- The Washington Times - Monday, December 18, 2000

Bias? What bias?

"Not only did [the U.S. Supreme Court] rob Al Gore blind, says the press, they did so in a way that may have damaged the nation's high court permanently.

"The New York Times' veteran correspondent Linda Greenhouse … declared that [the justices,] as they 'drove off into the night,' left behind an institution that 'many students of the court' just how many, Linda? say appears 'diminished, if not actually tarnished, by its extraordinary foray into presidential politics.' …

"Ever-predictable Dan Rather, like Greenhouse, found the famous unnamed 'some' to denounce the 'politically and ideologically motivated U.S. Supreme Court' for having 'handed the presidency to Bush.' …

"Similar sentiments came from ABC's Aaron Brown: 'Many Americans … see politics written all over the court's 5-4 ruling.' (Exactly how many Americans did he count?) And his ABC colleague, Terry Moran, declared that the court's ruling 'opens up more wounds rather than closing them.' (Well, certainly among Democrats.)

Over at NBC, Katie Couric asked Tim Russert: 'How badly damaged is the high court in the wake of this?' …

"Leave it to Bryant Gumbel to sum up the press corps' attitude: 'Al Gore was given the bum's rush by five very conservative justices.' "

from "Supremely Disgruntled," in Friday's New York Post

'Breaks your heart'

"We all have free will. It's a fact. But for me personally, it's by the grace of God that I survived the emotional trauma of abortion. You never really deal with an abortion because you don't want to. The bottom line is there is a human being that could be walking around today that is not, and thinking about that too much just breaks my heart. There's no question about it: Sooner or later, abortion breaks your heart. I don't like to talk about things in terms of 'syndromes,' like post-abortion syndrome, but you never think about how you're being affected five, 10, 15 years down the road."

Martha Williamson, executive producer of "Touched by an Angel," interviewed by Christina Valhouli in the December/January issue of George

'His own standards'

"Peter Singer, the De Camp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University's Center for Human Values, is most widely and controversially known for his view that animals have the same moral status as humans… .

"Jettisoning the traditional distinction between humans and nonhumans, Singer distinguishes instead between persons and nonpersons. Persons are beings that feel, reason, have self-awareness, and look forward to a future. Thus, fetuses and some very impaired human beings are not persons in his view and have a lesser moral status than, say, adult gorillas and chimpanzees.

"Given such views, it was no surprise that anti-abortion activists and disability rights advocates loudly decried the Australian-born Singer's appointment at Princeton… .

"In a recent New York Times Magazine essay, he argued that the affluent in developed countries are killing people by not giving away to the poor all of their wealth in excess of their needs… . He calculates that the average American household needs $30,000 per year; to avoid murder, anything over that should be given away to the poor. 'So a household making $100,000 could cut a yearly check for $70,000,' he wrote… .

"The average salary of a full professor at Princeton runs around $100,000 a year; Singer also draws income from a trust fund that his father set up and from the sales of his books. He says he gives away 20 percent of his income to famine relief organizations, but he is certainly living on a sum far beyond $30,000. When asked about this, he forthrightly admitted that he was not living up to his own standards."

Ronald Bailey, writing on "The Pursuit of Happiness," in the December issue of Reason

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide