Adopted? What’s with That?
Ann McFetters, Washington Bureau chief of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and The Toledo Blade, wrote an opinion piece published in my local newspaper concerning U. S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts. It may well have run in your newspaper, as well. The article is fairly mundane and closes with some bit of sarcasm:
“Good judges evolve and are fair and open-minded. They grow wiser with experience and age. They are not ideological. They weigh the facts of each case. They sometimes disappoint people on the right and the left. They do not throw temper tantrums. If they have children, they set firm boundaries, but do not spank them. Their pets adore them.”
What caught my eye in the piece and fired my ire was,
“When President Bush introduced his Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts, to the American people, the oh-so-shrewd White House also ushered into the East Room Roberts' wife, appropriately named Jane, and their two adopted, adorable blond children, John, 4, and Josephine, 5.” (The bolding is mine.)
Why was it necessary to say that the children are adopted instead of just children? Are adopted children somehow different? Are they better or worse than their biological counter-parts? Or, perhaps does it have something to say about the parents? Are they somehow more compassionate than biological parents? Or, could it be that for some reason that the parents are “defective” and were not able to conceive children on their own?
The fact that the children are “blond” must be of some significance, as well. Why would that be? Is it that the parents were not sensitive enough to have picked a minority child from the adoption list?
I‘ve not read McFeatters work previously, and I don’t know her true motivations. But, I suspect that the she is liberal and could not find anything much to say negative about John Roberts. Perhaps it would have been better to have said nothing at all instead of revealing possible deep seated prejudices through cheap shots at the children.
Oh and by the way, then there is the cheap shot at the nominee’s wife, Jane Roberts, “…appropriately named Jane…”
Taking cheap shots is a poor substitute for rational discourse. Perhaps Ann McFeatters should use a byline of “Cheap Shot McFeatters.” It’s kind of catchy, don’t you think?
“Good judges evolve and are fair and open-minded. They grow wiser with experience and age. They are not ideological. They weigh the facts of each case. They sometimes disappoint people on the right and the left. They do not throw temper tantrums. If they have children, they set firm boundaries, but do not spank them. Their pets adore them.”
What caught my eye in the piece and fired my ire was,
“When President Bush introduced his Supreme Court nominee, Judge John Roberts, to the American people, the oh-so-shrewd White House also ushered into the East Room Roberts' wife, appropriately named Jane, and their two adopted, adorable blond children, John, 4, and Josephine, 5.” (The bolding is mine.)
Why was it necessary to say that the children are adopted instead of just children? Are adopted children somehow different? Are they better or worse than their biological counter-parts? Or, perhaps does it have something to say about the parents? Are they somehow more compassionate than biological parents? Or, could it be that for some reason that the parents are “defective” and were not able to conceive children on their own?
The fact that the children are “blond” must be of some significance, as well. Why would that be? Is it that the parents were not sensitive enough to have picked a minority child from the adoption list?
I‘ve not read McFeatters work previously, and I don’t know her true motivations. But, I suspect that the she is liberal and could not find anything much to say negative about John Roberts. Perhaps it would have been better to have said nothing at all instead of revealing possible deep seated prejudices through cheap shots at the children.
Oh and by the way, then there is the cheap shot at the nominee’s wife, Jane Roberts, “…appropriately named Jane…”
Taking cheap shots is a poor substitute for rational discourse. Perhaps Ann McFeatters should use a byline of “Cheap Shot McFeatters.” It’s kind of catchy, don’t you think?
posted by Paul Coambs | 5:02 AM
<< Home