Staff Reports
The discrimination discussion rages on in the political arena, and it’s clear that sometimes, discrimination isn’t all that bad! In fact, it can be downright necessary. The Democrats’ 81-year-old president and presumptive nominee is under fire for his cognitive and physical decline, and the word “ageism” is making quite the appearance. But hold on – is it really wrong to consider someone’s age when assessing their ability for a job or privilege?
President Joe Biden’s fading memory, occasional struggles with speech, and overall confusion have sparked accusations of ageism whenever they’re brought up. But let’s get real here. We set age limits for a reason; our soldiers have to be between 17 and 35, and our presidents have to be at least 35. And let’s not forget the high expectations we have for politicians under 30.
It’s only fair to take a closer look at a candidate’s mental sharpness when they’re over 80, which makes perfect sense. But are we being told to turn a blind eye to age when it suits certain agendas? Take the CDC’s suggestion that prioritizing the elderly for the COVID-19 vaccine was “ageist.” Please. Prioritizing based on age was clearly the smart move, but some bureaucrats had other ideas.
Even when a federal prosecutor declined to charge Biden for mishandling documents due to his failing memory, the Democrats cried “ageism” at any criticism of Biden’s mental acuity. It’s getting old! Oh, the irony when Rep. Jamie Raskin objected to his state’s Republican governor distributing vaccines based on age, all while claiming criticism of Biden’s age amounts to ageism. The hypocrisy is real!
Biden’s age is absolutely relevant to his re-election bid, no question about it. Anyone who denies that is either trapped in an anti-discrimination bubble or just plain dishonest. The reality is clear: discriminating based on age is not always a dirty word, and it’s high time we stop tip-toeing around the truth.
