I figured there was no point in a post on Biden losing on his employer vaccine mandate, you’ve surely already heard and read it at this point. I’m sure he’ll try something else. How about some true leftist insanity instead? I really was not sure about this, but
Having trouble deciding if this is real or sarcasm https://t.co/beOnkIuZUE
— William Teach2 ??????? #refuseresist (@WTeach2) January 13, 2022
This total insanity from @joemmathews appears to be very real and yet it was somehow published by @vcstar & @YahooNews
I am completely shocked that has not been mocked enough to go viral. It is truly the most asinine column I have ever read, maybe even including COVID content… https://t.co/dkjFWlDJvB
— John Ziegler (@Zigmanfreud) January 14, 2022
From the link (which I did first run into on Yahoo News)
If California is ever going to achieve true equity, the state must require parents to give away their children.
Today’s Californians often hold up equity — the goal of a just society completely free from bias — as our greatest value. Gov. Gavin Newsom makes decisions through “an equity lens.” Institutions from dance ensembles to tech companies have publicly pledged themselves to equity.
But their promises are no match for the power of parents.
Fathers and mothers with greater wealth and education are more likely to transfer these advantages to their children, compounding privilege over generations. As a result, children of less advantaged parents face an uphill struggle, social mobility has stalled, and democracy has been corrupted. More Californians are abandoning the dream; a recent Public Policy Institute of California poll found declining belief in the notion that you can get ahead through hard work.
My solution — making raising your own children illegal — is simple, and while we wait for the legislation to pass, we can act now: the rich and poor should trade kids, and homeowners might swap children with their homeless neighbors.
Now, I recognize that some naysayers will dismiss such a policy as ghastly, even totalitarian. But my proposal is quite modest, a fusion of traditional philosophy and today’s most common political obsessions.
You can see why I was unsure if this was satire or real. It is so over the top, that it’s hard to reconcile with reality, but, Modern Socialists are getting more and more bold in what they say and write, as we can see from their ‘climate change’ insanity.
The left’s introduction of anti-racism and gender identity in schools faces a bitter backlash from parents. Ending parenthood would end the backlash, helping dismantle white supremacy and outdated gender norms. Democrats also would have the opportunity to build a new pillar of the safety net — a child-raising system called “Foster Care for All.”
Again, that’s so crazy that you have to wonder if writer Joe Matthews was reading to much The Onion and Babylon Bee.
Over on the right, Republicans are happy to jettison parents’ rights in pursuit of their greatest passions, like violating migrant rights. Once you’ve gone so far as to take immigrant children from their parents and put them in border concentration camps, it’s a short walk to separating all Americans from their progeny.
Weird, because Obama did this first, and Biden still has them in camps.
Perhaps such coercion sounds dystopian. But just imagine the solidarity that universal orphanhood would create. Wouldn’t children, raised in one system, find it easier to collaborate on global problems?
Yikes! If I go through columns at various outlets and his twitter feed, this looks completely serious.
Anyone who believes that any government should have the power to “make” (i.e., force) parents to give away their children without some overwhelming factual finding that the children are endangered deserves summary execution.
And trying to create some kind of obscure theoretical social benefit for a communist or socialist by weakening family structure is not a sufficient rationale for allowing government to do anything. Rather, it is a rationale for destroying that government and starting over.
Methinks the author is making A Modest Proposal.
Writes the author: But my proposal is quite modest, a fusion of traditional philosophy and today’s most common political obsessions.
Is he mocking the “political obsessions” of Newsom and the “wokes” and the obsession with “equity”?
For those of you who went to high school, you no doubt were coerced into reading Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal For Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burthen to Their Parents or Country, and For Making them Beneficial to the Publick.
Wrote Dr. Swift:
TLDR
Only a cockwomble would post such bullshit.
#LGBFJB
Bwaha! Lolgf
Calling Mr Teach a cockwomble and saying his posts are bullshit is poor form, even if you didn’t graduate HS.
Rimjob again using words and meanings he doesn’t quite understand.
But being a dumbass is no ones fault but his own.
#LGBFJB
Bwaha! Lolgf
Equity? I hear that term a lot. What ‘they’ say it means and what it really means are two entirely different things.
Here’s my definition, derived from actual history: Equity = Pulling everyone in society down to the lowest common denominator.
Using the lowest common denominator is always disastrous. It always destroys a society, a civilization. Of course that version of ‘equity’ will not apply to the elite, our self-anointed ‘betters’.
What is intended by “equity” is that the poor and working classes not be fodder for the ideals of the wealthy donor class.
