LIBERALS: THEY BLINDED US
WITH SCIENCE
By Ann Coulter
AnnCoulter.com
In response to my column last week about hormesis
-- the theory that some radiation can be beneficial
to humans -- liberals reacted with their usual
open-minded examination of the facts.
According to Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters, MSNBC's
Ed Schultz devoted an entire segment to denouncing
me. He called me toxic, accused me of spreading
misinformation and said I didn't care about science.
One thing Schultz did not do, however, was cite a
single physicist or scientific study.
I cited three physicists by name as well as four
studies supporting hormesis in my column. For the
benefit of liberals scared of science, I even cited
The New York Times.
It tells you something that the most powerful
repudiation of hormesis Schultz could produce was
the fact that a series of government agencies have
concluded -- I quote -- that "insufficient human
data on hormesis exists."
Well, in that case, I take it all ba -– wait, no.
That contradicts nothing I said in my column.
Liberals should take up their quarrel with the
physicists cited by both me and the Times. I'm sure
the Harvard physics department will be fascinated to
discover that the left's idea of the scientific
method is to cling to their fears while hurling
invective at anyone who proposes a novel thesis.
The fact that liberals are so terrified of science
that they chronically wet themselves wouldn't be
half as annoying if they didn't go around boasting
about their deep respect for science, especially
compared to conservatives.
Apparently this criticism is based on conservatives'
skepticism about global warming -- despite the
studies of distinguished research scientists Dr.
Alicia Silverstone and Dr. Woody Harrelson. (In my
case, it's only because I'm still waiting for
liberals' global cooling theory from the '70s to
come true.)
The left's idea of "science" is that we should all
be riding bicycles and using the Clivus Multrum
composting latrines instead of flush toilets. Anyone
who dissents, they say -- while adjusting their
healing crystals for emphasis -- is "afraid of
science."
A review of the record, however, shows that time and
again liberals have been willing to corrupt public
policy and allow people to die in order to enforce
the Luddite views of groups such as the Union of
Concerned Scientists (original name, "Union of
Concerned Activist Lawyers Who Took a Science Course
in High School").
As I described in my book "Godless," both the
government and the entire mainstream media lied
about AIDS in the '80s by scaring Americans into
believing that heterosexuals were as much at risk
for acquiring AIDS as gays and intravenous drug
users. The science had to be lied about so no one's
feelings got hurt.
In 1985, Life magazine's cover proclaimed: "NOW, NO
ONE IS SAFE FROM AIDS." In 1987, U.S. News & World
Report reported that AIDS was "finding fertile
growth among heterosexuals." Also in 1987, Dr. Oprah
Winfrey said that "research studies" predicted that
"one in five heterosexuals could be dead from AIDS
at the end of the next three years."
In 1988, ABC's "20/20" claimed the CDC had
discovered a shocking upsurge of heterosexual
infections on college campuses. It struck no one as
odd that 28 of the 30 infections had occurred in men
(with alphabetized spice racks and at least three
cats, one named Blanche).
Two years later, CNN broadcast that same 1988 study,
proclaiming: "A new report from CDC indicates that
AIDS is on the rise on college campuses."
A quarter-century later, and we're still waiting for
the big heterosexual AIDS outbreak.
But at least science achieved its primary purpose:
AIDS was not stigmatized as a "gay disease."
Scientific facts were ignored so that science would
be nonjudgmental. That was more important than the
truth.
Liberal activists also gave us the alar scare in the
late '80S based on the studies of world renowned
chemist and national treasure Meryl Streep.
Alar is a perfectly safe substance that had been
used on apples since 1968 both to ripen and preserve
the fruit. It made fresh fruit more accessible by
allowing fruit pickers to make one sweep through the
apple grove, producing ripe, fresh fruit to be
distributed widely and cheaply.
But after hearing the blood-chilling testimony of
Streep, hysterical soccer moms across America hopped
in their Volvos, dashed to their children's schools
and ripped the apples from the little ones' lunch
boxes. "Delicious, McIntosh and Granny Smith" were
added to "Hitler, Stalin and Mao" as names that will
live in infamy.
The EPA proposed banning alar based on a study that
involved pumping tens of thousands times more alar
into rats than any human could possibly consume, and
observing the results. The rats died -- of
poisoning, not tumors – but the EPA banned it
anyway. Poor people went back to eating Twinkies
instead of healthy fresh fruit.
Meanwhile, the World Health Organization advised
against an alar ban and Europeans continued to eat
fruit with alar in their nice warm houses powered by
nuclear energy (halted in the U.S. thanks to the
important work of Dr. Jackson Browne and Dr. Bonnie
Raitt).
Other scientific theories developed in the
laboratories of personal injury lawyers and TV
networks included the left's "cancer cluster" claim
in the '80s. The Centers for Disease Control
investigated 108 alleged "cancer clusters" that had
occurred between 1961 to 1983 and found no
explanation for them other than coincidence -- and a
demonstrable proximity to someone with deep pockets.
As Yale epidemiologist Michael Bracken explained:
"Diseases don't fall evenly on every town like
snow." Random chance will lead some areas to have
higher, sometimes oddly higher, numbers of cancer.
But just to be safe, we all better stop driving
cars, eating off of clean dishes and using aerosol
sprays.
Some of the other scientific studies and innovations
that make liberals cry are: vaccines, IQ studies,
breast implants and DDT.
After decades of this nonsense, The New York Times'
Paul Krugman has the audacity to brag that liberals
believe the "truth should be determined by research,
not revelation." Yes -- provided the "research" is
conducted by trial lawyers and Hollywood actresses
rather than actual scientists.
COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106