Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

May 2025
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Archives

The Poor: Jonathan Swift engaged in satire, Ruth Ginsberg not so much [Darleen Click]

The open secret of the Left’s Eugenics

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

Speaking about such modest restrictions on abortion as have been enacted over the past several years, Justice Ginsburg lamented that “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women.” Then she added: “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was correct in her assessment of Roe; the co-counsel in that case, Ron Weddington, would later advise President Bill Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”

14 Replies to “The Poor: Jonathan Swift engaged in satire, Ruth Ginsberg not so much [Darleen Click]”

  1. happyfeet says:

    OT: National Soros Radio is super-upset about how those slutty video game bitches are being treated

  2. Drumwaster says:

    Overpopulation: Just enough of us, way too many of them. It is instructive to see which portions of society that far-left elitists define as “them”.

    “Now notice that they don’t try it on us. It’s always on people who look different than us. Worry about overpopulation is an acceptable liberal form of racism. It always has to do with yellow, black or brown people. They’re never worried about the slew of Swedes, who are all over the place, or the mass of French people who wind up on the Riviera every August. In fact, the whole Riviera is packed in August, and neither Malthus nor Ehrlich have complained about the topless beaches of St. Tropez.” — P.J. O’Rourke

  3. newrouter says:

    for mr g.

    >He walks the halls, against the flow
    He sees his high school as his mission field
    He’s broken cause he knows
    The hopeless road that they are taking
    The empty feelings they are chasing only lead to futures wasted
    So he’s willing to stand alone

    He lives what he believes when they all say its not worth believing
    Every night on his knees, he prays God, wont You please help me reach them?<

    link

  4. newrouter says:

    also for the new year

    >JOY UNSPEAKABLE
    FAITH UNSINKABLE
    LOVE UNSTOPPABLE
    ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE

    JUST TO KNOW YOU AND TO MAKE YOU KNOWN
    WE LIFT YOUR NAME ON HIGH
    SHINE LIKE THE SUN, MAKE DARKNESS RUN AND HIDE
    WE KNOW WE WERE MADE FOR SO MUCH MORE THAN ORDINARY LIVES
    IT’S TIME FOR US TO MORE THAN JUST SURVIVE
    WE WERE MADE TO THRIVE

    WE WERE MADE TO THRIVE<

    link

  5. serr8d says:

    Death whisperer floats a final number for our lifespan…

    Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, says that society would be far better off if people quit trying to live past age 75. His new article entitled “Why I Hope To Die At 75” has the following very creepy subtitle: “An argument that society and families—and you – will be better off if nature takes its course swiftly and promptly”. In the article, Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of 75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans. This is quite chilling to read, considering the fact that this is coming from one of the key architects of Obamacare. Of course he never uses the term “death panels” in his article, but that is obviously what Emanuel would want in a perfect world. To Emanuel, it is inefficient to waste medical resources on those that do not have a high “quality of life”. So he says that “75 is a pretty good age to aim to stop”.

    A trial balloon aired with leftover White Guilt, crafted for wastefully retired and retiring baby boomers. First things first, the speaking of needful necessity; then comes a settled consensus of left-thinking academics and NPR donors; and forever-young people who can’t imagine life after 30, 50, 70, who tire of the financial burdens they’ve inherited. This tasteful consensus translated to policy changes soon after.

  6. From: ‘God must have loved the common people; he made so many of them’.

    To: ‘We’ll see about that’.

  7. Ernst Schreiber says:

    In the article, Emanuel forcefully argues that the quality of life for most people is significantly diminished past the age of 75 and that once we get to that age we should refuse any more medical care that will extend our lifespans.

    I’ve seen that movie!

    Only it was in a future where the Emanuels had decided that the quality of yourlife diminished everybody else’s quality of life significantly enough by the age of 30 that they made sure you didn’t extend your lifespan.

    Because there comes a point where you’ve used up your fair share of the perfect world of total pleasure

  8. Shermlaw says:

    Screw Emanuel. I just had a very enjoyable breakfast made for me by my soon to be 85 year old mother, who reads a book per week and is currently studying Greek, to be better able to understand the New Testament. As to told me, “I’ve got a lot of time on my hands at the moment.”

    As for Ginsburg, should we be surprised? The progs view humans as cogs in a machine. Once you cease producing tax revenues, you become a money sink. Better to die, so that we can exact our inheritance taxes.

  9. sdferr says:

    The news arrives today that the worst Attorney General in the history of the nation is leaving office. Surely this is a good thing, right? Oh, but since he makes the decision, surely it is done with hidden malice afoot.

  10. McGehee says:

    You say

    cogs in a machine

    I say livestock.

    To-may-to, to-mah-to. It’s all about serving our betters as they require.

  11. sdferr says:

    Jonathan Swift’s satire was written in 1726 or thereabouts.

    Thomas Malthus, on the other hand, who seems to stand behind Justice Ginsberg’s observations as portrayed here (and indeed behind a great many of the pathetic haters of life in the ranks of the political left), did not write his dire speculations until the close of the 18th century.

    And the utilitarians? These nasty people came along later still.

    So did Swift write against the proto-formations of these later social thinkers, and if so, who were they, what did they stand for, what were they proposing?

    machine

    Ah yes, Thomas Hobbes fancied to imagine mankind as an enormous machine in his time, even an individual man in the guise of a machine. But what do we owe to him? Do we not also imagine men as machines of a kind? I’d say we do, though our portrait of men as machines as such is incomplete.

  12. bgbear says:

    Kind of like mass transit. They want you off the road.

  13. bh says:

    “Overpopulation: Just enough of us, way too many of them.”

    That’s perfectly stated, Drumwaster.

Comments are closed.