundi and Somalia.
In the USSR (descriptive term ) the state capitalism for 70 years brought on a Mafia-type anarchist criminal class who see the state as a prey to be defeated. Some 15% of USSR citizens allegedly lived in the underground economy, and a lot of them have acquired wealth and power. Some of them have transplanted themselves here. They go into business and sell illegal bad gasoline, cheat on sales taxes, and perpetrate crime. The Albanian gangs rob super markets. The Israelis import their sick and make up phony groups, insured by Blue Cross. Scams that the Mafia and the drug gangs never thought of.The good benevolent USA taxpayers are getting hurt by their own altruism.
All of this has to be considered when we rail against the new legislature that does not permit legal emigrees to go on welfare for five years, and the restrictions on immigration. Huge numbers of refugees from political oppression, once safely here and having acquired citizenship, import their indigent relatives and throw them on welfare. Can we, the good USA taxpayers, be the support of the world's burdens? Is it right? When the goodhearted liberal New Yorkers read the appeals against immigration restraints, think of the abuses.
The overpopulation of the world is the prime evil. Pressure on land, move to the cities, exhaustion of resources in the country, loss of water table, loss of arable land, deforestation. Every horrible thing that we rail against can ultimately be traced to overpopulation. Every good cause that protects us, in the name of humanism, has to be examined from the point of view of whether it increases the population. Defeating the effects of aging would be a monstrosity against humanity, an act of selfishness of the present generation that would destroy life as we know it. Think the limits of what I fear to say. Is cancer research productive or not?
These topics came to mind while listening to Hamilton Jordan, President Carter's chief of staff, on Public Radio. Jordan, who has had two kinds of cancer, is now the head of a cancer research foundation. He plays the usual strings of humanism, with a parenthetical reference to demographics, and never mentions the fact that the US has had an increase in longevity fom average age of 60 in the 1930s to 75 in 1990s, and therefore are more subject to geriatric problems. And we are the 11th amomg industrialized nations, with Japan (nearly 80) on top. If population growth continues, particularly in Islamic and other 3rd world countries, at the rate of doubling every 36 years. But, to his credit, he emphasizes research in juvenile cancers.
A much more clever speaker is xx, thwe 1996 commencement speaker at Harward. He sees certain health research, such as elimination of Alzheimers', as economically contributory. Alzheimers suffererers require costly institutionalization, with huge daily charges to Medicaid, whereas a cure would keep them in a family or own environment, not dependent on society. perhaps that is the direction we must fund - not general research but emphasis on cures for disabling illneses.
The whole subject of Kervokian expediting of death in incurable situation is disgusting but must be addressed. Where is the line? Is it as simple as permitting anyone who wants to die to poll the trigger? Or the other extreme, having a medical college determine whether the cry for death is legitimate? and deny the patient's request because of the Hippocratic oath? It must be addressed. The extremes are insurance, taxpayer and family funds carrying virtual vegetables for decades of hospital care.
The heritage of the great Communist dictators is haunting us. In former Yugoslavia, the absence of majority rule and minority rights (jus Marshall??), the civil rights orgs like NAACP, ACLU has brought on five years of rule by the gun. The same applies to colonialist-run countries like Rwana, Burundi and Somalia.
In the USSR (descriptive term ) the state capitalism for 70 years brought on a Mafia-type anarchist criminal class who see the state as a prey to be defeated. Some 15% of USSR citizens allegedly lived in the underground economy, and a lot of them have acquired wealth and power. Some of them have transplanted themselves here. They go into business and sell illegal bad gasoline, cheat on sales taxes, and perpetrate crime. The Albanian gangs rob super markets. The Israelis import their sick and make up phony groups, insured by Blue Cross. Scams that the Mafia and the drug gangs never thought of.The good benevolent USA taxpayers are getting hurt by their own altruism.
All of this has to be considered when we rail against the new legislature that does not permit legal emigrees to go on welfare for five years, and the restrictions on immigration. Huge numbers of refugees from political oppression, once safely here and having acquired citizenship, import their indigent relatives and throw them on welfare. Can we, the good USA taxpayers, be the support of the world's burdens? Is it right? When the goodhearted liberal New Yorkers read the appeals against immigration restraints, think of the abuses.
The overpopulation of the world is the prime evil. Pressure on land, move to the cities, exhaustion of resources in the country, loss of water table, loss of arable land, deforestation. Every horrible thing that we rail against can ultimately be traced to overpopulation. Every good cause that protects us, in the name of humanism, has to be examined from the point of view of whether it increases the population. Defeating the effects of aging would be a monstrosity against humanity, an act of selfishness of the present generation that would destroy life as we know it. Think the limits of what I fear to say. Is cancer research productive or not?
These topics came to mind while listening to Hamilton Jordan, President Carter's chief of staff, on Public Radio. Jordan, who has had two kinds of cancer, is now the head of a cancer research foundation. He plays the usual strings of humanism, with a parenthetical reference to demographics, and never mentions the fact that the US has had an increase in longevity fom average age of 60 in the 1930s to 75 in 1990s, and therefore are more subject to geriatric problems. And we are the 11th amomg industrialized nations, with Japan (nearly 80) on top. If population growth continues, particularly in Islamic and other 3rd world countries, at the rate of doubling every 36 years. But, to his credit, he emphasizes research in juvenile cancers.
A much more clever speaker is xx, thwe 1996 commencement speaker at Harward. He sees certain health research, such as elimination of Alzheimers', as economically contributory. Alzheimers suffererers require costly institutionalization, with huge daily charges to Medicaid, whereas a cure would keep them in a family or own environment, not dependent on society. perhaps that is the direction we must fund - not general research but emphasis on cures for disabling illneses.
The whole subject of Kervokian expediting of death in incurable situation is disgusting but must be addressed. Where is the line? Is it as simple as permitting anyone who wants to die to poll the trigger? Or the other extreme, having a medical college determine whether the cry for death is legitimate? and deny the patient's request because of the Hippocratic oath? It must be addressed. The extremes are insurance, taxpayer and family funds carrying virtual vegetables for decades of hospital care.
# posted by Wally Dobelis @ 3:35 PM 
