Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • The Soho Forum Debates
    • Just Asking Questions
    • The Best of Reason Magazine
    • Why We Can't Have Nice Things
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Donate Crypto
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Login Form

Create new account
Forgot password

Economics

The U.S. Baby Formula Shortage Is the FDA's Fault

Plus: Trusting the science is now an explicitly partisan issue, stocks are still plummeting, and more...

Robby Soave | 5.10.2022 9:30 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
sipaphotosthirteen601880 | Paul Hennessy / SOPA Images/Sipa/Newscom
(Paul Hennessy / SOPA Images/Sipa/Newscom)

The U.S. is in the grips of a baby formula shortage. Abbott Nutrition, a popular manufacturer, issued recalls on three of its products in February after a spate of bacterial infections and two infant deaths. Now many stores are out of baby formula or are placing limits on how customers can purchase in order to preserve supplies. According to The New York Times:

The manufacturer of Ashley Hernandez's preferred baby formula for her two girls said it was out of stock on its website. Listings on eBay showed it would cost her up to $120 for a single can. So when she found a seller online offering 10 cans for $40 each, she expressed her desperation.

"I have two children," Ms. Hernandez, 35, of Dallas, began her message. "I cannot find it. I can purchase this today. I can pay cash."

Pandemic-related supply chain issues have compounded the problem, CNN reports:

The out-of-stock rate for baby formula hovered between 2% and 8% in the first half of 2021, but began rising sharply last July. Between November 2021 and early April 2022, the out-of-stock rate jumped to 31%, data from Datasembly showed.

That rate increased another 9 percentage points in just three weeks in April, and now stands at 40%, the statistics show. In six states — Iowa, South Dakota, North Dakota, Missouri, Texas and Tennessee — more than half of baby formula was completely sold out during the week starting April 24, Datasembly said.

And although seven states had between 40-50% of baby formula products out of stock as of early April, 26 states are now struggling with supply.

U.S. officials could have made such shortages less likely by approving baby formula that is widely available in Europe, but per usual, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has other priorities. The agency has a long history of taking forever—years and years and years—to approve foods and medications that European officials have already decided are perfectly safe for human consumption. (One particularly good example: sunblock.) This is yet another in a long line of failures: Both the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) screwed up the early approval process for COVID-19 testing.

When asked about the shortages, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, praised the FDA for taking swift action to get the compromised baby formula off the market.

"Just wondering if you guys are planning on taking any steps to help remedy" the nationwide baby formula shortage?

Jen Psaki: Uh……… pic.twitter.com/Iv6kelwVpG

— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) May 9, 2022

The FDA should really stop erecting regulatory hurdles that make it harder for working-class parents to feed their families.


FREE MINDS

Trusting the scientific community and expert consensus is now an explicitly partisan issue, according to polling recently highlighted by FiveThirtyEight.

"Those who distrust vaccines, science and expertise aren't doing so necessarily because they have a knowledge gap or a misunderstanding," wrote FiveThirtyEight's Monica Potts. "Distrusting experts is part of their identity."

Potts' article is two weeks old, but a graph from the underlying poll has been making the rounds on Twitter for the past few days.

Extreme polarization on "trust in science" is a recent and very troubling trend. pic.twitter.com/jgtYbiqVo7

— Alec Stapp (@AlecStapp) May 8, 2022

As both the article and the tweet make clear, the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend. It poses serious social problems, from vaccinating large numbers of Americans to blunting the ill effects of climate change.

But it's also worth considering the Democratic Party's trend in the other direction, which is actually far more dramatic. Democratic trust in science has increased 30 full percentage points, whereas Republican trust in science fell by about 10 percentage points.

These developments were well underway before the pandemic, but the pandemic has likely exacerbated it. Trusting the science is now an aspect of the Team Blue personality, even more so than distrusting it is for Team Red.


FREE MARKETS

Stocks continued to plummet this week, The New York Times reports:

Wall Street's relentless decline stretched into another week on Monday, fueled by new data from China that added to concerns about a global economy that's being battered by high inflation, rising interest rates and a malfunctioning supply chain.

The S&P 500 fell 3.2 percent, adding to a downdraft that has knocked 16.3 percent off the index this year, including a five-week stretch of selling that is the market's longest such decline in more than a decade. The drop has stocks approaching a bear market, Wall Street's term for a decline of 20 percent from the most recent record, which would serve as a marker of a severe shift in sentiment.

On Monday, China's economy — the world's second largest — was the focus of attention, after customs data showed that growth in the country's exports slowed significantly in April and after Li Keqiang, the country's premier, warned this weekend that the current state of the jobs market in the country was "complicated and grave."

The situation with crypto isn't any better, either:

The world's most valuable cryptocurrency was down 10% Monday after plunging again over the weekend. Bitcoin prices have now plummeted nearly 20% in the past week. At a price of just below $31,000, bitcoin is more than 50% below its record high of near $69,000 from late last year and at its lowest point since July 2021.

Other cryptocurrencies, sometimes referred to as altcoins, have been hit hard too. Ethereum, binance, solana and cardano are all down about 15% in the past week, while Elon Musk's beloved dogecoin has tumbled 10%.

Cryptocurrencies are proving to be just as risky as stocks and susceptible to the same concerns that are dragging down the Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq.

More here.


QUICK HITS

  • Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will require students to learn about "victims of communism."
  • Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's top lawyer, thinks her days at the company are numbered.
  • Karine Jean-Pierre, the incoming White House press secretary, once committed the cardinal sin of spreading misinformation…about Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial election.

The new White House Secretary has spread very serious doubts about the legitimacy of American democracy. https://t.co/SClspibtjk

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 9, 2022

  • The Washington Post has won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage last year of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Why Are the Feds So Mad About Bitcoin Retirement Investing?

Robby Soave is a senior editor at Reason.

EconomicsReason RoundupBabyCryptocurrenciesStock MarketFDARegulationScience & TechnologyPandemic
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (436)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    The U.S. is in the grips of a baby formula shortage.

    If only there was another way to get nutrients into babies.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      There really should be two ways.

      1. Agammamon   3 years ago

        It doesn't work as well if you put the bottle in the other end though.

    2. Mr. Bumble   3 years ago

      Bring back wet nurses.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        But what about FDA approval?

      2. Hank Ferrous   3 years ago

        Ashley Hernandez has two breasts, unless she has had a mastectomy. Problem solved. I have been told that the female body is a magical creator, it can produce milk, it makes babies (only when the woman or man or trans-woman or trans-man wants the child, of course, otherwise, aborted), unlike men's bodies, which are good for nothing.

        1. Unable2Reason   3 years ago

          The FDA warned us not to make our own formula as it could be contaminated with bacteria. They didn't say anything about a festering pierced nipple so I guess we're good to go.

        2. Moonrocks   3 years ago

          Ashley Hernandez has two breasts

          Hoarding!

        3. Leizl   3 years ago

          Well you have been misinformed. I have 2 breasts that failed to make enough milk and I had to supplement with formula. I invite you to peruse forums for women who find their magical breast malfunctioning. Lots of women really disappointed that they can not breast feed.
          But your a dude who apparently knows intimate details about the breasts of all women.
          Wet nurses no longer exist because of formula which should tell you that there have always been women with out magical breasts
          Sincere

      3. Stuck in California   3 years ago

        If you're looking to hire one, I suggest setting the safe search on your browser before you search at work.

    3. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      I'm shocked reason didn't push "if abortion was more wide spread we wouldn't need as much formula

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        Think of all the kids that are going to be living even shittier lives without formula. ENB really missed an opportunity to remind us that if we abort enough of them, there will be tons of formula.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          She did push poor health conditions as a good reason for abortions, she just didn’t list formula shortages specifically. Probably because news of the issue hadn’t made it to Twitter yet.

        2. Marshal   3 years ago

          Today was Soave

          1. Yatusabes   3 years ago

            TERF alert

    4. Griffin3   3 years ago

      My pediatrician friend still spends fruitless hours trying to get her clients to breastfeed their babies, because of all the health benefits. And they refuse. Because they can get formula for free, and it must be better, cause white people pay a lot of money for it.

      1. Muzzled Woodchipper   3 years ago

        There are many, many valid reasons why many parents don’t breastfeed.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          "None of your fucking business, doc," is the number one reason.

        2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Baby-daddy comes first?

        3. Ronbback   3 years ago

          can't have your wine if your breast feeding. in reality i don't know if that is true

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Women can drink alcohol if breast feeding, but they have to wait until it’s out of there system. So if they have a single glass and wait a couple hours it’s fine. If they go full sarc though, it would be difficult.

            1. Griffin3   3 years ago

              Heh. My pediatrician recommends a single glass of wine. Just enough leaks through that it'll calm the baby for a few hours -- and you can get a homicide-reducing partial night's sleep.

          2. Jonny Quest   3 years ago

            Our pediatrician told us it was mostly an overblown concern. Basically, don't get trashed and not enough alcohol makes it into the milk to present an issue. Keep in mind that hard liquor was used as a numbing agent for teething babies for centuries, which obviously introduces alcohol into the baby's system. My wife erred on the side of caution and did not drink much at all while she was producing.

            Both kids are done with breast milk now and seem to be developing just fine.

        4. Mr. Bumble   3 years ago

          The same people who insist upon non-gmo and organic foods?

        5. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          Sure, but a lot of times it's mostly for convenience. A lot easier to stir up some formula and stick it in a bottle than pumping breast milk for later use, and it's also not your nipple the kid ends up biting down on. There are some instances where mothers have trouble expressing milk or the kid simply won't take it, but those are marginal cases.