That everyone have equal and fair opportunities in life regardless of race, sex, religion and national origin. You know, those things in our Constitution not always honored.
The BLM protesters and Jan 6 protesters have more in common than a typical nuCon might think. If they decide to work together the donor class is in trouble (and donor class knows this – it’s why they lean so much on trump and the nuGOP today).
The enemies of equity are the plutocrats and their minions in gov’t.
Dowd, who the hell is this supposed “donor class” you keep bitchin’ about? And if they’re the donors who then are the “receiving class”?
You sound like a confused Bolshevik in 1917 trying to explain the revolution.
Let’s go Brandon, you have more mandates to order before the Great Purge.
The political donor class. Those that pay to get our officials elected to do the donor’s bidding.
Democrats have had decades to fuk the rich and have failed to do so. You have had huge majorites for decades and instead of taxing the gas out of a rich mans colon you just accepted his kickbacks and charity, golfing events on FIJI, Off shore money, and a dozen other bennys. See Nancy Pelosi who is now worth over 100 million dollars from her time as a PUBLIC SERVANT HELPING THE WORKING CLASS.
Democrats failed. No one who falls in a swimming pool(CESS POOL) of money can avoid an old bible axiom. Money is the root of all evil.
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
Paying for the privilege of being wealthy in America is not fukking the rich.
It’s always the GOPhers who cut taxes for the wealthy, but your point is well made. Both establishment Dems and GOPhers are the problem.
Can a society sustain the extreme gap between rich and poor we now see? Probably not. The next time the nuGOP gets power they’ll institute and tighter and tighter police state to keep the rabble quiet. “No bread? Let them eat cake!”
Dowd: “Can a society sustain the extreme gap between rich and poor we now see?”
Can you name any society in history that did not have an extreme gap between rich and poor? In fact in todays world I would say the gap is larger the more oppressive the political environment is. Fact is, there are millions more people in free market nations who enjoy a good economic life than anywhere else ever in history. And you know it.
Dowd: “The next time the nuGOP gets power they’ll institute and tighter and tighter police state to keep the rabble quiet. “No bread? Let them eat cake!”
Seems to us the only institution of a police state in America has been by Democrats. Or do you fail to see that? BTW, would Marie Antoinette’s quote of 1789 be equivalent to today’s pre3posterous show of condescension by Nancy Pelosi as she ate $15 a pint ice cream in front of her two $25k SubZero freezers while laughing at everybody else? I think it would.
People like you with partisan tunnel vision amuse us. Was it the “nuGOP” that locked down citizens, closed small businesses & schools, forced millions to wear masks, forced untested drugs into people, made mandate after mandate to FORCE citizens to “comply”, shoot unarmed female protestors, jail without trial protestors while allowing rioters who burned cities to go free? Is that the type of “police state” of which you speak? When did any nuGOP including the hated Trump ever do anything like these?
The Dowdmeister speaks: Vapid, vituperative, vehement, vicious, vain, vainglorious, vitriolic, vengeful, verbose, vile …. you get the picture.
Let’s go Brandon, still more people to force to comply with your police state demands.
Dowd: “That everyone have equal and fair opportunities in life regardless of race, sex, religion and national origin. You know, those things in our Constitution not always honored.”
And how do you propose to make millions of people with all different attributes, abilities, intellects, interests, desires, have equal and fair opportunities? we can find no mention of either the word “opportunity” nor “equal” in the constitution although we could be wrong we didn’t scour every word.
The only promise in the constitution is that we are all subject to the same rules and when they allowed Walmart to remain open but closed Joe’s Pizza because Covid they proved that (once again) to be a lie.
The enemies of “equity” are freedom loving people who understand words have meaning and in order to have “equity” among people certain people must be favored, others, outcast, still others imprisoned and the lucky ones executed. Just ask Stalin about equity.
Taking the property or job or business or whatever from one person and giving it to another may create equity as far as you’re concerned but it creates hate and retribution by the person deprived of that which was his.
Or is that exactly what you leftist are trying to do because it sure seems so?
Let’s go Brandon, there’s lot’s of people to “equalize” at others expense out there.
Post Script: Dowd, how much of your live and possessions, comfort and freedom are you willing to give up to make others “equal”?
Elwood P. Dowd (James Stewart) from 1950 movie, “Harvey”.
“Doctor, Years ago my mother used to say to me – she’d say, ‘In this world, Elwood, you must be – ‘ She always called me Elwood. ‘In this world, Elwood, you must be oh, so smart or oh, so pleasant. ‘Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. And you may quote me.’”