Leftwing bloggers’ “ethical boundaries” Updated

posted at 8:15 pm on October 13, 2007 by Bryan

Well, this is amusing.

I’m sure you’re aware of the Frost fracas, in which the Democrats trotted out a Baltimore family that benefited from SCHIP insurance coverage, had the family’s gravely injured 12-year-old son deliver their weekly radio address to rebut President Bush’s veto of a bill that would have expanded the program that was meant to serve the poor, and leftwing pundits and bloggers have since raised major cain over the fact that some righty bloggers have questioned the Frost family’s story and whether they’re financially the best candidates to qualify for a program that was intended to help the poor.

Never mind the fact that the Frosts actually got the help that they needed from SCHIP, and the president’s veto doesn’t change that. The righty bloggers have confined their arguments to whether or not the Frost family is really the best example of a “working poor” family of the type that SCHIP is supposed to help. To be “working poor,” for instance, one really ought to be both working and poor, and it’s not clear that the Frosts are examples of either. They work intermittently. They own three late-model mid to high-end cars, and they own their home and a business property, etc etc. Their annual income is within spitting distance of Maryland’s median. No one has attacked the Frosts personally, at least not that I’ve seen, and no one has gone after the kid.

As if to reward the righty bloggers for their fidelity to facts, leftwing pundits and bloggers have taken to childish name-calling and assertions of moral superiority. Say the folks over at blackfacing Firedoglake:

The difference between the far right wing and the far left wing: the far right will do anything — anything — so long as the ends justifies the means. The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form . . .

Really? Is that your final answer?

Cuz it’s a lie.

2005. The Republicans trot out a kid to tout their Social Security reform. His name was Noah McCollough, and he was nine years of age at the time.

And the bloggers on the left savaged him. They made sexual references to him, called him a “budding young fascist” and made up a derogatory nickname for him. Q&O has the details.

What was is that the Firedoglakers said again?

The difference between the far right wing and the far left wing: the far right will do anything — anything — so long as the ends justifies the means. The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form . . .

Riiiiiiiight.

Update: See-Dubya and Baldilocks have better memories than mine. They both remembered the attacks on Jack Roberts, SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts’ then four-year-old son.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

One word, projection.

Zorro on October 13, 2007 at 8:18 PM

“Vice President Cheney’s daughter is a… lesbian.”

wordwarp on October 13, 2007 at 8:21 PM

I just saw Jane Hall (FoxNewsWatch) accuse the right wing media of “swiftboating” this poor 12 year old! Of course, the insufferable Neal Gabler chimed in unison chant as well. What an absolute crock o’ s@&t. The left has no soul.

commonsensehoosier on October 13, 2007 at 8:21 PM

Haha. They didn’t say they wouldn’t cross them…just that they try ‘very hard’. That’s probably just another way of saying it crossed their conscience momentarily.

Spirit of 1776 on October 13, 2007 at 8:26 PM

The far left folks have ethical boundaries…

Um… what?

If ever there was a statement worthy of a good head-shake, that’s the one!

JetBoy on October 13, 2007 at 8:44 PM

The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form . . .

I finally figured out why the libs don’t condemn this.

Entelechy on October 13, 2007 at 8:45 PM

When the State wishes to lie most outrageously, it always holds up a child.”

Bet on it.

Kids should be playing in the woods or knocking a ball around or building a tree fort or watching an ant hill or putting their shoes in the tub to see if they make a decent schooner or dressing a cat in a tutu, not being used as political puppets for cynics …of any stripe.

profitsbeard on October 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM

profitsbeard on October 13, 2007 at 8:48 PM

That is exactly right.

Bryan on October 13, 2007 at 8:49 PM

“When the State wishes to lie most outrageously, it always holds up a child.”

In a fashion reminiscent of Saddam Hussein.

JetBoy on October 13, 2007 at 8:49 PM

From my own observations in a life a Liberal doesn’t have a clue what ethics are.

KC-135A on October 13, 2007 at 8:54 PM

Remember John Roberts’ kids?

see-dubya on October 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM

I saw no attacks on this child. I merely saw questioning of whether his family made a good example of who should be granted last-resort government welfare. A more legitimate challenge is hard to imagine.

