Home > Current Affairs, Human Interest, Human Rights, Politics - Domestic, Politics - International, The EYE-BALL MediaZone, The EYE-BALL Opinion > EYE-BALL on – “Freedom to Die” – an opinion but an awakening of just how selfish the world has become …

EYE-BALL on – “Freedom to Die” – an opinion but an awakening of just how selfish the world has become …

September 17, 2011
“Freedom to Die” – an opinion but an awakening of just how selfish the world has become …
Afriendly foe of mine sent me a recent article published in the New York Times titled – “FREEDOM TO DIE” by Paul Krugman.  The article is further produced below:

Free to Die
Published: September 15, 2011

Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.
But that was then. Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”

I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”

And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”

The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions.

So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding “Yeah!”

Think, in particular, of the children.

The day after the debate, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.

And the reason S-chip was expanded in 2009 but not earlier was, of course, that former President George W. Bush blocked earlier attempts to cover more children — to the cheers of many on the right. Did I mention that one in six children in Texas lacks health insurance, the second-highest rate in the nation?

So the freedom to die extends, in practice, to children and the unlucky as well as the improvident. And the right’s embrace of that notion signals an important shift in the nature of American politics.

In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.

Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Are voters ready to embrace such a radical rejection of the kind of America we’ve all grown up in? I guess we’ll find out next year.

Link to the 500+ and ever growing comments posted on this story:

My friendly foe was trying to make a point of one-upmanship – but even he failed to see the real hidden message.  America is a Nation of advanced citizenship – the brightest minds – the most defensive when it comes to all forms of human freedom’s – and yet this article illustrates how the minds of the mass’ have been tainted to believe that the world is all about America and their own personal freedoms.

What happened to the America of 1939 – and then again in ’41 when they came to help rid the world of tyranny?

What about the adventurous spirit of 1969 when the put a ‘man on the moon’ … the article above comes out of a mainstream Presidential and Political debate – it fails to address the obvious and the outcome discussions contained within this “FREEDOM to DIE” article as if Americans are all chanting – ‘it’s all about me, and me, and only me’.

Does not the Legal system anywhere in the world depend on how much money you have and whether you can hire a ‘brief’ to get you declared innocent – what about all those same impoverished who become subjected to ‘due process’ and end up relying on the Courts mercy to defend them.

How is the medical system any different – how do 2/3’s of the world suddenly find a Doctor they can visit any time they want – or receive medical care on demand – America is voicing their opinions through their Presidential candidates – the minority behind this despicable selfish want to win Government at any cost is shameful – the world has not descended to a place where they don’t give a shit about anybody who can’t pay their own way – if it has then the World as we know it is already doomed.

No my jackass friend – you have missed the message on so many levels – but then you are not so stupid as to not see when you feel your cold heart – ask yourself if it is a dead heart.

A sample of a feedback comment made in relation to the story reads …

Comment #22:

When I was young we would get our international news at the Newsreel Theaters. One newsreel that made a lifetime impression on me, showed people dying on the streets in India. It showed them just being taken off the street in carts and put put in pyres to be cremated on the banks of the Ganges.

The narrator said something to the effect, that we did not have these conditions in the U.S. We did not have people starving to death, or just dying on the street because our society did not let those kind of things happen. I can not recall anyone from any party advocating allowing people to just die on the street.

My how our society has changed in the past 60 years. I can not recall such mean spirited groups of people having any voice in polite society. Today we accept such behavior as being acceptable. Of course there have been various individuals who would advocate such behavior and they even had a few followers, but good people in general shunned them.

Now we have various demagogues such as Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh with their mass of followers, and they have become part of the mainstream. They have orchestrated a culture of hate that includes, liberals, illegal immigrants, atheists, and other ethnic groups that do not reflect their ideas as to what the country should look like, and how it should be managed.

These people seem to have lost their very souls, their connection to humanity. There seems to be something amiss among these people who cheer at news of how many people have been put to death in Texas and now, who encourage allowing those who have no means to get needed medical treatment, to just go die somewhere.

Is this the new American morality? Are these the future leaders of the country? Will your children and grand children be the ones left to die on the sidewalk?

