Growing up I looked forward to receiving two magazines in the mail every month. Sports Illustrated (SI)—especially in January with the Swim Suit Issue, and Scientific American. I stopped subscribing to (SI) in 1992 because of the incredible slanted articles they wrote regarding issues that today would be considered “social justice” centric. The same thing happened to my viewing of ESPN. I stopped subscribing to Scientific American before Covid. Politics is present in every aspect of our lives, but creating and supporting a particular political narrative in a sports journal or a scientific publication is simply sloppy propaganda at best.
Throughout my adult years, Scientific American became ever more important to me. As my area of expertise in medicine and science became ever more focused and narrower, reading about what was happening in the other worlds of science was invigorating and refreshing. One article I remember was about mitochondrial DNA being exclusively transferred from mother to sibs of either sex. The article suggested that certain phenotypical characteristics of distance performance were transferred via this mechanism including endurance for athletes. I then watched the movie SECRETARIAT where Penny Tweeny, who in the early 70’s took over running the family stable from her grandparents, bid on a little-known horse at a discounted price against the professionals in the Kentucky horse breeding business. She recognized that through maternal bloodlines endurance seemed to be inherited. I sent a letter to Scientific American Editors after the article appeared and they sent me back a very nice explanation about how my ideas might be true but had as yet been unproven. This is precisely the way good scientific journalism should work. Ask questions. Explore ideas across disciplines. Test. Do over.
Yesterday an article was posted in the New York Post about the current Editor in Chief of The Scientific American Laura Helmuth who put up a series of social media posts after last week’s election results became known. One example is all that is needed to make my point:
“Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because f–k them to the moon and back,” she wrote in one post on the social media platform Bluesky, according to Fox News.
She certainly has the right to her own opinion, but she should also be more guarded and careful in the way she uses language. I have recently received similar e-mails from high school and college classmates that used similar language and then asked the question—”How can you call yourself a Christian and still vote for Trump”. My response today would be to ask the same question of 80 million Evangelicals, and almost the same number of Catholics, who voted together at over 65% for Mr. Trump… Without the “Christian Vote” Mr. Trump would not have won. This needs to be also stated. It was not a “Christian vote” that won, but a vote by Christians that supported Christian and Natural Law values, that won.
More importantly is the impact that the SOCIAL JUSTICE, WOKE, AND DEQI contagion has had on education both in K-12, and most importantly in our institutes of higher learning and in our professional schools. Classical liberal political theory, Entitlement ideals, Biblical Justice as opposed to modern day social justice theory—very different, are glossed over. Economic majors I have known since they were born and graduates of Catholic Institutions—one Jesuit and the other Holy Cross Fathers, had very little exposure to what today would be called modern conservative economic theory (actually classically liberal). One student told me they spent less than a week in his entire curriculum exploring the thinking of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Ludwig Von Misses, Fredrick Hyak, or Milton Friedman. This one student didn’t know who Andrew Mulligan or Art Laffer were and he had never heard of the “Laffer Curve”!
In the basic sciences it becomes even more complicated. What about if a physician or public health specialist—very different, writes an article for Scientific American and it doesn’t pass muster with the likes of Ms. Helmuth—does she even have a scientific background or is she just another modern day “journalist-propagandist”? Are alternative theories in biochemistry and microbiology or pharmacology given equal standing when pharmaceutical companies have invested billions in vaccines and single or a large group of credible scientists offers an alternative theory that has a credible scientific predicate. Do we explore those alternative theories or do we marginalize and ridicule them?
What about when a scientist applies for a grant at The NIH or CDC, and the grant does not square with the current theory DuJour about mRNA vaccines, or mitigation or treatment?
Here is an excerpt from the Nov. 12th Wall Street Journal written by Roland Fryer and entitled THE ECONOMICS OF POLITICAL CORRECTNESS:
“Suppose there is an informed professor advising a less informed politician as to whether diversity, equity, and inclusion policies help minorities. If the professor says DEI is harmful, the politician might interpret the recommendation as the honest findings of an unbiased researcher. But he also might interpret it as the motivated reasoning of a racist and might even stop asking the professor for advice. Mr. Morris demonstrates mathematically that if the professor is sufficiently concerned about being thought a racist, he will lie and recommend DEI even when he knows it’s a bad idea for minorities. And if he does tell the truth, his advice may come across as tainted by bias. The implications are unsettling for anyone trying to make decisions based on academics’ (or scientific) recommendations”.
Instead of DEI sensitivity training in our educational institutions and in our military and businesses, we must place a renewed emphasis on common sense and problem solving. Modern day educators and media info babes and guys generally lack the benefits of a liberal arts education or even a background in Western Civilization. Many will even admit to this.
It doesn’t matter if it is (SI), Scientific American, ESPN, MSNBC, CNN, NYT, PBS, WPAO, The Idaho Statesman or the Gem State Patriot. If one is in the business of disseminating information, the very least to ask is that THE TRUTH BE TOLD. Supporting a political narrative is the American Way. Lying and cheating and creating calumnies’ with ad hominem attacks and innuendo needs to always be confronted because those types of activities are not only hateful, they can become evil just like—RUSSIAN COLLUSION—PEEPEE TAPES, IMPEACHMENTS 1 &2, Jan 6th, Y2K, GLOBAL WARMING (now called climate change), Lawfare and the politicization of our entire legal system from the Feds to the States.