          That said, unless the mother is a drunk or a crackhead, it really is better from a health standpoint, for both the mother and baby, to at least breastfeed for the first year. Formula wasn't cheap even before the supply shortage, and a lot of it isn't all that great to begin with. I'm sure we saved hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars by breastfeeding all our kids as much as possible.

      2. Cronut   3 years ago

        If the babies are otherwise healthy and thriving, your pediatrician should mind her own fucking business about it. She's the reason people hate "experts."

        1. Mr. Bumble   3 years ago

          Sure, we don't need no f*cking doctors.

          1. Cronut   3 years ago

            When it comes to health guidelines for babies, doctors have been off the mark for the past decade or so. The spent years hyping nutritional guidelines that turned out to have no significant health benefits for babies.

        2. Griffin3   3 years ago

          She's not nagging them. New mothers come to her practice with 3 day old babies. She says that breastfeeding will help feed babies better than formula. She also recommends that they don't pass their babies around to everyone at parties, because their immune systems are coming in.

          They come back with sick babies, and more often than not they have decided that they give their babies formula, and the reason they give is that they can get it for free. They also say they keep their babies at home, but she has seen hundreds of pictures of the baby in the hands of half the people in town.

          She doesn't nag them. There's no point in it, they are the ones that won't listen anyway. And besides, sick kids are money in her pocket. She's not the scare-quote "expert", she's the one who actually has done the experiment, seen the results of the self-sorted social trial. Don't really understand your hate on this one.

          1. Roberta   3 years ago

            Isn't passing the baby around part of giving their immune system some experience and exercise?

            By the end of 3 days most of the colostrum immunoglobulin bonus from breast feeding will have passed, although Mom may continue to have some colostrum in her milk for a week.

          2. Cronut   3 years ago

            There are tons of reasons why women choose to formula feed. Breastfeeding isn't always ideal for everyone. And the "Breast is Best" crowd can be pretty aggressive and judgemental.

            If they're getting free formula, they're probably low income. Which means they may have some real concerns about the sustainability of breastfeeding for them if they have to go back to work soon.

            The genetal tone and attitude that they're just dumb for not listening is what I find bothersome, especially from pediatricians.

            1. Zeb   3 years ago

              Sure, but informing them that, all else being equal, breast feeding is better seems like exactly what a pediatrician should do.

    5. Eeyore   3 years ago

      You can't feed your kids, but at least you will be able to get them a covid jab soon. Priorities.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Hey, let’s just add some vitamins and nutrients to the vax, and raise the next generation on that!

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Pfi$er is probably on it already.

  2. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    U.S. officials could have made such shortages less likely by approving baby formula that is widely available in Europe...

    But the wine content is too high.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Whine content?

      1. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

        I THOUGHT OF THAT PUN BUT REJECTED IT

    2. Ronbback   3 years ago

      or if manufactures didn't buy up all the competition. another i don't know if that is true

  3. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Trusting the scientific community and expert consensus is now an explicitly partisan issue...

    THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      "Why don't they trust us after we inadvertently created a pandemic and then lied to them about it for years while seeking increasingly authoritarian control over their everyday lives?"

      1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        I know, right?

        These people have no self-awareness whatsoever.

        1. HorseConch   3 years ago

          I like how the democratic love for it went off the charts. "Science" is without a doubt the religion of the left. No way a poll of Republicans results in 65% having absolute belief in a religion. All but the most fervent are in the least bit skeptical. The fact that 2/3 of democrats are that confident in what they're fed isn't a positive thing.

          1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

            They wouldn’t know actual Science if it bit them in the ass(which it often will)

            1. DesigNate   3 years ago

              See: Tony.

    2. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      I couldn't help but notice that a third of democrats are missing in action on that graph.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        Killed by MAGA types who refused to wear masks.

        1. JesseAz   3 years ago

          It is Ultra MAGA now. Didn't you get the memo?

          1. Nardz   3 years ago

            What happened to dark MAGA?
            I liked that one

            1. R Mac   3 years ago

              To close to black MAGA.

    3. Overt   3 years ago

      "THROUGH NO FAULT OF THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY"

      Exactly. And it is hilarious how tone deaf Soave sounds here.

      "As both the article and the tweet make clear, the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend."

      1) First, Soave's characterization of the Republican Party is bullshit here. Less than 35% of Republicans "Have a great deal of trust" in the scientific community. I wonder, does Soave have a great deal of trust? That isn't the same as being "hostile to scientific expertise".

      Indeed, if I believe the "Scientific Community" has largely been captured by vocal activists, that doesn't make me hostile to "Scientific expertise". It is a specific complaint about people who will insist that I need to shelter in place for weeks until RACISM! makes gathering in crowds ok. It is a specific complaint how the "community" seems to manufacture "consensus" with the help of well connected individuals who circulate letters claiming that "everyone agrees" the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory is racist.

      2) It is noteworthy that a majority of INDEPENDENTS don't have a great deal of trust in the scientific community. So are Independents also "Hostile to scientific expertise"? Or could it be that this authoritarian faith in The Science! (tm) is a unique problem for the Democrats?

      3) And for that matter, I think it is pretty telling that this graph seems to end in 2020 or 2021. Have these numbers changed over the last year of people like Fauci beclowning themselves further?

      2) Indeed, I spent about 10 minutes searching around on FiveThirtyEight in an attempt to find the source of that graph, and I cannot locate it. What specific questions were being asked? What dates were used? When was the latest data used?

      It is quite striking to me that Rico and ENB continue to formulate their morning linx with whatever pond-scum has floated to the top of their Liberal-dominated swamp of blue-check twitteratti. If they want to understand why increasingly no one takes libertarians serious, this is probably it.

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        There's no x-axis on the graph, but it seems to be a recent phenomenon. I can't quite put my finger on why suddenly there is a gap beyond the previous 5%. The amazing thing is that democrats trust skyrocketed in a period of getting assfucked by the scientific community.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          If you go to the actual twitter image, you will see there are years annotating the x axis. But:

          1) There are not enough data points to measure 1973 - 2021 (as the subtitle of the graph indicates). There are only 34 data points, for 48 years or so.

          2) The data points don't exactly line up with the years either.

          1. Roberta   3 years ago

            It's probably from one of the major polling firms like Gallup, which don't necessarily ask the same question every year. Point #2 may be from whoever's plotting it trying to line it up with the month of the year in which it was asked, which can vary a lot.

            I find the point-to-point Lobagola fluctuation interesting, but more interesting is, what was going on in the late 1970s that made the Republicans so credulous and the Democrats so skeptical about scientific experts?

            1. Overt   3 years ago

              The 70s was the rise of environmentalism, which was a radical rejection of the previous 30 years worth of scientific progress- including nuclear, aggriculture, urban development, and even the space race. All these things were being viewed as suspect.

              1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

                Sure, but I also noticed a rather sharp drop in Democrat numbers from the late 80s to early 90s. I can't think of anything that might correlate with that other than the AIDS epidemic; sure you had greenies at the time, but they were mostly of the "hey, it's gotta be natural, maaaaaaaaan" types.

        2. Vernon Depner   3 years ago

          The amazing thing is that democrats trust skyrocketed in a period of getting assfucked by the scientific community.

          Amazing? They're just getting what they always say they want. What would be amazing would be Democrats suddenly insisting on individual rights and choices.

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Well said, Overt.

        These two points of yours should be reiterated:
        1) the "Scientific Community" has largely been captured by vocal activists...
        2) It is noteworthy that a majority of INDEPENDENTS don't have a great deal of trust in the scientific community.

        Also, I "trust" the scientific method far more than I trust most things. But I do not necessarily trust the people who publicly identify as "scientists" and demand respect as voices of authority, and I really don't trust scientific journalism. Scientific journalism in particular is absolutely awful.

        I'm smart enough to understand most published papers (outside of physics) and if they're on even mildly controversial topics, the popular media invariably takes them out of context. And it's these terrible misrepresentations that the Democrats soak up like sponges from places like IFLScience or the WaPo.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Agree with all in this thread. Despite Fauci’s claim, he is not science. He is a bureaucrat who lied to us repeatedly for personal and political reasons.

          There is no such thing as “The Science”, and anyone using the term is either stupid or lying to you.

          1. B G   3 years ago

            Anyone who says the "science is settled" is either talking about a very narrow and objectively provable topic (such as the existence of gravity), or doesn't understand how science really works. Anyone who thinks that "masks save lives", or thinks GMOs are dangerous, or that RoundUp has a proven causal relationship to any chronic malady, doesn't understand what it means to be "following the data".

            Sort of like anyone who supports vape bans, soda size restrictions, or Covid vax mandates (especailly after the data has proven those vaccines don't stop, and might not significantly slow transmission) doesn't really believe in "bodily autonomy". Or those who want to require "vaccine passports" don't really believe in a measurable "right to privacy", and those who want to deny access to healthcare based on any individual medical choice don't actually believe that "health care is a basic human right".

            Is it possible that the reason that "belief in science" has become so much more partisan is because the phrase "believe in science" has a meaning in leftist newspeak that has no meaningful connection to the intellectual concept of Science (but likely has a strong connection to an individual named Anthony Fauci M.D.). When Dems/Leftists see that question, it doesn't mean what independents or actual (AKA "classical") Liberal thinkers take the question to mean?

        2. Roberta   3 years ago

          Journalism in general is awful, it's just that scientific issues give your best chance to check on them independently.

        3. A Thinking Mind   3 years ago

          Well I don’t “trust” science because that’s not science works. You don’t have to operate on trust. Science is about evidence. If you’re asking me to trust anything scientific, you’re conceding you can’t prove it to me.

          Gather evidence, show it to me. No trust required. A person Telling you to trust the science is no scientist.

          1. American Mongrel   3 years ago

            Pretty sure a key feature of science is others not trusting it. That's why experiments have to be repeatable.
            There isn't a single climate science experiment in existence, let alone one that can be repeated. Models aren't experiments.
            I'd love to see the 1000 years of data points that backs up their reliance on ice cores. Especi fucking ly as it relates to *global* climate.

      3. JimboJr   3 years ago

        "So are Independents also "Hostile to scientific expertise"? Or could it be that this authoritarian faith in The Science! (tm) is a unique problem for the Democrats?"

        Exactly this, you would think this would be the actual take from a libertarian perspective.

        "2/3 of democrats willing to blindly trust consistently wrong "science" official from the govt, so long as said official is in the good graces of the party" would be the actual take

      4. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        Democrats don't trust science, they trust "scientism" and that gets them tagged as "trusting the scientific community".

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          Look at one of the responses--"Even 65% is preposterously low."

          "Science" has clearly become a religion for otherwise irreligious people.

    4. BigT   3 years ago

      "Those who distrust vaccines, science and expertise aren't doing so necessarily because they have a knowledge gap or a misunderstanding," wrote FiveThirtyEight's Monica Potts. "Distrusting experts is part of their identity."

      “Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” said Richard Feynman. Feynman had a Nobel prize in physics.

      I’ll go with Feynman on this one.

      1. Ignore me!   3 years ago

        Does the second sentence quoted from Potts even necessarily follow from the first?

    5. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

      It also doesn't state how they describe science. Most pop science is complete bullshit, but you see it quoted a lot by the left. I wonder how many of those 65% are going to the peer reviewed literature as opposed to reading the NYT and WaPo for their poor, often inaccurate, science journalism. Most science journalists have no idea what they are reporting, often don't read the actual papers and are basing their reports on a press release written by a public affairs office to make a big splash.

      Also, just a minor point but in science healthy skepticism isn't a bad thing. Blind allegiance is a bad thing and leads to erroneous conclusions.

      1. American Mongrel   3 years ago

        Skepticism is required in science. You can't prove a theory holds up if no one tries to to break it.

  4. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Those who distrust vaccines, science and expertise aren't doing so necessarily because they have a knowledge gap or a misunderstanding...

    Perhaps even the opposite.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Hey, Science! has nothing to do with skepticism and independent thinking.

    2. BigT   3 years ago

      It's because the 2nd mosts dangerous font of misinformation was hard at work misleading them.

      https://unherd.com/thepost/the-new-york-timess-worst-pulitzer-prize-winners/?mc_cid=3359bb0d89&mc_eid=4692eed6b1

      (the first is the US Gov, of course)

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Comic sans is the font at the forefront of disinformation.

      2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        It's really shocking when you see it all together like that. It's always been a terrible newspaper.

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Yeah, I didn’t realize so many of those stories won Pulitzer. Gives the Nobel Peace Prize a run for it’s money.

  5. Illocust   3 years ago

    Considering Florida's history with Cuban refugees. I'm shocked it's not already a mandatory part of Floridian education to cover the history of communists victims.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Keep that disinformation at home, you Cuban fascists! You Venezuelans, too!

  6. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    ...the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend.

    Heretics whose souls won't go to science heaven.

    1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Why is it worrying?

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Because their levels of distrust are as great as Democrats and Independents were in the 70's and 80's?... I guess... I don't know...

        What's more interesting isn't that the Republicans trust in people who claim to speak from authority has dropped, but that Democrats' has skyrocketed. That shows a striking tendency towards Top Men and authoritarianism.

        1. Yatusabes   3 years ago

          That shows a striking tendency towards Top Men and authoritarianism.

          RESOLVED: Democrats are Power Bottoms who enjoy BDSM and a Sir cracking a whip

      2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

        Because if you can't trust Fauci, who can you trust?

    2. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

      You will suffer in the fiery Bunsen burner of hell.

  7. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    What? Nothing on abortion?

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Also nothing on the Ministry of Truth arresting the next liar in chief.

    2. HorseConch   3 years ago

      I'm guessing the new polls came out showing that it's a losing issue for the D's. More abortion, less cocktail parties.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        Bingo!

  8. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    mounting hostility to scientific expertise

    Blind faith in a bureaucrat with a lab coat on TV is not the same thing as "scientific expertise." Some might argue that it's the opposite.

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      Is it hostility to scientific expertise, or hostility to government agencies using selectively filtered scientific opinions to justify their authoritarian actions? I'm sure the new agency created to handle selective filtering of scientific opinions indicates it's the former, right Reason?

      1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        Remember when reason was skeptical of the gov saying they were all knowing... Rev kuck members

      2. Overt   3 years ago

        Is it even "Hostility"? The poll asks whether you have "a great deal" of confidence in the scientific community.

        I don't have a great deal of confidence. That doesn't make me hostile, just realistic given how poorly the scientific community has actually performed over the last 3 years or so.

        1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

          Good point. I just assumed Hostility meant "insufficiently obedient".

        2. soldiermedic76   3 years ago

          Also,science covers a huge field. I have confidence in most biology papers, less so in climate or social sciences, and almost none in the CDC. Most physics papers are probably solid, although I am not well enough educated in that particular field to make as informed an opinion. I find most agriculture, range science and animal science research to be well grounded, and have confidence in it. It also depends on the scientists reputation, past publications, the quality of research, how closely it agrees with established scientific knowledge, and if it differs dramatically, how well does the data support their conclusions, how solid is their methodology, what is their funding sources, how fantastic (in the traditional definition) are their findings, the journal and it's reputation etc. Just blanket stating that I have confidence in something as large as science is a meaningless statement. I find a lot of problems, especially confirmation bias and p mining, in social sciences, so I rarely have much confidence in their work. I also am well aware of the publication bias, which is especially pervasive in climate change and social sciences, that reduces publications of papers that run contrary to the zeitgeist, even when the papers are well conducted, and the bias against publishing negative results. Given all together, I would say my confidence in the general term science is neutral.

    2. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      I AM THE SCIENCE!

      1. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

        Hi Science.
        I'm Skepticism.

    3. Zeb   3 years ago

      Yeah, hostility not to expertise but to "experts" (those are definitely scare quotes). Anyone who trusts the official, government and media approved "experts" at this point is a dope.

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        And by dope we mean frightened progressive snowflake who demands a socialist nanny state.

        1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

          By dope we mean someone who trusts that people with power don't have other motives. Remember Saddam's non-existent chemical weapons stockpile? That wasn't progressives demanding a nanny state. That was Republicans demanding war.

          1. Zeb   3 years ago

            Yup. Progressives have been the worst during all the covid stuff, but the phenomenon is definitely something that the American right is not immune to.

            1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              Don't say that too loud lest you be accused of BOAF SIDEZ ing.

              1. R Mac   3 years ago

                Or maybe Zeb doesn’t have to worry about such things because he’s a well respected commentator, and not a hypocritical asshole that plays the victim?

                1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  Thank you for proving that you judge what is said not based upon what is said, but upon who said it.

                  No principles whatsoever.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Or zeb doesn't have the history of thread shitting you do. And argues honestly.

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Keep talking about me instead of what was said. If you talked about principles and ideas people would think your account has been hijacked.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      What was said you want me to respond to? I responded to your post about you being a victim. I have said many things on other topics. So what do you want me to respond to? What itch do you need filled?

                    3. Marshal   3 years ago

                      sarcasmic
                      May.10.2022 at 12:16 pm
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      Keep talking about me instead of what was said. If you talked about principles and ideas people would think your account has been hijacked.

                      Personally I love when the guy who claims he fucked someone's mother pretends he's interested in "ideas and principles" to attack people for being just like himself.

                  2. R Mac   3 years ago

                    sarcasmic
                    May.10.2022 at 12:16 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    Keep talking about me instead of what was said.

                    May.10.2022 at 11:43 am
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    Don't say that too loud lest you be accused of BOAF SIDEZ ing.

                    We’re specifically addressing what was said. And it was victim seeking bullshit.

              2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Man, you just have to rush to victimhood even preemptively.

              3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Right on cue...

                1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Does this mean I'm muted again???

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Yeah, you wish you could shit on all my posts without me refuting your lies. Sorry, but those days are over.

                    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

                      The muting experiment failed.

                    2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      If you were conceived before 1973 you would have been aborted.

                    3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      How is posting the past comments and links to them you deny making lying about you?

                    4. R Mac   3 years ago

                      Well that went about as well as when Mike Liarson stole my handle to teach a moral lesson then, didn’t it?

                    5. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      "How is posting the past comments and links to them you deny making lying about you?"

                      Because what you post is irrelevant, taken out of context, or an obvious jest taken seriously. It's an attempt to claim I said something I did not say. That's what makes it a lie.

                      Same as when you say "sarc didn't say anything about this! So telling! This is what he must have really meant being that he didn't say anything at all so I'm going to make stuff up!"

                      You couldn't argue yourself out of a wet paper bag without using dishonest tactics to put people on the defensive for things that have nothing to do with the actual debate.

                    6. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      I post your statements, what you call them, about your hypocrisy. They aren't out of context dummy. Just because you regret making a comment because it exposes your hypocrisy doesn't mean it is out of context.

                2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  I also like the terminology you used. As it is admitting you tried to start shit by providing the cue.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Call me Pavlov. I'll call you dog.

                    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

                      Ideas!

                    2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Keep barking.

                    3. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Except youre not.

                      You are admitting to starting shit for no reason but always deny you do that. It amuses me with how often you expose yourself.

                    4. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Shorter JesseAz: whoof whoof!

                    5. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      accompanied by lots of drool

                    6. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      You seem angry today. And are the only one throwing around idiotic personal attacks.

                      Are you okay? What happened? Lose your job? Run out of vodka?

          2. DesigNate   3 years ago

            Bush the lesser was a progressive. That’s the whole point of “compassionate conservativism”.

    4. Cronut   3 years ago

      "As both the article and the tweet make clear, the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend."

      Yes, this is the trend we should be worried about. Not the strict narrative control around hot-button scientific issues like COVID, climate change, and "gender affirming health care."

      1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        OK, we'll count you in the "hostile" category.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          Should I pack a bag for when the DGB comes for me? I was just assuming they'll give me what I need.

          1. Griffin3   3 years ago

            Good and hard.

          2. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

            As a bad showtune parody

          3. Agammamon   3 years ago

            No Comrade, they will have everything you need at the camp.

            1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

              Leave your jewelry in the lockers.

              1. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

                And now step into these gas...er...showers.

    5. R Mac   3 years ago

      I like how Haircut threw in lack of faith in climate change as part of what makes it so concerning.

    6. Eeyore   3 years ago

      The self proclaimed experts who have letterally never been right about anything? Yeah, fuck those cunts.

  9. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    It poses serious social problems, from vaccinating large numbers of Americans to blunting the ill effects of climate change.

    Pharmaceutical and green energy bottom lines hardest hit.

  10. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    "Stocks continued to plummet this week, The New York Times reports"

    I wish Reason's leading economics expert would return to his regular commenting schedule. He'd tell you how wrong this is.

    But he's currently vacationing on one of the private islands he bought with the millions of dollars he's making every week in the #BidenBoom.

    #DefendBidenAtAllCosts

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      If only there was a federally sanctioned and curated cryptocurrency we could buy to share in the current success. Bidencoin, anyone?

      1. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

        I got one of those. It stumbled around and lost itself.

    2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      OBL.....Mr. Buttplug needs to start 'splaining inflation. It ain't just spittin tobaccy.

      1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

        My guess is he'd just spam HAPERINFLATION every time someone suggests the i-word is a real issue. Because some ideas are so absurd they don't deserve a detailed response.

        1. American Mongrel   3 years ago

          You forgot to switch OBL.

    3. R Mac   3 years ago

      He must have cashed out all that bitcoin at just the right time. Such an economic genius.

  11. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Democratic trust in science has increased 30 full percentage points...

    All because Donald Trump refused to wear a mask.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Just doing what Fauci asked.

    2. Eeyore   3 years ago

      The trust is so high they decided to get rid of the scientific method. It was inconvenient and time consuming.

      1. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

        Yes, it is much faster to just go from hypothesis straight to conclusion.

    3. Roberta   3 years ago

      It probably helped that Rand Paul, M.D. refused to get vaccinated after having been infected by the disease.

  12. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

    Trusting the science is now an aspect of the Team Blue personality

    Says the party who unironically created the "pregnant man" emoji.

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Emoji-science denier!

    2. R Mac   3 years ago

      That’s different, racist!

    3. Eeyore   3 years ago

      I thought that was the Bill Gates with metabolic disorder emoji.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Elon Musk approves this message.

    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      And apparently need a biologist to help them figure out what a woman is (and at what point a fetus becomes a baby).

  13. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Stocks continued to plummet this week...

    You thought you were going to escape the Great Reset.

  14. Moonrocks   3 years ago

    The U.S. Baby Formula Shortage Is the FDA's Fault

    Trusting the scientific community and expert consensus is now an explicitly partisan issue

    Which should I believe?

    1. Overt   3 years ago

      This is what makes the poll so meaningless. "Scientific Community" has become a shibboleth of whatever mushy nonsense people want to create in order to align with the right Team.

      In this context, I bet Soave would claim that he has faith in the scientific community. But when you point out the FDA, or CDC with their shitty mask guidelines, or other expert organizations that EVEN HE complains about, Soave will hem and haw about how that doesn't actually represent the scientific community. Meanwhile, that is EXACTLY what a Republican references when they explain their lack of Faith.

      So this all comes down to "Do I want to identify with team Blue or Team Red".

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        It’s almost as if Reason has an official, yet unnamed, narrative they’re going to push between now and the midterms.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          I think it is far more banal and shallow than that.

          Soave spends every day around liberals. He reads their newspapers. He follows their tweets and twits. He hates conservatives.

          The narrative he has seen the past couple days is a vague, poorly sourced picture that his liberal friends are passing around. He hasn't thought clearly about this. He hasn't questioned what it means. He is just reacting like every other Twitter monkey does when the trending electrode is inserted into his lizard brain.

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            I’m sure that’s part of it. But is sure seems to me there is an overriding narrative of anti-Republican reporting going on. Repeated articles attacking MTG and her ilk, including claiming she went to a white nationalist conference, that actually had black and Asian speakers. Several examples over the last month of not including the (D) after politicians names when criticizing them. The Tweet last week about the anonymous source claiming how the horrible Republicans will abuse congressional hearings if they take back the house while crickets about the unconstitutional 1/6 committee.

            Maybe I’m wrong and it’s just their biases, but I’ve seen a definite increase in it starting a couple months ago, and growing.

            Remember before 2020, most of the criticism was for Trump, with the excuse being he’s the one actually in power. Well now Democrats are in power, and we’re seeing a lot more criticism of what Republicans will do than we did of what Democrats would do. And what the Democrats are doing is clearly a much bigger threat to individual liberty.

          2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

            Eh, I'm willing to give Robby the benefit of the doubt here for a couple of reasons.

            --I don't think he hates conservatives. He wouldn't have questioned the dumb Rolling Stone UVa rape article, or watched the whole Nick Sandmann video and provided a sympathetic writeup in the aftermath that largely took his side, if that was the case. Nor would he write about how completely unhinged college leftists act. His "to be sures" seem a lot more rooted in class distaste than actual hatred of conservative political views.
            -The 538 tweet is something that's right in his wheelhouse--documenting the partisan divide and how that influences "both sidez." At a magazine that's mostly devoted to cultural and economic commentary, he's one of the few staff members there who operates like a real, actual journalist.

            With that said, he would benefit from getting the fuck off of Twitter, but that's a given for most of the journalist industry.

  15. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will require students to learn about "victims of communism."

    They need to learn about the beneficiaries, too.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      There are already enough biographies of Stalin - - - - - -

    2. Overt   3 years ago

      Sounds good to me.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Robbie made no judgement about the news. I’d be curious what it is.

        1. Overt   3 years ago

          I don't think he is a fan, because he doesn't like Governors dictating this shit in schools.

          Truth be told, I don't either.

          But we are fighting a fire here. An insidious left has infiltrated these schools for the past 20 years and the right is now waking up and trying to combat it however they can.

          DeSantis SHOULD be working to break this monopoly on child-indoctrination. It is impractical for the Right to micromanage millions of teachers who collectively hate capitalism and want to push a bunch of nonsense. I agree that it should be a primary goal to counter these subversive messages, because they are wholly incompatible with a free nation.

          So DeSantis may be stopping the bleeding, but if he expects to win this battle by using the state to make these brute force adjustments to the schools, he is crazy. He needs to be attacking the SYSTEM that allows these leftists to subvert our children. That means breaking the public school system and privatizing it- as well as wresting control specifically from leftists.

  16. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    Vijaya Gadde, Twitter's top lawyer, thinks her days at the company are numbered.

    Apartheid strikes again.

  17. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    "Karine Jean-Pierre, the incoming White House press secretary, once committed the cardinal sin of spreading misinformation…about Georgia's 2018 gubernatorial election."

    FALSE EQUIVALENCE

    When Democrats claim elections were stolen, it's not just sour grapes. It's because they carefully examined all the evidence and uncovered disturbing irregularities. Like how RUSSIA HACKED THE ELECTION in 2016.

    #ElectionsAreOnlyLegitimateWhenDemocratsWin

    1. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

      You forgot to mention how the DNC paid 2.9 million Mexicans to cross the border and vote for a White women (gross!) on Election Day just so Donald Trump would lose the popular vote. That’s what open borders get you— Mexican music on the radio and election fraud.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Sad shrike. You doing okay?

        1. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

          Of course I’m not ok. Did you watch the 2020 Election results and all the election fraud. You tell me why— other than fraud that Fulton County, Alabama would vote 76% Biden. There’s only one reason possible. Somebody— probably Black but not gay— was stuffing ballot boxes. I’ve watched 2000 Mules by Dinedh D’Souza… he’s got the video!

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            If you'd actually watched 2000 Mules your boss would probably can your ass.

          2. JesseAz   3 years ago

            What broke you? Even CNN turning against your cherished belief in Biden?

  18. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    The new White House Secretary has spread very serious doubts about the legitimacy of American democracy.

    She's ticking all the right boxes for a party that's about to be slaughtered in an upcoming election cycle.

  19. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    The Washington Post has won a Pulitzer Prize for its coverage last year of the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

    And you thought Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was signaling at its pinnacle.

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      That is to balance out the NYT 1619 fabrications.

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      It goes right next to the awards won for trump russia reporting. Sullum is pissed off he wasn't even nominated for his 50 articles.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Come on Jesse! It was way more than 50.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          He was obviously going for quantity over quality.

    3. American Mongrel   3 years ago

      Made the mistake of watching the new Star Trek last night. Apparently trumpists/January 6th are to be the direct cause of the eugenics wars.

  20. Illocust   3 years ago

    Also, high inflation and stocks plummeting. We're going to be in for a lot of pain.

    1. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

      All the smart money is in spittin tobaccy.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Rig count!

    2. Eeyore   3 years ago

      ...and low interest rates. Makes you nostalgic for the Carter years.

  21. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

    WTF?

    I don't normally follow sports unless there's a transwoman I can root for. But apparently there was an important boxing match this weekend. And not only was a Russian boxer allowed to compete ......... he was allowed to win?

    Dmitry Bivol scores stunning unanimous decision victory over Canelo Alvarez in Las Vegas

    A Russian beat a Mexican. That's totally unacceptable from a Koch / Reason libertarian perspective. If the Mexican was still conscious at the final bell he should have been awarded the victory.

    #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussianAthletes

    1. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

      I thought it was a white supremacy thing.....

      #libertariansrootingforthebrownguyandnotthewhiteguy

    2. Agammamon   3 years ago

      But was it a light skinned Mexican or a dark skinned one?

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        He's very light skinned, and a ginger. Like Beto O'Rourke, Canelo Alvarez is probably actually Jacob O'Reilley, but the name is way more hispanic.

        1. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          Or light skinned like Larry elder

  22. Fist of Etiquette   3 years ago

    When asked about the shortages, Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary...

    ...said, "Kinda makes you think twice about being a mother at all, doesn't it?"

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Mothers have no need for formula.

      1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

        Sure, but what about other birthing persons?

      2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

        I sense some gender-body bias.

        1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

          No bias at all; science.
          Men are men, women are women.

    2. Agammamon   3 years ago

      *Please!*. 'Birthing person'.

      1. Agammamon   3 years ago

        "Not all mother's lactate"

        1. HorseConch   3 years ago

          The chest feeders do.

  23. Jerryskids   3 years ago

    Trusting the science is as meaningful as disbelieving disinformation. I'm sure there are books explaining how the healing powers of crystals work, so I guess that's science and I'm a dirty non-believer for doubting it?

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      If your disbelief differentially challenges women, POCs, or retarded people, you may have committed science crime.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        Do we still worry about retarded people? I thought we were getting rid of them with abortion.

        1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

          Margaret Sanger, is that you?

          1. Cronut   3 years ago

            We've managed to get enough blacks to have abortions to keep the population down. There are still too many retards, though. We need to work harder on that.

            1. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

              Sterilize progressives.

  24. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

    You know what solves the baby formula problem?
    Abortions.

    1. Zeb   3 years ago

      Quiet you. We've had enough A-word threads in the last week.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        They are still way behind trump insurrection article counts.

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Sullum paid for his addition with his output on that. Rich Uncle Charles was really insistent and willing to pay.

  25. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "Democratic trust in science has increased 30 full percentage points"

    But only the good, officially approved Science! that promotes equity and social justice.

  26. Zeb   3 years ago

    I wonder what exactly the question is on the "trust the science" survey.
    I'm going to guess that climate change stuff is probably the biggest factor in the divergence. That was probably the first area of science to get completely politicized and got the left on their "I fucking love science" kick. Of course most people don't even really know what science is.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      of course this recent trend is because we aren't talking about actual science, but DNC expert certified "the science".

      Dems trust it because they are actively manufacturing it and using it to control people under the guise of good intentions and responsibility. R's dont trust it because they know these "experts" are doing exactly that.

      Simple as that

      1. HorseConch   3 years ago

        Don't underestimate the number of them that are stupid enough to blindly trust "the science".

    2. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      Hey, science is the mystical faith affirmation provided by the mysterious priesthood that supports the political agenda developed by the mandarin elite and delivered by dear government leaders. Maybe YOU don't know what science is.

    3. Overt   3 years ago

      I spent 10 minutes looking on fivethirtyeight trying to find the source of that graphic, and couldn't locate it.

      But it is noteworthy that all it is measuring is whether you have a "great deal" of confidence in the scientific community.

      There are so many qualifications in that statement that it really becomes a rorshack test for your political sensibilities. Based on how Soave seems to think it is "hostility" to not have a "great deal" of confidence, my guess is that he would say he does have the confidence, despite the fact that he has repeatedly questioned the FDA, CDC and other members of the scientific community. But because "Eeeewww icky deplorables", he will insist that despite the fact that they constantly seem to think they can SCIENCE! their way to a better behaving human, he still trusts them.

  27. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Alec Stapp
    @AlecStapp
    Extreme polarization on “trust in science” is a recent and very troubling trend.

    It isnt trust in science, it is trust in The Science which was essentially wrong at every step for 2 years. Ignorong a century of actual science on masks, calling for lockdowns, saying racism protests weren't super spreaders, claiming the help still required masks, saying the vaccinated couldn't spread covid, saying asymptomatic people spread a virus, issuing false responses to lab leaks, saying kids wouldn't be harmed, continuing to ask for vaccines for kids at virtually no risk...

    It isnt a lack of trust in Science but a noticing of lysenkoism.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      ^ anyone with half a brain after the mess they put us through can see this is the case

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      In fact the science is so political the white house is asking to lower vaccine standards for children.

      https://justthenews.com/government/federal-agencies/under-political-pressure-fda-pledges-lower-covid-vaccine-standards-kids

      1. Eeyore   3 years ago

        Some parents have vaccinated child dysmorphya. They can't resume thier life without anxiety until they can identify themselves as parents of jabbed children.

        1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

          Munchausen-by-proxy has been a rising phenomenon in left-wing parents for about 10-15 years no.

    3. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      It's a motte and bailey. The legitimacy of the science comes from the scientific process, where the facts come from evidence and hypotheses are constantly tested against empirical data. Trust The Science means to take the one particular Scientist that the state approves of at his word and that any dissenting opinion is by definition not Science.

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        What has science become if we allow dissent!

      2. JimboJr   3 years ago

        Ya and this also bleeds into this whole trend of calling anything they want control over "settled science"

        Vaccines are "settled"
        Climate is "settled"

        Science is quite literally a field based on challenging previous results and even many times verified hypotheses and seeing if the results hold. Calling something as multivariate and debated as climate "settled" is antithetical to the definition of science.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          Anytime someone says, "the science is settled," I immediately stop talking to them because they are an idiot.

          1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            That phrase is factually anti-science and I laugh whenever I hear it.

          2. Marshal   3 years ago

            Unfortunately they take this to mean they won the debate. This is how "you're denying my lived experience" became established in academia. Non-leftists understood this as an idiot-marker and simply ignored anyone saying it. Now these people run the schools (and NGOs. and government agencies) and ensure this claim wins all debates.

          3. Eeyore   3 years ago

            My response is that we can stop funding it. If it is settled then there is nothing left to learn. Time to fire all of the climate scientists.

        2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

          What happened to the days of 1000 experiments cannot prove me right but one experiment can prove me wrong

        3. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

          Settled until they need to move the goalposts again, then 'science is always shifting', but then when they decide on a new stance, SCIENCE IS SETTLED AGAIN! Until they need to move the goalposts again.......

    4. Griffin3   3 years ago

      Ignoring that there was no super-spreader event after the super bowl, ignoring that spring break in south florida was a super-spreader event, but young people were barely affected, ignoring that nothing happened after Florida and Texas opened up after dire predictions to the worse ...

      Texas drops all covid measures, it's going to cause a huge covid wave. Wait, nothing happened. I guess our hypothesis was wrong. That is the very definition of small-s science.

  28. Weigel's Cock Ring   3 years ago

    How is everyone out there digging those prices at the gas pump these last few days?

    Maybe Dipshit Dave Weigel isn't around because he's still out there in the fields counting the number of active rigs to prove Biden is pumping more oil than anyone ever?

    1. OpenBordersLiberal-tarian   3 years ago

      Mr. Buttplug cannot post as frequently these days because his new full time job is spending the obscene piles of money he's making in this fantastic economy.

      He's probably test driving a Ferrari right now.

      #BestEconomyEver

      1. JesseAz   3 years ago

        Electric ferrari obviously.

    2. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

      During his presser today, Biden stated he's pumping more oil than Trump in his first year. He doesn't seem to realize that's not the home run he thinks it is.

  29. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "As both the article and the tweet make clear, the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend. It poses serious social problems, from vaccinating large numbers of Americans to blunting the ill effects of climate change."

    That's right, very serious problems, especially for those pushing progressive narratives and submission to government.

    Fuck you, Robby.

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      The funniest part is that this comes right after Robby's hostility to the expertise of the FDA.

    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

      I just want to know when the narrative changed to government scientists being the cream of the crop.

      1. Ronbback   3 years ago

        good scientist work at corporations, decent scientist work at universities and shitty scientist work for the government

    3. Zeb   3 years ago

      Well, it does pose a problem. But the problem isn't that some aren't trusting the experts, it's that the experts aren't worthy of trust.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        There could be a "boy who cried wolf" effect. Once you've been lied to enough, even when they say the truth you don't trust them.

        1. Zeb   3 years ago

          And even when they aren't outright lying, there are supposed experts who get things wrong all the time. And people still listen to them. Because they're on TV or whatever and act like they are experts.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            Power means never admitting to being wrong. That's why I never trust "experts" with power.

            Part of being an expert is being wrong and changing course. You acknowledge when someone else has a better idea or proves you to be incorrect.

            That doesn't happen once power is involved. Power hinges upon being godlike. Infallible. Instilling faith. Once someone with power admits to being wrong, well what else were they wrong about? Faith is gone. Power evaporates.

  30. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Another 40 billion for Ukraine...

    War has been profitable for that country.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-asks-congress-to-fast-track-nearly-40-billion-in-vital-ukraine-aid

    1. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

      And the world. If each broken window adds $100 to the global economy...

