The Left’s Fascination With Junk Science ⋆ Politicrossing
Connect with us

News

The Left’s Fascination With Junk Science

Published

on

Democrats are quick to attack the right for having skepticism or alternative views on vaccines, masks, global warming and other aspects of science. They claim they follow “science” unlike us. But the left is full of questionable views on science. Their insistence on radical positions in regards to global warming, without any room for opposing views or moderation, is the most obvious one. 

They’ve been making dire warnings for years, predicting when the earth will destruct, and are never correct. In 2006, Al Gore warned that the world had until January 27, 2016 to end its dependency on fossil fuels or there would be a global emergency. In 2019, Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez predicted the world would end in 12 years if climate change wasn’t addressed. Yet the MSM gives them a free pass and they continue to hold significant influence in public life. 

No matter how much evidence emerges showing that the earth naturally goes through cooling and warming phases, likely caused by sunspots so not all of the warming can be due to man, the left refuses to acknowledge even the possibility of these factors, ignoring them. It’s almost a cult-like obsession. Now they have too much money invested in it to ever admit they were wrong; it’s become a big business on the left, giving government grants and tax breaks to their favorite lefty corporations involved in “going green.” 

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

The left is always promoting dubious health schemes that are either lacking in significant positive studies or have serious problems, such as organic foods and eating vegetarian. Any negatives — such as people dying from them — are just glossed over as if they don’t exist. The left goes into hysterics against GMOs, but refuses to acknowledge that more than 900 studies from every major health organization in the world, including the World Health Organization, have declared that GMOs are safe to eat. 

Contrast this to the left’s attitude about vaccines. Similar to the other issues just mentioned, there are some concerns. Hundreds of people died after taking the COVID-19 vaccine. Yet the left will not allow any room for skepticism, they demand that every healthy person take it, without acknowledging that it may not be a good idea for some people based on —  wait for it —  science. This attitude is actually stopping people from getting the vaccine. Some are so disturbed by the left’s unwillingness to present the entire picture regarding the vaccine that they figure it must be pretty dangerous. 

While it is true that many holistic types of approaches can work for some people, they don’t always and someone who could have been healed through a conventional treatment like chemotherapy or radiation may have died unnecessarily. But you’ll never hear the left admit this; as usual when it comes to junk science, they only allow one perspective to come out. Any position that isn’t theirs is labeled junk science or a conspiracy theory

The left’s reaction toward nuclear power is a classic example of ignoring science. The nuclear leak that took place at Chernobyl was the result of carelessness, not because nuclear power correctly handled is bad for the environment. Precautions have been taken since then to ensure that it never happens again. But 35 years after Chernobyl, the left triumphantly shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant near New York City. Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo labeled it a “ticking time bomb” that he had been trying to shut down for 15 years. But nuclear power is one of the cleanest, safest, most environmentally friendly forms of energy available. It is the safest energy source and about the cheapest. Solar, wind and hydro kill more people. France has wised up, with over 70% of its electricity coming from nuclear power. 

Then there’s astrology. Far more Democrats than Republicans believe in astrology, but do you ever hear them ridiculed the way the right is ridiculed for believing the Bible? The left frequently refers to the Bible as “fairy tales,” but have you ever heard astrology called fairy tales? Of course not. The MSM pretends the obsession doesn’t even exist, and leftists constantly reference their signs as if it’s no big deal, in fact it’s considered cool. But bring up a verse in the Bible and you’re likely to hear a derogatory remark like “Santa Claus in the sky.”  

Steven Milloy, who runs junkscience.com, explains why the left is so attracted to junk science. The left-wing media deliberately hypes up junk science in order to produce sensational headlines that attract readers. Personal injury lawyers pile on in order to make money from huge lawsuits. The National Trial Lawyers Association is almost entirely composed of Democrats; in 2014, 97% of members’ donations went to Democrats. Government regulators can expand their power and push through their liberal agendas. A study from the 2016 presidential election found that 95% of contributions to the race from federal government workers at 14 agencies went to Hillary Clinton, with only 5% going to Donald Trump. 

Additionally, studies show Democrats are more ruled by their emotions than Republicans. This is why they are more susceptible to believe that a photo of a polar bear on a shrinking glacier is a sign of impending worldwide destruction. Republicans, on the other hand, will research the reason why the polar bear is there in order to get to the bottom of the situation before reacting. The Foundation for Economic Education investigated a video of a polar bear with ribs showing as it was looking for food. National Geographic headlined it, “This is what climate change looks like.” It’s the most viewed video on the magazine’s website. In reality, the polar bear population has been increasing. One of the photographers later admitted that the bear’s sorry appearance could have been due to other reasons. 

The practice of claiming they follow science while labeling conservative thought junk science is just more of the left’s modus operandi, claiming the right is guilty of what they’re really guilty of. Don’t let them get away with it, label it junk science.

 

We'd love to hear your thoughts about this article. Please take a minute to share them in the comment section by clicking here. Or carry the conversation over on your favorite social network by clicking one of the share buttons below.


Rachel Alexander is a conservative political writer and pundit. She is the editor of Intellectual Conservative and a recovering attorney. She was ranked by Right Wing News as one of the 50 Best Conservative Columnists from 2011-2019.



  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
 
 
 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.



Education

Make Universities Accountable for Predatory Student Loan Abuse

Published

on

The Biden administration is still talking about delivering on the President’s promise to relieve student loan debt for many Americans. There is continuing discussion on how much debt should be forgiven, how to pay for it, and whether it is fair to all those who have diligently and painfully worked to already pay off their own student loans. After all, if you’re going to eliminate student debt to buy votes, why just limit it to student debt?

Unfortunately for Biden, according to numerous sources including National Review, the executive branch has no generalized power to forgive any amount of student debt. Even Nancy Pelosi confirmed simply that “the president can’t do it. That’s not even a discussion.” The Department of Education came to the same verdict, determining that the executive branch “does not have the statutory authority to cancel, compromise, discharge, or forgive, on a blanket or mass basis, principal balances of student loans, and/or to materially modify the repayment amounts or terms thereof.”

Of course, even if he had the authority, forgiving student debt doesn’t make the debt go away. Reality has a way of breaking into such “freeloading” dreams. It’s pay me now, or somebody else pay me later. But why should some future taxpayer pay off anyone else’s student debt?

Whatever happened to wise warnings of “student beware.” When you get an education and agree to pay the tuition, you ought to realize that you must at some point pay for that education. You signed on the bottom line. Face your real-world responsibilities. Hopefully, you picked a degree major that will ensure a career capable of paying off your loans. Students clearly have some responsibility, but what about the universities that took advantage of the money coming from those loans?

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

After all, there is ample evidence that student tuitions exploded far faster than inflation when government funds became readily available for student loans. Complaints of excessive tuition increases by students trapped in their programs tended to be met with a less than caring response—pound sand!

Since 2008, the tuition cost or a four-year college degree has increased nearly 25%. In that same period, student debt has doubled, increasing by 107%. 2015 study found that a dollar of subsidized student loans results in a published tuition increase of 58 cents at a typical university, An NBER paper suggests that changes to federal student loans are more than sufficient to explain tuition increases at private nonprofit colleges. And a 2014 study found that for-profit colleges eligible for federal student aid charged tuition 78% higher than that of similar but aid-ineligible institutions.

In short, there is no doubt that tuition was rising faster than the inflation level. Evidence has been clear for decades. In 1987, Secretary of Education William J. Bennett argued that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities to raise their tuition, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

Bennett pointed out in 1987 that federal student aid had risen 57 percent since 1980, while inflation had been 26 percent. A 2020 analysis by the Congressional Budget Office brought the numbers up to date: “Between 1995 and 2017, the balance of outstanding federal student loan debt increased more than sevenfold, from $187 billion to $1.4 trillion (in 2017 dollars).” What is the lesson? The more federal aid to students is available colleges raise tuition more. Salaries rise and bureaucracies expand. There are more courses, more dorms, dining halls, lavish recreational centers, and more money for endowments.

Far too many students find that once they begin their education, their schools raise the tuition at such a high rate that their debt explodes. The university builds their endowment, and the “trapped” student is compelled to finish what they started at a cost they did not expect to have to pay. In such a situation, should not the university be responsible for any increased cost above the increase in cost of living during the same time? It’s time for universities to take responsibility for their share of student debt.

The universities that benefited from these loans should have a part in footing the bill. That means universities that raked in millions to inflate endowments should be holding the bag for those who can’t afford to pay their loans. With universities holding hundreds of billions of dollars in tax-free endowments, any government program to relieve student debt should be completely dependent on taxing those university endowments.

It’s time to counter the Democrats’ vote-buying scheme by making lasting changes to the student loan process. That means putting universities on the hook for their predatory behavior. That will go much further than a temporary payoff that does nothing to solve what is causing the problem.

Continue Reading

News

Tucker: Why are they so angry?

There’s no Constitutional requirement to have respect for anybody in the US government. In fact, in a free country you are encouraged to disagree. You are a citizen, you have that inherent right. But, no more.

Published

on

Tucker gives an extended list of several people who were arrested or had their homes raided, without explanation, for no crime. Highlights include:

“Why have a political debate when you can just arrest people who disagree with you? And that has happened, far below the media radar since the day Joe Biden was elected, and tonight we want to show you … a litany, a list of Americans who have been arrested, detained by federal law enforcement on the orders of the Biden administration, not because they committed recognizable crimes but because they disagreed with the political aims of the Biden administration.”

“Ooh, Trumps a fascist, remember that? Did Trump’s DOJ raid the homes of a lot of journalists who embarrassed his children? No, you don’t remember that, because it didn’t happen. But Joe Biden’s justice department has done that, and then they kept going.”

Trending on PolitiCrossing.com: Tucker: This is a coordinated attack on the family

“We don’t arrest people for ignoring congressional subpoenas, especially when they cite executive privilege, a principal that has a long history in American history, so no, we’ve never done that, but we can do it now because it was ‘an insurrection’, an insurrection that wasn’t armed, wasn’t planned, it didn’t actually insurrect anything, but it was still an insurrection. Now you’re beginning to see why it’s been so important from the very first day for the media to describe what happened on January 6 not as a riot, but as an insurrection, because if it’s an insurrection, they can violate your civil rights.”

“So, a decade ago the Obama administration was caught sending automatic weapons to Mexican drug cartels and Congress wanted to know more about this. Eric Holder, then the attorney general, had a key role in this, ‘operation fast and furious’, you may remember it. So, they subpoena’d him, and he ignored the subpoena, and the media applauded, he was taking a noble position. But when Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro tried to do something like that, they went to jail. Again, we had this exact same thing happen in public ten years ago. A federal judge ruled that Holder’s privilege claim was not legitimate, and he was still never arrested, but the rules have changed. Why is that?”

“There’s no Constitutional requirement to have respect for anybody in the US government. In fact, in a free country you are encouraged to disagree. You are a citizen, you have that inherent right. But, no more. The media think you should be sent to jail if you show disrespect, and so of course, with no media to push back against unconstitutional overreach, the justice department kept going.”

Watch the video below and feel free to exercise your right to free speech in the comments.

Continue Reading

 

Our Newsletter

Become a Politicrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Sites We Like

Our Newsletter

Become a PolitiCrossing insider: Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Trending