Submitted by:
David Underwood
Citrus heights, CA
September 16th, 2011
1:48 am

There are many more like this – in fact I would say that of the 2500 who liked the above comment – those who led the initial salvo of agreement to the content of the article are now feeling some embarrassment and shame over their original position.

Humanity is not dead my furry friend – and whilst voices in America speak as this gentleman has – the far right will not hoodwink a society and take it to armageddon … will humanity will this battle?


The EYE-BALL Opinion …

  1. Herman
    September 17, 2011 at 2:29 pm

    Dr Klugman is Nobel prize winner and Professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton. If I read this article without knowing it’s author I would tend to assume it is written someone from the medical system arguing for higher grant funding for medical research and intervention. Most economists are not that far different in their perspective. To graduate in Economics particularly with honours you must show the ability to argue both sides.

    Does this make Milton Friedman different? I did say graduate. Much of Friedman’s work is a parallel to Darwin. Adapting and survival. In the economic sense.

    Far too often when we see addicts, society says let them kill themselves. Little do they realise they themselves are quite obsessed in their own peculiar way. Obsessed with their own myopic view, whatever. If we look behind addicts we tend to find more, like a dysfunctional upbringing, lack of education, obsessive personality, incapacity to see other options.

    If I dare, what about the malnourished starving refugees of Somalia in Kenyan UN camps praying for recognisition and re settlement. They are victims of drought, and civil war, and also over population. Smaller families mean there is more to go around, even less demand on finite resources. Therefore in a Darwinian light, they have created there own mess through over population. An obsession with big families.

    There are many other parallels. Now I want to go directly to the parallel universe of a welfare state. Welfare programmes breed a welfare mentality. If I was to take an affluent suburb, Cronulla, it would be very interesting to find out the %age of high school students receiving youth allowance. I am certain the stats from census and welfare would be different. The main point is there is a mentality that mothers are better off as single parents in Australia, than staying in what is only described as a dysfunctional relationship. That dysfunctional relationship breeds a dysfunctional upbringing for those children, basically Mum and Dad teaching them loathing and hatred. We can not possibly gauge how dysfunctional that relationship is? Does it mean Mum or Dad, partying incessantly and extra marital affairs, or much much worse like domestic violence? Every bit is a layer, as are depressive illness, and other psychological illness.

    The really big melting point is where all of these concepts meet, in the world of government and real politik. Which initiatives actually deliver, and even at times is the scorer or advocate actually talking their own self interest. Self interest is innate. ACOSS (Australia Council of Social Security) will always advocate higher social welfare, and right wing groups will always advocate smaller and less intrusive government. Doctors will always advocate better funding for hospitals and medical research, and professors will advocate better training and up skilling, be they in economics or engineering or medicine, and lawyers who advocate greater injustice rather resolution conciliation and get over it. As always it could go on and on.

    What is really at stake, is those that take excessively for their contribution, be they exceutives paying themselves wicked bonuses or welfare and tax cheats. Those who want an easy life, and don’t understand how they are actually diminishing the cake size.

    If I wanted to; I believe I could highlight that arguments of humanity are at times glib. The most important point is the collective consciousness. What %age of that is people too busy to even try to understand, stuck in dogma, leaving it to somebody else, too obsessed with popularity or fashion, too busy trying to earn the next buck, or consume greedily. There is no answer. Victims tend to create Martyrs, Victims can be (and occasionally are not) contributors to their own outcomes.

    Much of what I have written here is personified in the United States or Australia, One a laisse faire economy and the other a laisse faire economy with very liberal welfare programmes. In totalitarian regimes it is no better. In communist economies when people realise they share equally whether they contribute or not, a culture of leaving it to someone else ensues. The most advanced form of a welfare state.

    We can only work on the collective consciousness. Take the debate to the masses, implore them them to think, beg them to overcome dogma and prejudice. Education can only go so far. Often experience is the only way to take people out of their morass.

    Keep up the debate.

  2. The EYE-BALL Opinion
    September 17, 2011 at 2:42 pm

    As always Herman you take the discussion to new and higher levels – thank you for expressing what I could not – I was distracted and affended by the article and too shocked to fully digest and express my angst at what was coming out of Politicians running for the biggest job in the world – and how so called learned persons directed the debate …


  3. Herman
    September 17, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Death is the ultimate choice, where you still have the caveat you were born to die. Throughout the ages suicide is seen as the way of a coward, a waisted life. So what is addiction? Take a person who is addicted to plain old sugar or tobacco. They are choosing an earlier death, but it is not suicide. Again layers. Fried food will increase hardening of the arteries, and lead to increased chance of stroke or other cardio vascular.