  31. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "The world's most valuable cryptocurrency was down 10% Monday after plunging again over the weekend. Bitcoin prices have now plummeted nearly 20% in the past week. At a price of just below $31,000, bitcoin is more than 50% below its record high of near $69,000 from late last year and at its lowest point since July 2021."

    When is cryptocurrency not like currency?

  32. JesseAz   3 years ago

    While shrike continues to defend biden, not even CNN is buying the white house claims of reducing the deficit. Noting it would have decreased 900 billion if not for Biden's spending asks.

    https://www.dailywire.com/news/reversal-of-reality-cnn-fact-checker-isnt-buying-bidens-claim-that-he-reduced-the-deficit

    1. Weigel's Cock Ring   3 years ago

      It looks to me like the Treasury Department may be pre-emptively engaging in their accounting gimmicks with the national debt. This is extremely unusual, because to the best of my knowledge they've never done this before except when we've been right up against the debt ceiling, which we're not right now.

      I say this because the debt basically hasn't increased at all in 40 days, which in this day and age is absolutely impossible without their trickery and bullshit.

      1. Cyto   3 years ago

        Also... Inflating your way out of debt is really not the best approach....

  33. Earth-based Human Skeptic   3 years ago

    "Karine Jean-Pierre, the incoming White House press secretary, once committed the cardinal sin of spreading misinformation"

    But her female blackness absolves her of wrong-doing. (And, regarding her new job, feature, not bug.)

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      misinformation is a racist problem that stems from white privilege and white supremacy.

      So she's good

    2. Cronut   3 years ago

      She's also a lesbian. Which means nothing she does is ever wrong.

      She was just centering her Blackness and expressing her Lived Experience, which is authentic truth. Believe women. Even when they say insane shit.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        "Which means nothing she does is ever wrong."

        Unless she doesn't want to fuck trans women with penises. Then we have to go to the Intersectionality Score Chart to find out who's right.

        You can find the score chart in Teen Vogue, in the "quizzes" section.

      2. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

        I believe Karine Jean-Pierre says insane shit. 🙂

      3. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        Believe all women, except Terra Reid, and Ashley Biden. Those lying whors were asking for it

      4. R Mac   3 years ago

        Is her wife hot? Because if she’s the ugly one, that’d be worth watching.

        1. Cronut   3 years ago

          Her wife looks like a lesbian.

          1. Smack Daddy   3 years ago

            So...... not hot?

      5. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Just a quick reminder that it was black dykes who came up with critical race theory.

  34. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Memos show FBI went into panic mode after Trump found out and tweeted about them spying on his campaign.

    https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/doj-notes-show-fbis-panic-after-trump-tweet-accusing-obama-wire-tapping

    1. R Mac   3 years ago

      Local story.

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Nothing of interest from a Libertarian magazine.

  35. JesseAz   3 years ago

    After a second pro life center is attacked in Portland dems double down:

    Lori Lightfoot
    @LoriLightfoot
    ·
    May 9, 2022
    To my friends in the LGBTQ+ community—the Supreme Court is coming for us next. This moment has to be a call to arms.
    Lori Lightfoot
    @LoriLightfoot
    We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!

    Doj continues to ignore an explicit law making it illegal to protest at the homes of judges in order to intimidate them.

    1. Moonrocks   3 years ago

      We will not surrender our rights without a fight—a fight to victory!

      That sounds like Insurrection.

      1. Cronut   3 years ago

        "Mayor Lightfoot should have known that saying, 'This moment has to be a call to arms,' could be seen as a call to violence, so she should be held accountable for what happened next."

        -Jacob Sullum

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Hahahahahahahahaha!

    2. Griffin3   3 years ago

      So why is the local Virginia police forces, and county police forces, ignoring the Virginia state law that says that it is illegal to protest on residential streets? If I was someone else living on those streets, I would be screaming at the cops to enforce the black letter law.

      1. Griffin3   3 years ago

        Link to law: § 18.2-419. Picketing or disrupting tranquility of home.

        Oooh. Allows awarding of "damages, including punitive damages." Fun!

        1. R Mac   3 years ago

          Funny thing about laws in a banana republic, they don’t apply to the party in power.

  36. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Hormone blockers and other transgender practices is the new cash cow for Planned Parenthood, often working with schools without informing parents.

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/10/planned-parenthood-profits-big-from-getting-kids-hooked-on-transgender-hormones-through-the-school-to-clinic-pipeline/

    1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      They're trying to expand their market by getting "men" to have abortions, too.

  37. JesseAz   3 years ago

    The new WH press secretary believes 2016 was stolen and the 2018 Ga governors race was as well. I expect at least 1 sullum article on this post haste.

    https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/09/bidens-new-press-secretary-is-a-stolen-election-conspiracy-theorist-who-called-trump-an-illegitimate-president/

    1. Cronut   3 years ago

      Be careful what you wish for. It'll be a post that explains clearly how this is different and Trump started an INSURRECTION.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        TeenReason Guide to Insurrection Incitement

        Not Insurrection
        "there will be blood in the streets”
        “Who says protests have to be peaceful“
        “There needs to be unrest in the streets”
        “Protesters should not give up”
        “I just don’t know why they aren’t uprising all over this country“
        “You get out and create a crowd and you push back on them, tell them they are not welcome“

        Deadly Insurrection
        “Go home with love and peace, remember this day forever“

        1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

          This cannot be repeated enough. Thx ML for keeping a list.

          Reason should be embarrassed, but they're progressives so they are fighting for the cause/narrative.

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Just one?

      He's good for at least 134 in under three months.

  38. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    Ex-porn star Lisa Ann wants Elon Musk to ban X-rated content on Twitter

    I have to say I agree. Free speech for this gay and Black man who is GOP Proud is about shoveling horse paste up your ass— not about shoveling horse paste up your icky and smelly vagina. Free speech has its limits.

    1. Super Scary   3 years ago

      Still on the "horse paste" narrative grind? Keep at it boss, you're doing great.

    2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      I thought Horse Medicine was okay now because abortion?

      Maybe you should double-check with your boss, Shrike.

  39. JesseAz   3 years ago

    Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will require students to learn about "victims of communism."

    The horror.

    1. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

      well, it is horror.

    2. R Mac   3 years ago

      We have to pass the communism, to see what’s in the communism.

    3. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      It's more telling that Rico and his progressive pals find this untoward. Why?

      Isn't there some wise saying about if you don't learn from the past, you're likely to repeat it? Nah, let's just teach kids about gender fluid non-sense and butt sex.

  40. I, Woodchipper   3 years ago

    The FDA should really stop.

    There, that's more accurate.

  41. Cyrano   3 years ago

    It’s a good thing “victims of communism” is in scare quotes or I might have thought communism is bad or something.

  42. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

    The Washington Post has won the 2022 Pulitzer prize for public service journalism, for The Attack, its account of the deadly assault on the US Capitol by supporters of Donald Trump on 6 January 2021.

    WTH? It’s a sad day when the Bezos Post gets an award for reporting on the peaceful protests of Jan 6th when there is Hunter Biden’s laptop and whatever it is that’s on there (where do you think all that evidence of Democratic baby eating is, hunh?) to find out about.

    #Shame_On_The_Pullitzer_Prize

    1. JesseAz   3 years ago

      Just so terrible at this shrike.

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Yeah, lefties can't meme.

        1. Ali Akbar Alexander   3 years ago

          How about?

          #Read_The_Durham_Report

          Is that better?

          1. R Mac   3 years ago

            Nope. Still lame.

          2. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

            OBL parodies, he doesn't strawman. Until you learn the difference you're going to continue to stink at this.

            1. DesigNate   3 years ago

              He’ll never learn

  43. DRM   3 years ago

    "Trusting science is an aspect of the Team Blue personality" in the same sense that believing in the Catholic faith is part of the Joe Biden or Nancy Pelosi personality.

  44. JimboJr   3 years ago

    'Florida's Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis will require students to learn about "victims of communism."'

    Good. We hear endless guilting about how we never teach anyone anything about slavery despite that being all we fucking talk about ever.

    Yet we have people in their 20-40's unironically asking for communism (not socialism, the new trend is back to "communism really could work today).

    People absolutely have not been educated about the millions of people snuffed out by communist governments either directly or through their terrible policies.

    1. Zeb   3 years ago

      Yeah, if kids are going to learn about slavery and the Holocaust and other various evils of history (which they should), then the evils of Communism definitely belongs in there too.

      1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

        WRONG! Communists had good intentions! That makes it different!

        1. Cyto   3 years ago

          "Communism has never been tried."

          -literally every millennial communist.

          1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

            As I've said before and will say again, communism works. Show me a family and I'll show you "from each according to ability and to each according to need." You don't see toddlers being tossed out the window because they can't keep a job.
            So it works.
            Even on a tribal level it works.

            Problem is that it only works when it is voluntary. Scaling it up requires force, and that's when it fails.

            1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

              Here's an example of an idea that the trolls who shout "Ideas!" won't comment on because they lack the intelligence to talk about actual ideas and stuff.

              1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                Man, twice you've shown your desperation to be a victim.

                You doing okay?

                1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  You're talking about me, not what I said. Thank you for proving my point.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    I'm talking about your post displaying your victimhood. Do you want me to reply to the family is communism idiocy? I will if you want me to.

                    But more curios about your need to be a victim as twice you've cried out when nobody you hate was engaging with you. That's a psychotic behavior and interesting for a comment board.

                    So are you okay?

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Do you want me to reply to the family is communism idiocy? I will if you want me to.

