Woke watch: UnScientific American
“You could be forgiven for assuming that scientific truth would play a pivotal role” in the output of Scientific American, quips James Esses at Spiked Online. “But not any more, it seems.”
This “oldest continuously published magazine in the United States,” which “previously featured work by Albert Einstein,” now aims to advance “social justice.”
It broke “with a 175-year history of non-partisanship to endorse Joe Biden in the US presidential election” and is abandoning “objective facts entirely, in favor of trans-activist pseudoscience.”
These include “attempts to disprove the known fact that males have inherent physiological advantages over females when it comes to sports and athletics.”
(“A patronizing, finger-wagging tone runs throughout, too.”) That’s “bad news for science — and for social justice, too.”
From the right: Dems’ ‘Crisis’-Spending Mania
How will America maintain world leadership if President Biden “cannot break his mania for debt-fueled spending?” asks The Wall Street Journal’s James Freeman.
Friday, the White House couldn’t even get through a press release about aid to Israel without pushing an “unrelated laundry list” of Democrats’ domestic-spending demands.
One idea is to demand cuts to green-energy subsidies to pay for foreign aid, since if Dems believe solar will soon be the cheapest source of electricity, then “there’s no need” for subsidies. “
But there really is a need to maintain America’s financial strength”: The country can’t “remain a military superpower” if it doesn’t also “remain an economic superpower.”
Conservative: Gen Z’s Horrifying Hamas Support
“Overall, Americans overwhelmingly support Israel over Hamas,” but just 52% of Americans 18 to 24 “said they supported Israel,” vs. 48% who “said they supported Hamas” in a new Harvard-Harris poll, groans Brad Polumbo at Newsweek.
“Yes, that’s right: Nearly half of young respondents said they side with the terrorist group that just earlier this month purposefully targeted and slaughtered innocent civilians.”
This is “in large part the consequence of a corrosive and malevolent ‘social justice’ ideology that’s being spoon-fed to young Americans on college campuses.”
Young people are “told the slaughter of civilians is actually ‘freedom fighting’ by a ‘resistance’ seeking to cast off the shackles of its oppressors.”
“It’s the radical result of years of miseducation in an ideology that’s as morally bankrupt as the old bigotry it rose up to replace.”
Eye on 2024: Trump Is Yesterday’s Man
“Despite Trump’s overwhelming lead,” Peter King argues at The Hill, “there is the possibility of a real challenger emerging from the pack.”
The longer Trump focuses on “past grievances” instead of “current issues and crises, the more he runs the risk of being labeled yesterday’s man.”
Ron “DeSantis and [Nikki] Haley have broken through as the leading challengers.” But, though DeSantis appeared to be “Trump’s main threat,” he “has never really gotten off the ground.”
Haley, on the other hand, “has demonstrated in-depth knowledge of key issues,” has an ability to “appeal to independents and traditional Democrats” and rejects “a Charles Lindbergh/isolationist foreign policy.”
If she overtakes Trump to win the nomination, “I look forward to her taking on and thoroughly outclassing Joe Biden.”
From the left: Pentagon Censorship End-Around
Consortium News’ lawsuit against the feds and Newsguard Technologies puts “the censorship-by-proxy system on trial,” cheers Racket News’ Matt Taibbi.
Newsguard “scores media outlets on ‘reliability’ and ‘trust,’ ” and labeled Consortium “a purveyor of ‘disinformation,’ ‘misinformation,’ and ‘false content’ and, worst of all, ‘anti-U.S.’ ”
Per “the suit, Newsguard only flagged six articles” of over 20,000 consortium has published, and all six “involve criticism of U.S. foreign policy.” Despite a $750,000 Pentagon grant, “Newsguard denies it’s influenced by the government.”
So “because Newsguard has other customers, it can claim to be an ‘independent’ news service that just happens to downgrade news reports that contradict and/or criticize the policy of its major client, the Department of Defense. It’s censorship, but through a silencer.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
