3 absurd ideas from our public 'servants'

Editor's note: The powers that be at WND.com have told Michael Ackley he may submit the occasional column. As Golden State madness has accelerated in this election season, Mr. Ackley has succumbed to the urge to get back in the game. Hence, the items below. Remember that his columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell the difference.

"Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." – Mark Twain

We are sure Sam Clemens would be happy to modify the quote to specify most members of the California State Senate.

That august body has passed Senate Bill 826, which would force private corporations to include women on their boards of directors.

TRENDING: Report: FBI documents put Obama himself in 'Obamagate' narrative

The rationale for this usurpation is that women constitute more than half the population and do most of the spending, so "their insight is critical," according to the bill's author, Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson, D-Santa Barbara.

Amy Handleman, our own expert on all things feminist, agrees: "Some will argue this is unconstitutional, but there weren't any women at the constitutional convention, so we think whatever promotes gender equity is only fair."

In a related development, a Sacramento County supervisor wants the county's attorney to go through the local statutes and make them "gender neutral." And never mind the linguistic convention that in legal language, the "he" includes the "she."

Again, Handleman agrees.

"This is an issue that has fallen out of vogue in recent years," said Handleman. "Women recognize the supervisor's dismay that the definition of her own job includes the sentence, 'He must reside in such district during his incumbency.'

"Naturally, she imagines that someone suffering from toxic masculinity might sue to have her ousted from office."

"The laws must be fixed, so to speak," Handleman continued. "We feminists think neutering every 'he' would be a good start."

You will add vibrancy!

San Francisco supervisors are seriously considering a ban on employee cafeterias – at least in new office buildings.

The San Francisco Examiner quoted Supervisor Aaron Peskin, who said, "People will have to go out and lunch with the rest of us. ..."

This, he reasoned, would help local restaurants.

Supervisor Ahsha Safai explained further, saying, "We don't want employees biking or driving into their office, staying there all day long and going home. This is about getting people out of their office, interacting with the community and adding to the vibrancy of the community."

Howard Bashford, director of the city's new Office of Healthy Conformity, says plans are in the works to require all offices ban those pesky bag lunches, "which keep workers from patronizing our fine restaurants – and they can be used to smuggle in contraband, like plastic drinking straws!"

Meanwhile, pursuing law and order ...

Left-wingers like "settled law" when it comes to Roe v. Wade and abortion, but laws tough on criminals are another matter. Take the settled law that all participants in a crime leading to homicide may be charged with murder.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley (of course), has introduced a measure that basically would limit murder charges to the "actual killer."

Existing law, says Skinner, disproportionately affects "vulnerable groups." According to the Sacramento Bee, Skinner said, "What we see from data is that it's young people, low-income people and people of color who are black and brown that are more often charged with felony murder."

This darling law would be retroactive, allowing new hearings for criminals who, in Ms. Skinner's mind, were not quite murderers. These would include lookouts, getaway drivers, robbers holding guns but not shooting, pre-crime plotters etc.

In the same vein, State Sen. Steven Bradford, D-Gardena, thinks many felons are spending too much time in the slammer.

The Sacramento Bee quotes him, "Until we can prove that longer sentences are an effective deterrent to crime and increase public safety, there is absolutely no reason we should dole out extreme and harsh sentences for all cases, which research has widely proven to disproportionately impact black and brown people."

Is it not shocking that California has two state senators who think the "black and brown" population produces a disproportionate number of criminals? Doesn't this make those legislators racists?