                      Can you talk about the idea without personal attacks? I don't think you can. I think any reply will be about me as a person, not about what I said.

                    2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      And if you had an argument that wasn't personal, I'd be happy to read it. I don't mind being proven wrong.

                      I know people who would rather be wrong than be offended by someone pointing out why they're wrong. They take it personally. They say "Oh, you just want to be right! Fuck you!" when I would respond with "Thank you, I did not know that."

                    3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Silence.......

                    4. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Silence after 5 minutes huh. Lol. If you want me to point out the flaws I will.

                    5. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      You've got an opportunity here.

                    6. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      The problem isn't time. It's that you're a contrarian with a very poor intellect.

                    7. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      LOL. Man, posting that link making you look dumb on Sunday really lit a fire under you sarc.

                      Count the number of personal attacks in this thread and who is responding to arguments.

                      You are a hypocrite. Just deal with it.

                2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  When someone says something dumb I say "what you said was dumb" while you say "you are dumb."

                  That's the major difference between us. I can separate ideas from people. You cannot.

                  1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                    Cite where I've said your argument is wrong because you're an idiot. I appreciate you learning what ad hominem is finally, but all those times I called you a fucking idiot weren't said to counter your argument. It was directly calling you a fucking idiot.

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      I'm not a loser who catalogs comments from an online forum. I leave that to you.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Np youre a loser who denies he makes comments even when given direct links.

                    3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      If by that you mean I ignore irrelevant bullshit, then sure.

                    4. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      No, i mean lies about what they've said in the past, then cries about people saying you said something, so they provide, then you claim it is creepy when they cite your previous statements.

                  2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   3 years ago

                    When just about everything you say is dumb, you are dumb

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Hi Tulpa.

            2. JimboJr   3 years ago

              "Problem is that it only works when it is voluntary. Scaling it up requires force, and that's when it fails."

              Fine, but id argue (and so would everyone) that scaling it up and requiring force is the defining feature of what everyone calls communism.

              Proving something works in a vacuum is irrelevant where we breath air.

              A properly fitted N95 with no beard prevents some amount of virus particles in vitro in a perfectly controlled lab environment. Masks on the population the way they are used 99.99% of the time dont work.

              I guess my point is the "family" argument is completely irrelevant.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Fine, but id argue (and so would everyone) that scaling it up and requiring force is the defining feature of what everyone calls communism.

                I like to think that most people mean well. I don't think Communists intend to starve people. I don't think they intend for everyone to live in poverty. I think they truly mean well. They have an emotional reaction to inequality and want to fix it. They have an emotional reaction to unfairness and want to fix it.

                The problem is the disconnect between intentions and results. There's a saying about "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." That's what it means. They mean well and have good intentions, but they produce hell on earth.

                1. Zeb   3 years ago

                  Depends on who you mean by "the Communists". Most people who call themselves communists, I'd probably agree do mean well. But even there there are a lot motivated by envy and hate. Those who become leaders I'm pretty sure don't mean well. And if they do they don't last long.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Yes, there is definitely a distinction between followers of an ideology and those who use it to attain power.

                2. Overt   3 years ago

                  The problem here is that families are not communist. People are misinterpreting what they see. Families have nothing to do with communism other than some superficial similarities of slogans.

                  Yes in a family, the people with means, "Parents" give their resources to those with need, "Kids". That's about where the similarity stops. Do all citizens in the family vote to determine how the capital of the family will be deployed? By and large no, even if the parents have the kids contribute to certain decisions.

                  It is even wrong to say that families live by the whole "from those according to their means..." ethos. Are parents taking care of all the people in need, or generally only their kids? That certainly isn't communist.

                  The closer analogy is that a family is not much different than a monarchy- the parents enjoy pretty much complete control over the kids- they even have rights that the kids do not have, and they are expected to use their elevated status to care for their charges. But even that is an ill fitting analogy.

                  Families are an expression of responsibilities. Parents created these kids and so are responsible for ensuring these kids reach adulthood. In return, they get their genes and culture propagated, and potentially have someone to care for them when they are older (depending on cultural values they instill). When viewed from that lens, it is clear WHY families don't fit into the framework of communism or monarchies, because they are closer to an estate-trust relationship.

                  Probably the closest thing we have to real communism are the Israeli kibbutzes, which are generally only viable when they have a strong legal entity (like Israel) to protect them, and more generally have a capitalist market in which they can sell their products in order to fund the inefficiencies inherent within the system.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Yes in a family, the people with means, "Parents" give their resources to those with need, "Kids". That's about where the similarity stops.

                    Yeah, that's what I mean. That's the spirit of communism.

                    Are parents taking care of all the people in need, or generally only their kids?

                    Generally only the people in their commune family.

                    My point is that it works on a small scale.

                    The closer analogy is that a family is not much different than a monarchy- the parents enjoy pretty much complete control over the kids- they even have rights that the kids do not have, and they are expected to use their elevated status to care for their charges. But even that is an ill fitting analogy.

                    That's actually not too bad. I'm going to give that some thought. Thanks!

                    I still think that we are in general agreement about the broader picture and disagreeing about details.

                    1. Overt   3 years ago

                      "Yeah, that's what I mean. That's the spirit of communism."

                      But that isn't. "To each according to their needs from each according to their ability" is not the "spirit" of communism- but one of many aspects. Communism is the collective ownership and allocation of the means of production. But the "family" doesn't collectively own or distribute these things. It is owned by the parents and distributed as THEY see fit.

                      In many places, the fortunate take care of the unfortunate- that doesn't make them communist, because that isn't an aspect unique to communism.

                    2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Then maybe we're hung up on "ism"s.

                      Socialism, communism, collectivism, whatever you want to call it, has an allure because it works, or at least it can work, on a small scale.

                      But it fails when it becomes forced. That's all I'm trying to say. I don't know why it's so complicated.

                3. Cronut   3 years ago

                  Most people who call themselves communist have an emotional reaction to inequality AS IT PERTAINS TO THEMSELVES. They get angry about inequality because it results in inequality FOR THEM, not inequality in general. Most communists are motivated by the politics of envy.

                  Examples include most of the people advocating for student loan repayment. They talk about how they are personally in debt and want their own loans paid off. When someone who already paid their loans off asks about reimbursement, they get shrilling or blank stares. Forcing someone who already paid their own debt to pay off someone else's debt too is in itself inequality.

                  I don't think they're motivated by good intentions. They're motivated by envy and the same kind of greed they ascribe to capitalists.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    I still think most people are motivated by good intentions. Even those who want student loan "forgiveness." They feel that education is a basic right that everyone should have. Paying for it is a barrier. They intend for everyone who wants to college have the opportunity, regardless of ability to pay. Great intentions.
                    The results aren't so great.

            3. Griffin3   3 years ago

              Not exactly a counter-example, but there are a lot of families where communism doesn't work. Even though it is voluntary. It does work in most healthy families, but there is a buttload of broken people out there.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                True. Which furthers the case against communism backed by force.

            4. Don't look at me!   3 years ago

              Scaling it up requires force, and that's when it fails.

              That’s true. Anything that requires force is no longer voluntary.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Google tautology.

                1. R Mac   3 years ago

                  Google hypocrisy.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    Google dumbass.

                    1. R Mac   3 years ago

                      So that’s a no?

            5. JesseAz   3 years ago

              Here you go sarc.

              Your comparison of a family to a communist state is so simplistic as to be meaningless. It would be akin to saying perpetual motion can exist because in a frictionless physics example momentum can be maintained. Or saying we can clean the oceana by draining it, cleaning the rocks, and refilling it since one can do that with their fish tank.

              A few of the issues is that in your example the family gas external inputs from an external source. The parents work to bring in income to provide for the family. That is a capitalist exchange.

              So in this example you would have to exclude the external factors and claim production is solely chores or the output of labor. The problem being that government limits the labor issue by disallowing kids under 16 to work in most cases.

              Likewise parents actually exchange, often, labor of children for money when they do chores, a capitalist exchange.

              Labor is not divided often as to each by their means as parents will often work bad jobs to put their kids through school to have a better life. Parents sacrifice for their children, it is not a control of equality of production or labor. This occurs all the time.

              You've simplified your explanation of communism to so simplistic a point as to make it utterly meaningless and not expandable to a broader society while not excluding external inputs.

              You'd be better going with the tried and true hippy commute.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                That comment was more about me than what I said. Thank you for proving my point.

                1. DesigNate   3 years ago

                  Lol wut?

                2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Umm... no it wasn't.

              2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                The difference between your comments and the comments that were worth some thought was that your comment was all about me. You can't separate an idea from the person. You can't say "Your idea is wrong" or "What you said is wrong" without connecting the idea or what was said to the person. Instead you say "You are wrong, and there is something wrong with you." That is what separates people who talk about ideas from people like you.

                1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

                  As an outsider looking in it doesn't read as a personal attack, Sarc.

                  Your comparison of a family to a communist state is so simplistic as to be meaningless. is "your idea is wrong." Examples and comparisons were then provided.

                  You've simplified your explanation of communism to so simplistic a point as to make it utterly meaningless and not expandable to a broader society while not excluding external inputs. only reads as there is something wrong with you if you take it as a personal insult. It reads as a summation of why your idea is wrong.

                  The constant conflict may be clouding your ability to detach from the writing.

                  1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                    When he uses some form of "you" in every sentence I tune out. As far as I'm concerned he's arguing about me, not what I said. Maybe I'm wrong. But that's how I see it. If he could make an argument about the topic without talking about me as a person I might be willing to pay attention.

                    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

                      He's arguing against 'your' ideas and the flaws in 'your' analysis, which is what you asked for. The responses are to you and about your ideas.