    As men went to war knowing they were increasing their risks, do we consider them them fools, victims, martyrs. For me a 30 year old choosing to self insure their health when they can’t afford to pay the medical bills is lower risk than many other choices. Poor people see it as OK to not take out 3rd party property insurance on their motor vehicle. How is that different? Does that mean we should nationalise that insurance so the driver of the Rolls Royce does not need to seek help from the courts to gain compensation.

    In my experience, medicare is a most capable back stop. I rarely go to doctors. When I do, they want to overservice me. (doctor) I will take some blood, might as well run all the tests while I am there come back at 8am having fasted for 8 hours. (me) Wow, doctor am I really that sick, (doctor) no just a precaution at your age. (Rhetorical) Does this mean I choose to die, am one day going to die, or I want to channel my energy into more healthy pursuits?

  4. HissyFit
    September 17, 2011 at 6:07 pm

    It would not be hard to turn this same argument on to the asylum seeker debate happening in Australia at the moment – Australians have a way of life including one of the best public health systems in the world – yet the ‘boat people- fleeing tyrants and the threat of persecution are subjected to inhumane treatment that no Australian would ever tolerate it it were turned on them.

    Love your comments Herman.

    HissyFit …

  5. Ghost Of Yoda
    September 17, 2011 at 7:21 pm

    You fools, the purpose of the article was not to highlight all the issues you have rushed to, but to show the world how the US has degenerated into what they are now. The article says that the ‘new right” of American politics is now turning to a Neo Facist mentality and as such this evolution is a test of “tradional resolve”. medical care is just an example!

    The next purpose of me sending the article was to imply that Eye Ball’s version of fixing the ongoing GFC issues was equally as right wing on the basis of his hopeful demise of the banking system. This would be equally as hard on the underprivelged i.e. what do you think would happen to the needy, the disabled and the medically disadvantaged in the ensuing depression that you would have the world undertake by bringing down the evil bankers.

    You may ask do you want the existence of what we have now (not very good) or the slow death of a depression of misery (worse). or a quick death and reform with shorter term pain.
    i am not sure anybody in the current social and cultural system is capable of implementing such reform. So what should we do……depends on your spiritual beliefs? So this is the question i am asking of any of your readers. Not to tell us whats wrong and quote the misery we all are aware of, but what choices do we have in the circumstances that we exist ?.

    Now you may think this is drawing a line in a completely different direction from what are effectively are your very socialist type views. I ask you to think about it? i.e. are the consequences of your actions any different to the “right of US politics”?

    What do you do you ……you go and get on your high horse and repeat every bit of “motherhood” you can think of. Poor old Herman is so busy in his ants nest of social reform, he sees it as another case to create his socialist manifesto and explain how more intelligent he is than everyone else. It must be great to be King of the Ant Hill living in the surrealness of your imperfect world.

    Now do you understand that you dont understand?

  6. September 17, 2011 at 7:49 pm

    You have to be a pee-wee of some dimension – when you say …

    The next purpose of me sending the article was to imply that Eye Ball’s version of fixing the ongoing GFC issues was equally as right wing on the basis of his hopeful demise of the banking system.

    … You not only expose your ‘little man’ syndrome on big issues – you hissy fit over others not seeing what you want them to see – that can only draw conclusions to your self-centered bias – in other words you dribble when challenged …

    You scream for others to offer up alternatives – yet any wisdom you might have you are so gutless you won’t even offer up an opinion – mud-slinging is all you can hope to achieve – and on that score your contribution to any debate can only be on your terms or interests … don’t slag those trying to contribute to the debate – shine that bald head of yours and become the doorstop you were made to be …

    As for offering anything enlightening to this debate and the many others you chose to slag on – we all live in hope …

    If you don’t think some sort of social and economic reform is necessary say so – don’t beat about the bush … try and use what intelligence you still have that is not booze damaged and come up with a Ghost of Yoda opinion that can be respected and used –

    You remind me of a soldier who liked to fight a war for the pilfering benefits – not because they have a chance to be a hero …

    Move over and begin to see the World from someone else’s perspective and needs …

    Your pathetic limp-dick attempts always try to paint others as those who don’t understand – yet the real truth is that you are such a bitter and twisted moron – it is you that your own slag’s are reflecting upon.


