- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Liberals are always given to landing on the side of what they insist is science, whether the topic is Darwin’s theory of evolution versus intelligent design or man’s ability to control the weather. That’s because they believe that scientists are, like themselves, much smarter than other people.
But the fact is that science, to put it as kindly as possible, is an imperfect science. Scientists are, after all, people. They are therefore as prone to being affected by greed, blind ambition and even ignorance as any of us.
For instance, for a great many years, they believed the Piltdown Man was the missing link. Instead, it, not he, was a rather clumsy hoax. We also had Pluto, which for a long time, was regarded as one of the planets in our solar system. Then, without warning, Pluto woke up one morning to find it had been demoted to the status of a plutoid.
And how many people are even aware that the Brontosaurus apparently never even existed? Unlike the Piltdown Man, it wasn’t an intentional fake. Instead, anthropologists mistakenly mixed up a few bones. What it was actually was something called an Apatosaurus. It doesn’t make much difference to most of us, but it obviously did to scientists because whereas Brontosaurus translates to “thunder lizard,” Apatosaurus means “deceptive lizard,” which, coincidentally, is how many of us refer to Obama.
Some would say that at least scientists eventually get around to correcting their mistakes. But until they do, they defend their beliefs by belittling doubters, generally labeling them as flat-earthers. These days, you see many climatologists defending “climate change” as settled science, while the rest of us are supposed to ignore the fact that consensus is not the same thing as proof, especially when those with the courage and integrity to raise doubts are punished by being denied federal grants and tenure.
Recently, I received an email that read “Friend – I want to cut through the noise and talk with you directly about where we’re headed in the fight for change. That’s why I’m getting on the phone with OFA (Organizing for Action) supporters. Will you join me? I have just over three years left as president – and there’s a lot left on my to-do list. So let’s talk about how to make it happen. Thanks – I can’t wait to catch up. Barack.”
Needless to say, I didn’t take the call. I was busy walking my dog. What I’d like to know, though, is who the hell decided I was an OFA supporter. And where the heck did Pinocchio get off calling me “Friend”?
In the wake of all the lies Obama told us about the Affordable Care Act, I’ve been wondering if Michelle is beginning to suspect Barack might have been hedging his bets when he said: “I take you to be my wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part. Period!”
My regular readers know that I am constantly lambasting conservative parents who keep paying out good money so that their offspring can be indoctrinated by left-wing professors, and after four years, ending up with the same marketable skills they had when they got out of high school. But, sometimes you discover that the colleges can be every bit as profligate with your money as the tax-gobbling bozos in Washington.
For instance, not too long ago, the University of Oregon invited Dan Savage to deliver an address. Like most of you, I had never heard of the guy until then. But, apparently, he is famous in some circles as a gay activist. The point of his appearance was to describe in graphic fashion such perversions as fisting and to answer any questions the youngsters might have about the various practices.
It gets worse. Although the venue only allowed seating for 300 students, the university didn’t think twice about paying him $24,000. Don’t bother doing the arithmetic; it works out to $80-per-student. But inasmuch as they’re raking in $24,334 a year for in-state enrollees and $44,359 if he or she is from out of state, they could easily afford his fee. No doubt the administrators considered that a small price to pay to prove to the kids that they weren’t just a bunch of uptight fuddy-duddy academics.
Recently, a friend sent me a poll that indicated that when it came to health care, Obama’s approval rating was 37 percent; the economy 31 percent; immigration 32 percent; terrorism 51 percent; foreign policy 34 percent; and overall job approval 41 percent. He concluded by saying that added up to six “F’s” and wondered how the left would spin those catastrophic numbers.
“No problem,” I replied. “They will merely say that when it comes to those all-important issues, 226 percent of the people are behind Obama.”