Splunge on October 13, 2007 at 9:24 PM

see-dubya on October 13, 2007 at 9:18 PM

Excellent example.

baldilocks on October 13, 2007 at 9:29 PM

And don’t forget, before photos of young Jack Roberts were published, some members of the Left were speculating that Jack was gay or something else perceived to be undesirable to a Right-wing family, due to the fact that Mrs. Robert’s face frowned up when then four-year-old Jack’s name was mentioned when GWB introduced the now Chief Justice to the world. (Jack had been cutting up like only a small boy can.)

baldilocks on October 13, 2007 at 9:38 PM

I have never met a socialist with a strong sense of ethics.

How can anyone who wants to dismantle and destroy the greatest medical ever known to the human race,by doing so they destroy our very lives thru lack of medical care, how can they claim to have ethics! Hell they are mass murderers and use a unfortunate child to cause their murder. Why are they willing to commit murder of untold numbers? personal irresponsibility

allrsn on October 13, 2007 at 9:57 PM

Of course the ruling class will have good health care, the class of the mass will not.

allrsn on October 13, 2007 at 9:58 PM

Ethics don’t always have to be good. Remember, there is honor among thieves.

Tennessee Dave on October 13, 2007 at 10:07 PM

The difference between the far right wing and the far left wing: the far right will do anything — anything — so long as the ends justifies the means. The far left folks have ethical boundaries that they try very hard not to cross: things like attacking other people’s minor children is bad form . .

Yeah, Lefties don’t insult other people’s minor children, they advocate for the right to slaughter thousands of them on a daily basis.

Ethical boundaries. HA! These are the same dregs who write “traitor” on the outside of recruiter’s offices. These are the people who show no respect for any other human being. These are the people who hear of executions of innocent human beings and call them “Littke Eichmans” or say “screw them.”

They are contemptible.

BKennedy on October 13, 2007 at 10:17 PM

BKennedy on October 13, 2007 at 10:17 PM

Exactly

allrsn on October 13, 2007 at 10:26 PM

The fireDogHATE ladies are adopting what they think is Karl Rove’s “adaption” of Ronald Reagan – trash the opponent while saying nothing ill about anyone on your side.

The are vile, and stupid.

I say let them keep on keeping on their stupid vileness. Christy Smith is really a victim of Hamsher. Hamsher would drop her in a hot second if Hamsher were taken seriously. Oh, it will come in small doses – can’t keep up the website, need more fundraising, I’m the one propping it up and paying for it…and so on. There have been episodes like this…

Topsecretk9 on October 14, 2007 at 1:24 AM

The CORE of leftist ethics is “gain power by any means.”

That’s why they savaged McCollough, and then trot out Frost, hide behind him and demand that their POLICIES may not be criticized because their MASCOT is beyond reproach.

If this is the left, that I wish to have as little contact, compromise, or congress with them as possible. How can you possibly trust someone who acts like this?

Merovign on October 14, 2007 at 5:08 AM

“The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things-war and hunger and date rape-liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It’s a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don’t have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.”

P. J. O’Rourke, Give War a Chance, Introduction (1992).

Starting with Robert Bork, continuing with Clarence Thomas, and into today, DEMOCRATS and LIBERALS have destoyed comity in the United States. THEY BROKE IT. And they continue to abuse the very idea of honest debate in America. Why, because as my slogan for MoveOn.org reads: Because they’re “Brownshirts in Action.”

georgej on October 14, 2007 at 7:42 AM

that they try very hard not to cross

Obviously not trying hard enough.

vcferlita on October 14, 2007 at 7:50 AM

Isn’t it usually shillery that comes up with a new government progam “for the children”?

Texas Nick 77 on October 14, 2007 at 11:15 AM

Wanna know what the left is thinking or planning to do? Listen to what they accuse the right of doing.

petefrt on October 14, 2007 at 11:20 AM

What a bunch of crock!

From what I have seen, the right has uncovered numerous facts suggesting the Frost family is neither poor, nor victims–being mainly responsible for their own plight. Now since the left advanced this case, it is their obligation to prove it. Yet all I have seen from them are accusations that the right’s reported facts are lies (without any evidence to back-up these claims), assertions of leftist moral superiority, and moral outrage that their word has been challenged.

Well, let’s take a broader look about the morality (and consequences) of leftist and rightist orientations.

