vaccine
© Joe Raedle/Getty Images
When it comes to deciding who will receive the coronavirus vaccine, the far-left New York Times is normalizing the idea that skin color is more important than need, risk, and vulnerability.

Yep, the Times is perfectly comfortable arguing that it is okay to sacrifice your grandparents on the altar of social justice.

Feel free to accuse me of hyperbole, but the truth is the truth, and the truth is that not since Nazi Germany have we seen something like what the New York Times is guilty of, which is an establishment news organization openly normalizing the idea of choosing who lives and who dies, not on need, but on race and skin color.

Wither the Hippocratic Oath.

An article published by the Times this month examined the dilemma of the Trump vaccine. "The Elderly vs. Essential Workers: Who Should Get the Coronavirus Vaccine First?" the headline read, which is a perfectly legitimate moral dilemma for a newspaper to look into. We can't vaccinate everyone at once, so who goes first and why?

So dummy me, because I sometimes forget how far gone the media are, how morally illiterate the children who run organizations such as the Times are, I'm expecting a thoughtful debate over who is more at risk and how tough decisions sometimes have to be made. I'm even willing to accept a look at something like, "Well, if we vaccinate grandma and not Dr. Happy and Dr. Happy dies or gets sick, more people might die with Dr. Happy out of action."

Hey, I'm an adult. I get nuance and thinking out loud. I can handle that.

I'll tell you what I didn't expect...

I did not expect the New York Times to normalize the openly racist practice of eugenics. I'm going to quote fully below what the New York Times published as an acceptable line of thought, and since you may not believe me, you can look for yourself right here.

I'm not making any of this up, nor am I taking anyone out of context. The only thing I am adding is the bold emphasis:
Harald Schmidt, an expert in ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, said that it is reasonable to put essential workers ahead of older adults, given their risks, and that they are disproportionately minorities. "Older populations are whiter, " Dr. Schmidt said. "Society is structured in a way that enables them to live longer. Instead of giving additional health benefits to those who already had more of them, we can start to level the playing field a bit."
I think that what he meant to say was, Ve can ztart to level out ze playing field a bit!
Marc Lipsitch, an infectious-disease epidemiologist at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, argued that teachers should not be included as essential workers, if a central goal of the committee is to reduce health inequities.

"Teachers have middle-class salaries, are very often white, and they have college degrees," he said. "Of course they should be treated better, but they are not among the most mistreated of workers."
I think what he meant to say was, Vy would we vazzinate ze very white teachers!
Elise Gould, a senior economist at the Economic Policy Institute, disagreed. Teachers not only ensure that children don't fall further behind in their education, she said, but are also critical to the work force at large.

When you talk about disproportionate impact and you're concerned about people getting back into the labor force, many are mothers, and they will have a harder time if their children don't have a reliable place to go," she said. "And if you think generally about people who have jobs where they can't telework, they are disproportionately Black and brown. They'll have more of a challenge when child care is an issue."
I think what she meant to say was, Ve must unfortunately vazzinate ze white people to save ze preferred races!

This is horrifying.

And it is not as if the New York Times was blindsided by this. The piece is actually premised — not on answering the question of who goes next based on saving lives, but social "inequities." It's right there in the third reich — I mean third paragraph:
[The question of "who goes next" is] a question increasingly guided by concerns over the inequities laid bare by the pandemic, from disproportionately high rates of infection and death among poor people and people of color to disparate access to testing, child care and technology for online schooling.
Do you have any idea how monstrous it is to even consider making health decisions based on anything other than vulnerability and immediate need? Racial minorities first? Poor people first? What the hell is that?

This virus isn't looking at anyone's skin color or bank account.

This is flat-out horrifying. This is straight-up eugenics being normalized in ze — I meant the — pages of the New York Times.

When it comes to prioritizing something such as vaccinations, the only question in a moral and just society is need and vulnerability. The only question is saving lives. You don't punish my mom and my dad, you do not allow my parents to die, to serve your sick and twisted — your evil and despicable social justice cause.

You save as many lives as you can. That's the only thing decent people base these kinds of decisions on.

Anyone who thinks any different is evil.

Sorry, but there is no other way to put it — pure evil.

These people are also dangerous. Dehumanizing and scapegoating human beings based on their race is straight out of the Nazi playbook, as is the New York Times normalizing such a thing.

We are on a very dark road in this country. In the name of social justice we continue to legitimize violence, riots, arson, aborting babies already born, and now this. ... Naked evil.