  7. Gerry Hatrick
    September 18, 2011 at 12:26 am

    Until this Yoda dude came in after 7.20pm on a Saturday Arvo, I thought this malestrom was serious. Who are we, why are we here. Now I realise it is just some weed whackos from wayback, where is the party. I will bring the long necks, whose got the gear?

    Maybe it is best to simply call me 0412 345 789. It will take em 5 minutes to set up the trace.

  8. Ghost of Yoda
    September 18, 2011 at 7:50 am

    If ever a case was made, you just made it.
    Look in the mirror and you will see everything you said (eye ball-not the other moron) it is a direct reflection of yourself. All the things you have said are a hipocrosy of your self.
    The delusion exists with you my little amateur, with all the intellectual strengths you may have, you have no understanding of people, or how to communicate with them. This is illustrated by constant conflicts and ramblings in all your personal confrontations with just about everybody. I am afraid that your lack of people skils and the ability to be able to understand their needs at this point in your life means that I do not think you will ever learn. That is why you are, like you are. Untill you can stop yourself running off in a tangent all the time and learn to stop, listen, reread, then ask the questions of what is this person saying or doing (regardless of right or wrong ) then you will never be objective in your critism.

    What a terrible waste of talent.

    BUT till you understand that you dont understand. NOTHING will change.

    PS Constant insults back to me will make no difference to your argument. You need to try and understand by refecting on all conflicts and asking “how could I have done that better”.
    and further to that [edited by moderator]

  9. Cowboy
    September 18, 2011 at 8:18 am

    You Aussies take the piss …

    Hey – Ghost of Yoda – you’re and idiot and it’s people like you that we all want to lock up and throw away the key on over here – you’re just the type of person who slinkers around with a soapbox looking for a captive audience who want to hear your oily greasy slime-ball offerings – you do nothing but drag people down –

    As for the debate on this Presidential debate – mainstream America is in a toxic shock – we can’t accept or believe that the rest of the world looks upon us as they do – we all believed we were a moral Nation – most of us are just so ashamed at our Leadership and the pain we have caused – George BUSH ought to be hanged along with Rumsfeld and his clowns –

    The people are the same – well at least most of us are – the reality of where we as a Nation and allowed our Leaders to lead us has dawned – we just don’t know how to get ourselves out of this mess – but that does not mean some help from past friends would not be appreciated.

    I’m just a cow-puncher down Texas way and the BUSH family live up the road aways – can’t say that I ever liked them – that George Junior was a dumbass wanker since way back – how he ever got to be President is still a mystery to most of us Texans …

    Anyway – keep pullin’ for us yanks – we’re not all bad – and most of us know the world is an ugly place right now – I heard the other day that they are gonna introduce a new law to make Wall Street Bankers fair game in the next ‘turkey shootin” season … that’ll be some fun.

    Love your site – bit of everything … but that Ghost of Yoda fella needs to see a shrink real bad … he’s got a serious bout of identity confusion …

    cya Cowboy

  10. Ghost of Yoda
    September 18, 2011 at 9:33 am

    Wow!!! You( Eye Ball) must be really impressed to have good clear minded people like Cowboy in your corner. You must feel comfortably assured in your wisdom by such support.
    Let me tell you I’m nearly tempted to change my mind and admit my errors of judgement with Cowboy out there asserting his wisdom……the catch word being nearly!

    Then i thought for a moment, the Texans’ put Bush in power, first as Govenor and then as a Presidential nominee…..gee whiz…..maybe Cowboy got it wrong…..hard to imagine with an intellect like his?
    Anyway your readers will see that you editeded my last comments which revealed your multiple Walter Mitty alter ego. I suspect the obvious is now coming through to the extent that all the things I am suggesting are ringing true.

    ” The bells are ringing” …………its time to accept you do not understand !!!!

    PS Since everything you say is a mirror observation of your own short comings, i would not suggest you see a “shrink” untill you are prepared to admit you dont understand!

  11. Ghost of Yoda
    September 18, 2011 at 9:40 am

    Walter Mitty is a fictional character in James Thurber’s short story “The Secret Life of Walter Mitty”, first published in The New Yorker on March 18, 1939, and in book form in My World and Welcome to It in 1942. It was made into a film in 1947.

    Mitty is a meek, mild man with a vivid fantasy life: in a few dozen paragraphs he imagines himself a wartime pilot, an emergency-room surgeon, and a devil-may-care killer. The character’s name has come into more general use to refer to an ineffectual dreamer, appearing in several dictionaries. The American Heritage Dictionary defines a Walter Mitty as “an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs”. The most famous of Thurber’s inept male protagonists, the character is considered “the archetype for dreamy, hapless, Thurber Man”.

    Although the story has humorous elements, there is a darker and more significant message underlying the text, leading to a more tragic interpretation of the Mitty character. Even in his heroic daydreams, Mitty does not triumph, several fantasies being interrupted before the final one sees Mitty dying bravely in front of a firing squad. In the brief snatches of reality that punctuate Mitty’s fantasies the audience meets well-meaning but insensitive strangers who inadvertently rob Mitty of some of his remaining dignity

  12. September 18, 2011 at 9:50 am

    Hey Bozo – (Ghost of Yoda)

    DId you copy and paste the Walter Mitty comment – without reference I might add .. you do no credit to yourself in using the words of others to make your own case –

    Once again your soapbox is positioned where you piss into the wind – thus pissing all over yourself …

    Go away …

  13. September 18, 2011 at 1:06 pm

    Hi all readers …

    As the Moderator of this site I feel it important to again talk about the rules of the game when it comes to making and contributing comments.

    Some may think that the personalised responses between ‘Ghost of Yoda’ and all the Authors who contribute to this site is ‘over the top’ or sometimes personal – the persona behind Ghost of Yoda has been known to all the Authors of this site for well over 25 years – yes he is a short man with a balding Julius Sumner Miller – type appearence – Sumner Miller was the face of the ABC’s “Why is it so?” TV show.

    Ghost of Yoda could not hold a match Mr Sumner Millar’s interlect and/or wisdom on any level. [Sorry to disparage Mr Sumner Miller in such a way] – but the cap fits …

    When wisdom comes in many forms – individuals become so obsessed with trying to enforce their point of view – they lose sight of what is important – the message or the response.

    As the moderator I have cut Ghost of Yoda quite a bit of slack in his response comments – he has been previously barred and that is again on the cards … he just can’t help himself – he wants to be heard and he creeps up on those who foster his companionship and tries to infuse his beliefs – if was Ghost of Yoda who sent me the newspaper article to begin with that this post was about – he did not sent it to me because of the outrageous content and a Presidential debate on such contentious issues- he sent it to try and belittle the efforts of the site to raise the level of discussion and awareness. His comments that came with the story are pasted below in everyone’s interest to better understand how Ghost of Yoda’s mind works …

    EYE-BALL, ask yourself the question, when it comes to banks and financial crisis management (notwithstanding the profiteering) the actual position you take is of the right. i.e. let them die!! which is the process that would take place in the depression you would love to see us have.

    Rather than concern his thoughts with the content of the debate – he wanted to insult the EYE-BALL’s opinion on what his demented logic saw as continued attacks on ‘right wing’ arguments offered up at the EYE-BALL Opinion site.

    In any dimension – tollerance of criticism comes with a testing patience … Ghost of Yoda believes he is the answer to the world’s problems – he often states he would make a great benevolent Dictator and be able to fix all the problems of the world – yet when he speaks via his comments at this site – he is yet to offer anything that resembles an opinion on what he would actually do as the ‘Benevolent Dictator” …

    Sorry Ghost of Yoda – it is quite obvious that you have no intention in altering your contributions – and this second offer chance to contribute to the debate has failed … you are now banned forever. You can have one last comment to this response if you wish – let it not be said that this site does not accept direct and personal attacks – warranted or not – freedom to have you final say is agreed to.

    EYE-BALL [Moderator]

  14. Ghost of Yoda
    September 18, 2011 at 1:16 pm

    Thank you for your continued affirmation.
    For your interest the Walter Mitty bio is straight from Wikipedia and since it is not an opinion piece, other than an explanation of who he is, it was not considered necessary. If I am out of place by not having a reference, please accept my apologies.

