Peter Singer is the most popular bioethicist around for the “in crowd” of the MSM. The New York Times loves him, often offering him its coveted pages within which to engage in punditry, for example in support of medically mutilating a profound disabled girl so she wouldn’t mature. Ditto, the LA Times which let him push infanticide in its pages. And now CNN brought him in has a health care expert. From the story:
This morning, CNN’s American Morning tried to explain health-care rationing. Their guest? Princeton ethicist Peter Singer. The network failed to mention anything about Singer’s extremely controversial background as a euthanasia advocate who defines “person” in such a way as to exclude newborn infants and others — such as elderly dementia patients — who lack self-awareness and the ability to make plans. The network promised a response to The Examiner’’s inquiries, but finally offered a “no comment” this afternoon.
Of course, Singer has explicitly called for health care rationing. The MSM has sure shown its colors: Disdain town hallers as Astro Turfers, while embracing a man who argues parents should be able to kill babies that don’t serve their interests and that people with dementia aren’t persons. But I think it goes beyond policy to style. MSMers fancy themselves as members of the intelligentsia, and if anyone epitomizes that sector–and why it has become so dangerous–it is Peter Singer.
August 22nd, 2009 | 2:25 pm
So what’s the alternative? Singer should be prevented from espousing his ideas because some people find them offensive?
Sure, go blame Singer on the media. Kill two birds with one stone. Go ahead and lambast that great conservative straw man “the MSM” with
tired generalities about how they “disdain town hallers.” These are silly enough in and of themselves, but especially ludicrous when used to criticize the critics of people who come into public meetings behaving like a bunch of 1930s brown-shirt thugs. CNN is about as representative of “the media” as Fox, but don’t let that stop you. Go ahead and tar everybody with the same brush. And while you’re at it why not take a page from the old George Wallace playbook, and rail against “pointy-headed intellectuals” and “the elite”? The latter term has just begun to replace the infamous “L-word,” (which apparently lost its value from overuse) so why not hop on the bandwagon?
August 22nd, 2009 | 11:08 pm
They require most money men to divulge the fact that they own a stock that they are in fact highlighting as a buy. It would be nice if there were disclaimers on most of these quote unquote advocates.
August 23rd, 2009 | 12:25 am
HW-oh, please. For an intellectually smart person, you’re surprisingly interested in ignoring facts so that you can cling to your own ideology, or so I assume, since you have just ignored the crux of Wesley’s argument: that Singer is a bigot whose rabid ableism is applauded in the mainstream media, much to the dismay of disability and human rights advocates. It’s not about left or right, it’s about double standards: the media would NEVER, I repeat: NEVER, countenance the ideas of someone who argued for blatant discrimination against people of color, woman, and other minorities, but it is perfectly willing to throw the handicapped under the bus in the name of “free speech.” It’s not “free speech.” It’s about ideology, and the fact that our society still tolerates discrimination against the handicapped. I’ll make you a bet: If we were living in the 1960s, Singer would probably be arguing that people of color were inferior and would use bogus “scientific” statistics to back his position up. The media would be more than happy to interview him on public policy matters, because of racial relations at that time. Now, the media, like the rest of society, has at least gotten to the point where blatant racism isn’t tolerated in the public square, but because the full disability civil rights movement hasn’t happened yet, blatant public discrimination against the handicapped is still accepted by our society, as reflected in the convalescence of the media in providing Singer with a respectful, unbiased platform from which to spew his ableist hatred. You don’t get that because you, like the rest of society, still apply an anti-disability double standard in the matter of how human diversity is addressed in the public sphere. Because society hasn’t taught you that what Singer is espousing is bigotry, you are willing to entertain the discussion of his ideas as valid points of view that should be given a forum in polite society.
August 23rd, 2009 | 12:34 am
As for the “L-word,” HW, you again show your bigotry when you ignore the fact that Singer’s ideas are blatantly IRRLIBERAL. Liberalism is suppsoed to be about respecting each individual and fighting for individual equality. Peter Singer has no respect for the individual equality of disabled people, he sees them as a group of people who are worth less than others. Thus, he is not “liberal,” no matter how much he supports abortion rights. A truly liberal philosophy would take the rights of disabled people seriously.
August 23rd, 2009 | 11:51 am
SafePres,
As usual you miss the point. My comments (if you actually rread them) had nothing to do with Singer who, IMO, is just one more crackpot — albeit of the left.
No, I took Wesley to task for suggesting that Singer’s ability to find a forum in some news publications is grounds for portraying all media as if it were some kind of monolithic structure — for tarring it with a broad brush, and for doing so in a manner that denigrate intelligence and plays to the lowest common denominator.
Did you not read his article thoroughly? Did you miss the poke at the so-called “intelligentsia” that appears at the very top? I suppose that was intended to give the leftovers on life’s bargain counter (the folks at the far left end of the bell curve) something to feel good about. I will begin to take Wesley seriously in these matters when I hear him criticize ABC radio for giving a forum to Rush Limbaugh who, IMO, is every bit as great a crackpot as Peter Singer.
Please note, I’m not holding my breath waiting.
August 23rd, 2009 | 4:59 pm
HW-it angers me to here you compare Rush Limbaugh to Peter Singer. Not because I’m a Rush Limbaugh fan, but because you are angry because Wesley doesn’t take time out of his life to berate certain people. If Rush Limbaugh said that disabled people should be denied healthcare because of the cost involved, I’m sure Wesley would address that. You’re just mad that Wesley hasn’t thrown leftist commentary into his analysis of how disability and human equality are evolving in our society.
Moreover, maybe Wesley wouldn’t harp on leftist individuals so much if they weren’t always the ones getting the media attention as they publicly call for things like euthanasia in response to handicap, late term abortion in response to handicap, and healthcare rationing aginst those with disabilities, while claiming to be standing up for the interests of “the least of these,” so to speak.
August 24th, 2009 | 7:00 am
SafePres:
A little off the topic, but you’re going a bit off the deep end portraying people with whom you disagree as “leftists.” Kind of like Wesley’s “the media” generality.
For example, how do you associate “leftists” with health care rationing when the worst offenders are insurance companies — hardly a bunch of socialists, you know.
You also seem to be saying that “leftists” are the only people who advocate for “late term abortion in response to handicap,” when the response to such problems is clearly more religion-based than politics-based. The decision to abort an anacephalic fetus, for example, is not usually based on whether one votes Democrat or Republican.
As for Rush Limbaugh vs. Peter Singer, a crackpot is a crackpot is a crackpot. Unless, of course, you’re addicted to Rush’s Kool-Aid.
August 25th, 2009 | 8:21 pm
[...] SO YOU WANT to be Popular With the Mainstream Media? Just Advocate Infanticide …. (firstthings) Ewwww! A [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact