Data has been developed showing the majority of journalists are left-wing political supporters. As the percentage has gone up, the art of journalism has diminished. No longer does the mainstream media dig into stories and extract truth. They choose the stories they want to research and then insure the facts come out to meet their political criteria. Example, when Bush was president, the Iraq War was the headline of the day. With Obama as president, nothing about Afghanistan or Iraq. Strange coincidence. Of course not. Simply the media in this day and age supporting their man, Obama.
Fortunately, like most corrupt institutions, the media has sickened so many Americans with their biased reporting than a much larger majority is choosing to ignore them. This group gets news elsewhere. Hence, the corrupt media is failing financially. No one but their like-minded liberal counterparts are buying their work. Eventually, a large number will simply go away. Hopefully, to be replaced by a new media that reverts to solid journalism. No story is off limits. No truth unvarnished. Just, the facts ma’am, as old Joe Friday used to say.
If you question how the media became so corrupt, you begin to question other groups that fall into that same pattern. If 90% of media are left wingers, 99% of Hollywood, and 90% of university professors, what other groups are suspect? Most of the aforementioned are completely surrounded by like minded peers. It would be very hard to break out of that and remain socially acceptable with those peers. You have heard the Jon Voight and Dennis Miller comments about non-liberals being black listed in Hollywood. With the media, once the people at the top of the house express their liberal views, who dares to take a different position. The same in academia.
Does it seem to make sense that the scientific community meets the same criteria? They spent inordinate time in academia getting multiple degrees. Have you met very many PHD conservatives? If the peers and the background and education beat one into liberal submission, is there much chance for objectivity?
Don’t you wonder how global warming got so far out of control? Especially after the DDT debacle. When Rachael Carson wrote an innocent little book called Silent Spring, suddenly DDT became the global warming issue of it’s time. Hundreds of scientists piled on and wrote millions of scientific works supporting the ban on DDT. After all, it made birds egg shells thinner. Proof perfect that it was a threat to nature. The fact that it saved millions of lives in poor countries by protecting much needed crops and keeping Malaria attacks down was not relevant. So, Rachael and a band of corrupt scientist convinced a band of stupid politicians and the UN, certainly a pillar of integrity, to ban DDT.
Now, years later, DDT is once again being used. What happened to all that good, solid science that banned it in the first place? It wasn’t good science, it was liberal ideology posing as good science. Even now, the environmental lug nuts want it re-banned. Despite good science that shows it’s not unsafe.
There is a DDT example being researched today. It’s called triclosan. The Obama administration wants to take a look at triclosan. The CDC says it’s found in the urine of 75% of the population. The FDA says recent scientific studies say it disrupts the body’s endocrine system and may create bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics. The FDA is responding to Rep. Edward Markey,D-Mass. who has been pushing the regulations to restrict the use triclosan. Rep. Markey is as far left as it gets.
Triclosan was developed as a surgical scrub. It is a pesticide. Sound familiar? It kills bacteria, fungus and prevents odors. Products with ” anti-bacterial” labels have probably been treated with the product. It is regulated by three federal agencies, the FDA, the EPA, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Seems like a lot of regulation.
So here it goes. Sarah Janssen, staff scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Fund, an environmental agency, petitions the FDA to restrict the use of triclosan. She petitions a fellow far left liberal, Rep. Markey. He, without a moment’s hesitation, petitions the FDA to restrict the use.
Doug Throckmorton,acting director of the agency’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research says the FDA will issue the rules quickly.
Will it get good science? Will it get a fair shake? How will the studies be conducted? From the top down, where someone says we have to do something for Rep. Markey, he funds us, or will unbiased scientists really do objective studies and render an opinion based on science?
Here’s the interesting part. The FDA has been studying triclosan for 38 years to establish rules for the use of the chemical. You read that right, 38 years. How much taxpayer money do you think has gone into the study of triclosan? I don’t know if it’s good or bad, but what I do know is that in 38 years of study, that should have been answered without the help of Ms. Janssen or Congressman Markey.
If I had to guess, I would say that all studies heretofore have shown there is no danger from the triclosan. That it probably saves thousands of lives by keeping staph infections down in hospitals and by killing bacteria that might cause serious diseases. But, that’s not the answer Janssen and Markey want, so the scientific community will have to find corrupt science to give them the answer they want. It won’t be hard, since most of the scientists probably want triclosan to go away. Just rig the data like you did with global warming. Put you ideology before your job. Why not, it happens every day in the media, in films, and in classrooms at universities across America.