    Yours in Reality…..where are you again?….Ah! thats right the planet that has no understanding of what it doesn’t understand!

    PS Please try and control your rage, as I think it maybe making you even more sillier than your abnormal self!

  15. September 18, 2011 at 1:21 pm

    Ghost of yoda …

    If this is your parting comment … goodby and good mental health …

  16. Herman
    September 18, 2011 at 1:47 pm

    All of this has been reduced to soap opera. At uni we teach;

    Read objectively;
    what is the thesis statement;
    it is supported by empirical evidence (thoroughly researched);
    does it contain obvious bias
    present your argument clearly; with citations;
    avoid too displaying obvious bias and try to present the proper counter argument; and That means DO NOT GET PERSONAL; (and don’t type in capital letters, it appears that you are shouting).

    From all of the above “Now do you understand that you dont understand?” as a thesis statement has a modicum of merit. It is slightly witty and a nice conundrum. The real point is
    the mindless personal attacks and other angry vitriol leads to this soap opera, and if you can work on this you might start to understand what you don’t understand.

  17. yoda
    September 18, 2011 at 5:00 pm


    Do you know who said that and the context of the movie it came from.
    Actually Senator McCarthy had a similar myopia to you. (subject different- affliction the same)

    I feel sad for your blindness.

    PS How can you say the things you do and be in almost permanent conflict with everybody you deal with. Surely there is a message there for you!

  18. Bug-a-Lugs ...
    September 18, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    Just to those who are not educated about Professor Julius Sumner Miller – his saying:

    “The hope I have here is simply summed up: To stir your imagination, awaken your interest, arouse your curiosity, enliven your spirit – all with the purpose of bringing you to ask, as young Maxwell put it, “What’s the go of it?” – or, as Kepler had it, “why things are as they are and not otherwise”. Or, more simply in my own phrase, why is it so?”

    … resonates perfectly when it comes to the Ghost of Yoda and what he lacks in imagination and purpose when debating an issue – having lost creditability on the argument he turns his comments into personal attacks …

    Dump him …


  19. interested observer
    September 18, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I have observed the debate on this matter and would offer an opinion.
    It would seem to me that the Yoda character deliberately baits you with some idea of trying to say “wake up”. I do not think his debate is the relevant aspect as much as the repartee between you. This said I do believe that his points are sound.I watch this site on a varying basis as I think your insite is remarkably clever. It just seems to me you spend 10 times as much time in saying things that you could say in a much simpler fashion. It is for this reason that I note you do not get the feed back that you deserve.I also see a great deal of mental difficulty in your handling of critism as you do not seem to have many critics (do you remove all the ones that critise you?).
    Finally on the debate itself the questions you ask and request cannot always be met by total agreement, you need to understand this better if you are going to get real people interested in your site.
    Congratulations on your site but thicken that skin and be careful who you upset, guys like Yoda on a site are gold for general interest.

  20. September 18, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Thanks Interest Observer –

    Constructive comment and critism is welcome … all comments are posted with edited moderation when requred … your feedback is well received and I will try to be more ‘thicked skinned’ as you say …

    Appreciate your time to enlighten … (Is this Ghost of Yoda in disguise … I know it is … will he own up?)

    Thanks. EYE-BALL.

  21. Ghost of Yoda
    September 18, 2011 at 5:49 pm

    bug a lugs stop defending your husband..
    interested Observer, thanks for your support. I didnt think anyone else was out there.

  22. The Spiritist
    September 19, 2011 at 10:37 am

    After reading all the comments yesterday and the interaction between the parties digested on “Choose to die” – I spent some time just trying to understand where it went so horribly wrong. There are patterns. Those patterns are unique to Eyeball, Yoda and Herman. The Krugman piece was so typical of soap, take a very limited perspective and bash it, draw acuminate perspective, use it for political or sensational gain. Eyeball ran it for shock value, Herman dismissed it, (in Socratic style just tried to show flawed logic) and Yoda did not get the response he expected and therefore went to “youse guys”.

    None of the parties can still detach themselves from the scenario to be really subjective. What Eyeball and Herman can’t understand is why Yoda needs to belittle Eyeball, and if that spray diminishes others (Herman), so be it. When the underlying hurtfulness undermines the real persona of Eyeball and Herman, Yoda says that is ok.

