I’ve been watching this guy for a while. Check out his latest column, “Expiating Liberal Guilt”:
A recurring theme in liberal thought is that wealth and poverty are undeserved. Where we end up in the social hierarchy, liberals say, depends far more on happenstance than on merit. Some people are born to advantage, others to disadvantage. But luck shouldn’t play a role in people’s fates, they say, so society must intervene — coercively — to equalize wealth, or at least move in that direction. Those who are wealthy probably don’t deserve it anyway, so it’s not an injustice to them to take some of their wealth (through progressive taxation, for example) and distribute it to the poor….
Liberals have a hard time distinguishing misfortune and injustice. If misfortune is injustice and injustice must be rectified (this latter proposition is a tautology), then redistribution of wealth is required, not optional. It would be unjust not to redistribute, just as it would be unjust not to force wrongdoers to make restitution to their victims. Conservatives have no trouble distinguishing misfortune and injustice, only the latter of which, logically speaking, requires rectification. Misfortune calls for charity, which is incompatible with coercion. Conflating misfortune and injustice, conservatives say, leads to second-order injustices. We might say that liberals deny, while conservatives affirm, that life is tragic.
From Ann Coulter’s latest:
If liberals won’t move on from the prison abuse photos calculated to incite hatred toward the very troops liberals loudly claim to “support,” I’m not moving on from the fact that the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, is instructing journalists on ethics. The editor of the Los Angeles Times telling reporters how to behave ethically is a complete contradiction, like…oh, I don’t know…giving Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize or something. You know, just patently silly….
This is the same L.A. Times where reporters had to be told in an internal memo (from Carroll himself) to stop injecting opinion in news stories, specifically the practice of prefacing the term “pro-life” with the term “so-called.”
For the non-believers (of liberal bias) in the audience, there it is. Reporters for the liberal L.A. Times were adding their own opinions to news stories, a violation of journalistic ethics. The practice was so obvious that the liberal editor was forced to tell them to stop.
Even Katie Couric sees a media bias:
Couric contended that “most people, I think, on the street would say the media it tends, tend to be more liberal than conservative” and she proposed: “Aren’t most people in journalism, primarily, except for say on Fox, and in certain conservative publications, aren’t they for the most part, and of course the media is, are not monolithic, but pro-choice, you know, against prayer in school, probably favor affirmative action? I mean don’t you think that’s, that’s fairly typical? And if so is it, why isn’t it fair to say that liberals, sort of, are controlling the mainstream media?”