According to R. J. Rummel, the world’s expert on democide (which refers to governments intentionally killing people), during the 20th century, four communist dictatorships killed more than 146,079 million people (Chinese communists–80,170,000; Soviet communists–61,911,000; Cambodian communists–2,035,000; and the North Korean communists–1,663,000) (See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM.)

On the other hand, according to a rank ordering of nations’ economic freedom (compiled by the Fraser Institute of Canada in conjunction with the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK), there is a strong positive correlation between economic freedom, economic progress, and living standards. (See http://www.speroforum.com/site/print.asp?idarticle=6075)

Here are some of the key findings:

• Nations in the top quartile in economic freedom have an average per capita GDP of US$24,402, compared with US$2,998 for those nations in the bottom quartile.
• The top quartile has an average per capita economic growth rate of 2.1 percent, compared with negative 0.2 percent for the bottom quartile.
• In nations of the top quartile, the average income of the poorest 10 percent of the population is US$6,519, compared with $826 for those in the bottom quartile.
• Unemployment in the top quartile averages 5.9 percent, compared with 12.7 percent in the bottom quartile.
• Life expectancy is 77.8 years in the top quartile compared with 55.0 years in the bottom quartile.
• In nations of the top quartile, only 0.3 percent of children are in the labour force, compared with 19.3 percent in the least economically free nations.
• Nations in the top quartile of economic freedom have an average score of 1.8 for political rights on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 marks the highest level of freedom, and 7 the lowest level. The bottom quartile has an average score of 4.6.

(For additional information see “Not Rocket Science,” by Richard W. Rahn in The Washington Times, January 18, 2006.)

In the USA, specifically, our latest census figures indicate that average poor people are doing surprisingly well. Here is a summary of some of the findings (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=):

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Another summary by Mark Turnbull (The Christian Science Monitor) presents additional information:

The Census report also compares, from 1992 through 1998, people’s perceptions of whether basic needs were being met. More than 92% of Americans below the poverty line said they had enough food, as of 1998. Some 86% said they had no unmet need for a doctor, 89% had no roof leaks, and 87% said they had no unpaid rent or mortgage.

(For additional statistics see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/01/AR2006090101409.html.)

Furthermore, Walter Williams reports mobility across economic quintiles is high
(http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/walterwilliams/2006/01/04/180969.html):

The authors [Cox and Alms] analyzed University of Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics data that tracked more than 50,000 individual families since 1968. Cox and Alms found: Only five percent of families in the bottom income quintile (lowest 20 percent) in 1975 were still there in 1991. Three-quarters of these families had moved into the three highest income quintiles. During the same period, 70 percent of those in the second lowest income quintile moved to a higher quintile, with 25 percent of them moving to the top income quintile. When the Bureau of Census reports, for example, that the poverty rate in 1980 was 15 percent and a decade later still 15 percent, for the most part they are referring to different people.

What conclusions can we draw from this data? Thomas Sowell says it best (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-1_10_06_TS.html):

When it comes to lifting people out of poverty, redistribution of income and wealth has a much poorer and more spotty track record than the creation of wealth. In some places, such as Zimbabwe today, attempts at a redistribution of wealth have turned out to be a redistribution of poverty.
While the creation of wealth may be more effective for enabling millions of people to rise out of poverty, it provides no special role for the political left, no puffed up importance, no moral superiority, no power for them to wield over others. Redistribution is clearly better for the left.

In summary, then, the left claims to be all about moral superiority and helping people. But what their policies actually result in are wrecked economies, impoverished billions, and murdered millions. On the other hand, the right’s capitalist philosophy is one of freedom, responsibility, and self-determination. And overwhelming evidence demonstrates it really does create wealth, encourage mobility, and help the poor.

So when it comes to leftist and rightist beliefs, who is correct and who is wrong? Who is moral and who is not? I think the answer is obvious, but I leave it up to you.

Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 14, 2007 at 5:04 PM

According to R. J. Rummel, the world’s expert on democide (which refers to governments intentionally killing people), during the 20th century, four communist dictatorships killed more than 146,079 million people (Chinese communists–80,170,000; Soviet communists–61,911,000; Cambodian communists–2,035,000; and the North Korean communists–1,663,000) (See http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM.)

I think a good note on that first number is that in most countries, the decimal point and comma are switched, meaning that first number is 146.079 million, not 146,079 million (146 billion, 79 million), which would be more people than have ever existed on the face of planet earth.

BKennedy on October 15, 2007 at 8:03 AM