    Yoda constantly projects. Eyeball is vitriolic, Herman is unreal, but yes there really is enjoyment being Herman or Eyeball, someone who is logical or right beyond the norm. It helps all to think in a positive light or different perspective, escape from natural lack of respect, and highlight the fallacy of the real power brokers of the world. Most generally the dogma. That is what society don’t get from mainstream media. This superior thinking feeds on some type of Jesus fantasy. Geri-atric or Long John or Hissy Fit add things that others can’t say. So what is it that each do not understand?

    It always appears to come down to the fact that Yoda does not accept Eyeball for an equal, but his junior. Interested Observer made some great points, on objectivity. But generally most still can’t agree. Eyeball states the moderator has cut Yoda a lot of slack, and the average would tend to agree.

    Until June, eveything was posted without moderation (censorship). After Yoda was resurrected there has been censorship, to try to moderate the personal attacks. They detract and dissipate. Censorship just makes it all more difficult. Another role, another thinking, planned and not come what may.

    Too often you might wonder if Herman cut out and just left it to Yoda and Eyeball, if Yoda could understand the simple enjoyment of these alter egos without undermining one another. Not undermining one another does mean at times appearing arse licking. Since yesterday all should only be dwelling on getting the next piece up before 9am Monday. That deadline is now passing in self doubt about whether there is a better way to heal bruised ego.

    Please go back to the bottom of the page where all comments are welcome, We all like witty and inciteful contributions. Wit is too often individual, and not generalist. Geri-atric calling the contributors “weed whackos” is as hurtful as any other. You must be on drugs. That is why it is important to not start. Yes all are still dis-oriented, stuck in self doubt.

    There is no perfect answer. It really does pivot on, you don’t understand what you don’t understand. If anyone else had started it, it really would have been a great strand to write a string of articles. If Yoda could understand writing in the third person, rather than first person it could add a great dimension to the entire energy.

    Just an ending note – the real life drama played out in these comment responses rival any commercial reality show on any TV network worldwide. The subject matter is real in any debate sense real world problems are at stake.

    If you all got your collective ass’s together and pulled the same way, you’d have a commercial hit in satire and reality political jerky-turkey …

    But in the end – more was achieved through conciliatory work than ego driven harassment … get over it guys …

    The Spiritist …

  23. Ghost of Yoda
    September 19, 2011 at 2:17 pm

    My Parting Response …

    I am fascinated by what the “spritist” wrote, I do not see any personalities that I have observed come through this persona. Unfortunately I could say that Eye Ball would be impressed as it gives his blog a seriousness that he is looking for. Eye Ball sees this as necessary to gain acceptance and fulfil all the inadequacies he feels as a result of unfulfilled opportunities. The reality is that Eye Ball has never matured in terms of serious interpersonal relations, only as a dominant ego who has achieved, but in effect has failed.
    For the record I do not feel as quoted ie superior to Eye Ball, I know Eye Ball is very intelligent and can do things I could only dream of. My critism of Eye Ball is that he approaches everything from a level of non- human judgement and sees everyone in terms of their failure, this gives him comfort in living with his own failures, which are human and he should not hold these up against himself so heavily..
    My role(self appointed and full of arrogance) has been to try and enlighten him to this concept, whereas I have only accentuated the situation and inflamed him further. This in itself is not a bad thing as it will help him become more human in his critism of everyone, wether its his bookie,doctor, dentist, money market dealers and of course his favourite politicians who he mercilessly persues to their “hoped for” extinction. The Catholic church has many critics because it sees only “punishment and doctine” and belies the Christian principles of forgivesness, not to mention the golden rule of “do unto others”.
    Eye Ball has the Catholic problem when dealing with human beings. Personally I am not unhappy with his personal responses (contrary to opinions repeatedly stressed on this site) other than he needs to understand the humanity of weakness that effects us all.

    Now this is about as serious as i will ever get on this site, as I see it as a site to have fun and take the Mickey out of Eye Ball and all his protaginists. His final act of contrition will be to accept the same………..in the interim don’t be so serious….its only fun.

    Signed by a true “Spiritist” David Poole …

  1. No trackbacks yet.
Comments are closed.
%d bloggers like this: