Democrats Propose National “War on Death”

In accordance with the Obamacare mandate, the Democrats have unveiled a measure symbolizing the party’s finest principles: the Death Equality Program (DEP).  Already being hailed in bi-partisan fashion, the program seeks to correct the social injustice of humans dying at different ages by capping life expectancy at age 32.

The program would be administered by a senior blue ribbon panel of experts that would address the nationwide epidemic of “death randomness.”  Justified on the wholesome Democrat values of death and equality, the DEP seeks to correct the role luck plays in in bourgeois society, as John Rawls lamented.

Dr. Zack Trevorkian, an analyst with the lobbying firm Morticians International, has already detected a problem in that some people die younger than age 32.  In that case, he explained, the death ceiling would have to be lowered.

But how low is too low? That’s one question being asked by Planned Parenthood, which has already filed a petition to define life as originating outside the womb.  Death industry analyst Sally Lungardner explains that if the death ceiling is dropped too low, it might cut into Planned Parenthoods’ vital abortion operations.

“The danger we run is that by dropping the maximum age limit in the name of equality,” Dr. Lungardner argued, “we will eventually come upon the age-old conception of when life begins – inside or outside the womb.  For if we get rid of the seniors first, obviously, we will be left with a population of 32 and under.  The mean age would redistribute downward, to say, 24, and then capping at the mean would again put us in the same dilemma.  It is not inconceivable that sooner or later we would be left with only three-year olds running the world.  And then who would do the abortions?”

In order to combat what the Democrats claim is widespread “misinformation” and “fearmongering” about their controversial proposal, the party has launched a massive public relations campaign called “The War on Death.”  A series of PSAs is to be broadcast on public airwaves, particularly targeted at “vulnerable” audiences like Rush Limbaugh Show listeners, including such titles as “Where’s granny?” and “What is that big needle for?”

Touting the potential long-term savings of such a program, tapped death czar Mike Bloomrose said the program would eventually rescue social safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid from insolvency.

“Occasionally one’s country demands shared sacrifice,” said Bloomrose, sipping an espresso in his posh executive office, “and we all need to get a little skin in the game.  Now if you  excuse me, I have a round of golf with the president.”

One prominent Republican claimed the program didn’t go far enough in terms of slashing costs and the program would eventually lead to increased taxes.

“Who needs another death tax?” he commented off the record.

Watchdog media groups have already pre-emptively declared that anyone who argues against the DEP is not only racist, but “deathist.”

“We demand fairness and equality in all things, including death,” said Rebecca White, a sophomore at Radcliffe college. “Anyone who disagrees is hateful and probably a deathophobe.”

The measure is being brought to the floor on Tuesday, before a crucial House vote on what kind of light bulbs Americans should be allowed to buy.

Advertisements

10 thoughts on “Democrats Propose National “War on Death”

  1. 3rd post down (lemonade) is on the money. You’ve done your manifesto. Last two posts are just unnecessary. From hence on, (my advice and its probably worth as much), find those news articles etc you know to be fundamentally wrong and attack. Go on the issues of the day whilst keeping in remembrance those core ideals.

    Only my opinion.

    1. Thanks for the advice, James. So many other bloggers doing that, and it’s so easy, I wanted to do something different. The gist of this post is why equality is destructive, not really the absurd premise. Maybe this all gets lost somewhere for some people. I can try a few news analysis pieces in the near future. Best, RO

  2. love it; egalitarian tripe knocked down once again!

    We also need to “attack” those who say/think “good in theory, but bad in practice” because they will acknowledge your points about bad practice, but they refuse to give up their premise, which is “equality in everything is noble”. The correct response to those who like bad practices and good theories is to say, “no no no, bad in practice means your theory is jacked up too.” What theory could be good except the ones that work in reality.

  3. Aside first: I read both you and Bingbing and enjoy both. You each have a different style. At first, your articles were very deep (at least from when I started reading them), but lately you have been interspersing some humor and sarcasm. That is great, IMHO (for what that is worth). It allows for some long and deep discussions on weighty issues, and then the lighter moments when we can just laugh (or cry). Bingbing has a similar mix, but he stays away from the parody (parody is very hard, but this one was done very well). Again, all heavy and no light makes for a mind numbing read after awhile (I think Anthony Watts realizes this and throws in his Friday Humor). So keep it up!

    Now, onto the topic. Someone thought of it before the democrats. It is called Logan’s Run. Not a bad movie (especially with Jenny Agutter). And unfortunately probably prophetic. But I have a suggestion for the democrats who worry about the ones who die before 32. Cryogenics. Keep them frozen until they turn 32, and then thaw them out and bury them.

  4. Hilarious satire. Spot on. The comments are enlightening too, because I’ve heard the “good in theory bad in practice” trope my whole life and never parsed it before. I’ve never ascribed to it, but I’ve never thought about why it’s wrong.

    Duh. Egalitarianism is good neither in theory nor in practice. Reminds me when mom friends fret over a common problem: having to treat their kids differently in some way. I guess that at some level, they have absorbed the “must treat all the same” idea until it’s an automatic response.

    I always scoff and say, “if one child breaks his leg, do you buy all your children crutches?” It’s usually an eye opener.

    cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s