Posted on 10/23/2007 12:03:40 PM PDT by Turret Gunner A20
This is the column in the school newspaper sent the principal into a panic ... running around and confiscating uncirculated copies of the column.
Another 'modest proposal'
by Justin Jones
Published on: 10/23/07
For a millennium, the world has been plagued with stupid people corrupting society and bastardizing the value of life for all of mankind.
The intellectually handicapped have been reproducing at a substantially greater rate than those with a fully functional brain.
The problem of the unintelligent reproducing is, and has been, a serious threat to society that has gone unchecked for far too long. It is the responsibility of man to solve this problem before a reverse Darwinism takes effect.
(Excerpt) Read more at boortz.com ...
Actually, it’s a pretty well written piece of satire for a high school kid.
He’s talking about Democrats not being allowed to reproduce, right?
(That’s MY definition of “stupid”.)
Wow! Talk about stressing out before taking a test! (Wasn't there a Twilight Zone or Night Gallery about this once? Except that they got rid of the smart kids that might be a threat to "equality"?)
It would be far better to replace "dancing with the stars" and "American Idol" with shows such as "Idiot Island", Dueling Dummies", and "Last 'Tard Standing".
Many businesses do this as a routine matter of course - fire the bottom 10% every year to improve your work force. This article just takes the concept a step or two further...
>> Lowest 25% of IQ persons executed. I could not disagree more. That is just plain stupid.
I agree, but for a different reason.
I’ve been told I’m 41st percentile in intelligence, so I’d like to see the “lower 40” get the needle.
(That’s MY definition of “stupid”.)
Gee, I hadn't thought about that -- but, if that's what he's talking about, I think it's a stroke of genius, myself.
This sounds a lot like the stuff Eric Harris of Columbine High School used to write for his English classes.
"Since mankind obviously cannot control itself enough to make strides for the future, the populace spins into an out of control state of reverse Darwinism where the stupid people survive and the smart people perish."
Humm...satire. OK, I get it. I just thought that some liberal wrote out what he really thought intending not to email it but instead emailed the wrong letter. Satire and Liberalism have become one and the same.
I guess you cannot really plagarize from something as old as Swift? Most screenplays are derivative of Shakespeare, the Bible or Kurosawa.
Only to the satirically impaired ...
No soup for you.
Can you say “Eugenics” kiddies? I knew you could.
TC
>Can you say “Eugenics” kiddies? I knew you could.
Wait a second, we already do that. It’s called “abortion”
Ahh! A slippery slope!
I can see why, you chose your FRname....esp. If, say a 42+ percentile had said the same for those below their numerical valve.
It’s a public school right?
So does he get two points for mentioning Darwinism in the context of a valid theory?
>> If, say a 42+ percentile had said the same for those below their numerical value.
Yep, you’re making me nervous with that kind of talk!
Reminds me of this joke:
A wealthy Frenchman had a butler. The butler was a faithful, dependable, competent servent with only one flaw: he was a devout communist.
The butler and his employer had long ago made an arrangement agreeable to the both of them: the butler would keep his communism to himself and in return, he had every Tuesday night off to attend his local Communist Party meeting.
One Tuesday night, the wealthy Frenchman saw the butler’s light burning — uncharacteristic of a man who always saw to it that his light was off when he went to his party meeting. So he knocked on the butler’s door to check that he was all right. The butler answered, perfectly well, in his casual clothes, smoking a cigarette.
In surprise, the employer asked: “Why are you not at your communist party meeting?”
The butler replied: “At our meeting last week, it was proven that if all the wealth in France was divided equally among the citizens then each Frenchman would have 2,000 francs.”
“So?” replied the employer.
“Well”, says the butler. “*I* have 5,000 francs.”
Jonathan Swift was a great satirist. This writer was not the only one to imitate him. Here is mine, from 1977, from my home page:
Here is an essay I wrote in college in 1977 in response to Roe v. Wade.
The Final Solution to Overpopulation
Of course, abortion is the best form of birth control. Condoms break, you can forget to take the pill, and IUDs can pierce a woman’s uterus and scar and injure her. Spermicidal jellies and foams are messy and not likely to be used. Tubule ligation and vasectomies work only for those who are willing to make such a commitment, as does abstinence. Pregnancies caused by birth control mistakes are proverbial in our culture. The surest solution to the world’s greatest problem, that of overpopulation, is abortion. It is safe when done early in pregnancy, and 100% certain to eliminate an unwanted pregnancy. However, abortion doesn’t go far enough in reducing population growth, and in reducing population itself.
The world’s population has increased nearly three billion since the landmark Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade in 1973. World population under the best estimates will stabilize at eleven billion after 2050. The world’s ecosystem is already severely stressed with the six billion people on the earth. More needs to be done to reduce population. What is the next step?
Roe v. Wade determined the first 23 weeks of pregnancy are eligible for abortion since the fetus is not yet viable. More recent court rulings have permitted abortions through the last trimester of pregnancy for the health of the mother, mental and physical. Using the principle of “viability” and the principle of what is best for the mental and physical health of humanity, the next logical step is to permit “post natal abortions” (PNAs) on non-viable “post natal fetuses” (PNFs).
Although the majority of PNFs are wanted, not a single PNF is viable. It cannot survive without an adult caregiver. Further, they are a mental and physical burden upon the caregiver and should not be permitted to live without the full and willing desire of the caregiver. Why should PNFs be permitted to burden our sorely taxed ecosystem by allowing unwanted ones to grow to full maturity? Is it not kinder, gentler, and more humane to safely terminate them should the caregiver find them a burden? Is not the caregiver fully within their privacy rights to manage this life form within their own home as they see fit?
There need be no moral qualms about this policy whatsoever. Our society has already established the legal morality of abortion up through the end of the third trimester. What difference should the simple process of parturition make to morality of removing a non-viable life form from a possibly miserable existence? Just as abortion removes the burden of an unwanted fetus from society, so a PNA can terminate the mental and physical burden of an undesired PNF. A simple injection of potassium cyanide or a pill of the same can quickly and painlessly remove this ecological disaster waiting to happen.
The benefits of PNA’s cannot be exaggerated. They are safer than abortions in the third trimester. They alleviate a financial burden on the family and society in general, reserving resources for those individuals chosen to enter the human family. With a worldwide policy of PNAs, all individuals will be wanted. Without undesired PNFs, the negative influence of humanity upon the earth will decrease, not increase. Air and water pollution will begin to decrease. The welfare rolls will decrease, reducing the tax burden.
Yet, even a vigorous, worldwide program of PNAs, administrated under the auspices of the United Nation’s World Health Organization (WHO) does not go far enough. There are millions and billions of individuals worldwide who are no longer viable. Although they were human at one time, they are no longer self-supporting. Many can no longer communicate and are not conscious. They are all draining society’s resources and all require care of some other human being. Using the same moral principle as Roe v. Wade and other pro-abortion rulings, we may safely and ethically consider such entities as “post human lives” (PHLs). In view of human induced global warming and the possible worldwide catastrophe that is pending, is it not nobler to remove these life forms from existence than to permit them to continue to consume the world’s limited resources? Such an act of mercy would spare the functioning, productive humanity this unwanted burden, and more importantly, would reduce the space pressures humanity puts on endangered species worldwide. Concurrent with a program of PNAs there must be a worldwide program of “post human abortions” (PHAs).
As good as PNAs would be, PHAs would be even better. PHLs consume far more resources than PNFs. All the benefits enumerated for PNAs would be multiply true for PHAs. Society would become free of all individuals who are not productive. Taxes could be reduced, or the freed up funds could go toward art, literature, and good public works. Cares and worries of old age would be a thing of the past. Once a person becomes a burden to anyone, they are simply considered a PHL and given a gentle PHA. The social security trust fund will become adequate and even generous, with a reduced future burden upon working humanity.
PNAs and PHLs have benefits even beyond these. They will give birth to a new age of medical research. There will be an unlimited supply of organs and stem cells for the benefit of human population. Very likely, the human lifetime will be considerably extended. This will create additional population pressure, so PNAs and PHAs need to be executed and enforced ubiquitously.
How is a sweeping, worldwide program of PNAs and PHAs best to be administrated and implemented? It should start with the UN. As part of UN membership, every country should have laws that require every caregiver to sign a certificate of humanity to their offspring or to any non-viable entity in their care. At a minimum, these certificates should be renewed annually, like drivers’ licenses. Each country may add additional requirements for their definition of viable humanity. This allows each country to retain its own sovereignty and cultural distinctiveness. By entrusting such a critical definition to each federal government, we can be sure the same care and wisdom shown in governmental taxing and welfare programs will be applied toward this critical program of PNAs and PHAs.
It is expected that some countries will put political requirements into their definition of humanity, some will put religious requirements, some physical requirements, such as a certain height, weight, body build, or skin color. Aside from promoting cultural diversity, this mosaic of laws will catch PHL’s who travel from one country to another and further reduce world population. The varied laws will also purify the human gene pool, catching the ignorant and unwary, classifying them as PHLs and terminating them, protecting mother Earth from the corrosive effects of their former human existence.
Even such a beneficial program will surely have opposition. Religious extremists and radical anarchists are likely to resist blessing mankind with a healthier, less intrusive life upon this earth. A simple and effective method of dealing with such evil-minded beings is to classify them as PHLs and perform PHAs upon them. This action will quickly bring about worldwide consensus for this uniquely effective approach to population control.
With unwanted PNFs eliminated through PNAs, with burdensome PHLs removed through PHAs, with humanity’s genetic lines improved through the forced evolutionary selection of diverse laws worldwide, a new age will dawn. No longer will pollution wreck our planet’s rivers, lakes, and oceans. No longer will smog dominate cities. No longer will teeming millions suffer and starve. No longer will species die out through human encroachment upon their habitats. With the moral principles put forth in Roe v. Wade, logically extended and applied, humanity will joyfully march forward into a brave, new world.
Great parody.
-
-
-
OOHHH, not quit so funny when the stupid person's standards are applied TOO them not just by them. Justin is just another little Leftist drama queen with a vastly over rated sense of his own intellectual abilities.
You don’t understand satire when you see it, do you?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.