                      Personal conflict history can cloud an exchange as much as personal attacks. Believe me, I have my share too.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      He's rolling. He has no idea how debates are argumentative discussions occur. He thinks it is all personal attacks and that is it.

                      Why I don't bother engaging with his once in a blue moon argument.

                    3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      The responses are to you and about your ideas.

                      Maybe, but I don't think so. Just look at every comment before and after. He may have one comment here and there that isn't personal, but those are aberrations. Accidents.

                    4. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      He has no idea how debates are argumentative discussions occur.

                      Yet I've had several on these here comments for this here article in the last several hours.

                      All I see from you is "sarc is a poo poo head!"

              3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                Try again. Try to talk about the subject without talking about me. I don't believe you can do it. Prove me wrong.

                1. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  It is a response to your arguments dummy.

                  Do you not know how debates work? One of the primary vehicles is to point out flaws in the arguments of the other person.

                  You are really not an intelligent person sarc. This is just further proof of it.

              4. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

                You'd be better going with the tried and true hippy commute.

                Commune I'm assuming.

                The hippy commune is a great example of what progressives think is a harmonious group working for the greater good. It is the thing they think our government is capable of providing with the right incentives for all. Then we can live in the true, harmonious society where all are loved, cared for and nurtured by all.

                The problem is people are people. Some work hard, others don't. The communes of the hippy days started out fine but eventually devolved and disbanded. Why? The nurturing was okay. The model of shared community helping with each other's kids worked on one level. Where it fell down was the work. Some worked, others didn't. Soon the workers resented the lazy ones taking a piece of what they the workers had worked for. They either stopped working as hard or left.

                It is like the children's tale of the grasshopper and the ant. The ants toiled, the grasshopper played. When winter and scarcity came, the ants had stored enough to weather it. Without their charity, the grasshopper would have died. Fortunately for the grasshopper, the ants were compassionate.

                Take what I work for and you will either get less work or I will go altogether. Allow me the fruits of my labor and the ability to be a part of society and I may be compassionate to the grasshoppers of the world as I choose.

                It's a basic formula. Yet so often ignored.

                1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  The hippy idea is that we're all one big family. You don't let your children starve. Why should anyone else starve? We're all in it together.

                  Of course when Johnny hits 18 and still wants to stay on the couch until three in the afternoon, communism takes a hike along with his lazy ass.

                  1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

                    Great in concept. But when the guy who is the same adult age as you, and in the same shape with similar abilities watches you toil in the gardens or butcher and defeather the chickens then sits down and enjoys the meal how long do you think you'll let him hang around?

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Exactly. That's why it (communism) works in families and in tribes. Everyone knows everyone, so the joker pulls his weight or they kick him to the curb.
                      Once it scales up to the point where shirkers cannot be identified and shamed, it fails.

                      And that's the allure. It can work. It would work if we all got along and acted like one big family or tribe, right? Wrong.

                    2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                      Yes. No family ever has deadbeat cooks in their family who end up homeless with substance abuse problems.

                      LOL.

                    3. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      Great example JesseAz. Collectivism works on a familial level because there is no force, and because shirkers can be identified. It fails when it becomes forced through government. Even when you try to insult me you prove my point.

                2. JesseAz   3 years ago

                  Yes, Commune. Almost always post with the phone, so make mistakes. Meh.

                  1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

                    Yeah, figured. Correction only to support my diatribe on communes.

                    If it was commute I would have had to rebuild the concepts around a VW van. 🙂

            6. Marshal   3 years ago

              Problem is that it only works when it is voluntary.

              "Voluntary" isn't the true trigger. The requirement for success is that the people producing are the decision makers. Even in families the conflict massively escalates as soon as this is not true even though the arrangement remains nominally voluntary.

              Note that this is exactly the problem with governmental "socialism". People want socialism so they can use politics to receive resources for consumption rather than productive work. This is the entirely of the Bernie Sanders model and why he's so popular.

              1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                The requirement for success is that the people producing are the decision makers.

                I think that's what I meant. the people involved are making decisions, hence it is voluntary.

                People want socialism so they can use politics to receive resources for consumption rather than productive work.

                Exactly. In smaller societal settings, there's a name for the group size, shirkers can be identified and shamed. In larger groups this does not happen. The people you describe are shirkers.

                1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  Furthermore, Communism (socialism, welfare, whatever) lacks shame. Shame is self regulating. Back when food stamps were paid for with property taxes, the people who used them were eyeballed in the grocery line. Now they use a plastic card. No shame. "We're all in it together" stops working when shirkers get paid by people who use force to make things "fair."

                  I think we're in agreement.

              2. Overt   3 years ago

                I don't get this notion that families are voluntary.

                My kids are not voluntary participants in my family. I'm sure they would love to not do chores, and have various other freedoms, but ultimately comes down to coercion even backed by the force of government.

                1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  You don't voluntarily take care of your kids?

                  1. Overt   3 years ago

                    So just because 2 out of 6 members of a family are in it voluntarily, it is a voluntary system?

                    1. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                      The kids didn't opt in if that's what you mean. But the people footing the bill are doing it voluntarily. Or am I missing something?

                    2. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

                      We'd like to allow 4 of those 6 members transition their gender, and we're going to do everything in our power to make sure the other two members have no say in the matter.

                2. sarcasmic   3 years ago

                  Sure there are parents who only take care of their kids because the cops will come after them if they don't, but I'd like to think that's not the norm.

              3. American Mongrel   3 years ago

                Interesting. Would a version of socialism where only the productive had decision making powers be viable?

            7. DesigNate   3 years ago

              But, like, we’re all family man. It would totally work this time, we just need to get rid of those damn wreckers.

            8. BigT   3 years ago

              Problem is that it only works when it is voluntary. Scaling it up requires force, and that's when it fails.

              Correct. It works with orders of nuns or monks as well. But they are free to leave. As a form of government it is insane.

      2. Sevo   3 years ago

        And a clear history of Walter Duranty might help kids understand the 'incorruptible' nature of the press besides.

    2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

      Seeing as socialism and communism is literally slavery they never want to bring that up

    3. Cronut   3 years ago

      We should start with a survey of how well communist government typically treat ethnic and racial minorities and gay people.

      1. Overt   3 years ago

        Then move onto their environmental records.

      2. Rev. Arthur L. Kuckland   3 years ago

        "Hitler was a slacker"
        -mao

  45. Commenter_XY   3 years ago

    When scientists became politicians, they lost our trust.

    Not really all that hard to understand and explain.

  46. Agammamon   3 years ago

    "It poses serious social problems, from vaccinating large numbers of Americans to blunting the ill effects of climate change"

    That is, of course, entirely the fault of the GOP for failing to continue to blindly follow the diktats of government bureaucrats who proved themselves wrong time after time - but demanded you submit to 'the science'.

    Maybe scientists should have thought twice before they faked certainty and 'concensus' in order to push social agendas not backed by, you know, *science*.

    1. Derp-o-Matic 6000   3 years ago

      You can't get COVID if you are protesting George Floyd's death. Your AA meeting and father's funeral are too risky, though.

  47. weibullguy   3 years ago

    The problem with the D’s trust in science is that it’s not science they’re trusting. Science not only tolerated dissenting opinions, it DEMANDS dissenting opinions.

    1. Cronut   3 years ago

      The Science is SETTLED. There is no dissent.

      1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

        HOW DARE YOU!!!

      2. jagjr   3 years ago

        what an ignorant statement. utterly inconsistent with actual science.

    2. JimboJr   3 years ago

      they have shifted from the direction we were previously heading (toward actual scientific advancement) back to the old priesthood/clergy model.

      An official of the ruling party will present the appropriate science, and you will follow along. Any dissent is therefore anti-science and will be dealt with as such.

  48. Sevo   3 years ago

    "...Trusting the scientific community and expert consensus is now an explicitly partisan issue,..."

    No surprise given that the "scientific community" and the "experts" are explicitly partisan.

    1. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      So easy to understand. It's a surprise that Rico is confused. Then again, maybe not.

  49. CE   3 years ago

    "Those who distrust vaccines, science and expertise aren't doing so necessarily because they have a knowledge gap or a misunderstanding,"

    Maybe it's because they're skeptical of experts and scientists who are repeatedly proven wrong, blatantly lying, or obviously pushing an agenda...

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Or else the damn fools listened to the guy who helped invent the (experimental) technology.
      Rules of thumb:
      If it requires a redefinition of "vaccine", it is not a vaccine.
      If it requires a total grant of legal immunity, it is not a safe product.
      If it requires threats of job loss to get adoption, it is not a good medicine.
      If it has 1293 documented ill effects, it needs more testing.

    2. JasonAZ   3 years ago

      Funny, I don't recall ANY of the Vox Light editors that were opposed to the vaccines. Not one dissenting voice!

  50. Marshal   3 years ago

    the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend.

    This completely misunderstands reality. First what is referred to here as "scientific expertise" is really bureaucratic assertion which is neither scientific nor expertise. Second those paying attention have seen the left's march through the institutions result in replacing science with political advocacy, uniformly to the extreme left. We've seen "science" corrupted in favor of politics in hard science (global warming, biology), social science (sexual assault theory), and economics (modern monetary theory, personal bankruptcy).

    The problem is universal so the result makes complete sense. Not only has this been going on but the mask virtue signaling was so intrusive it caused people who normally don't pay attention to politics to notice triggering the vast acceleration.

    It's telling that a trend libertarians should celebrate - increased awareness of corruption - is cast as a negative outcome just because it's tied to people public libertarians love to hate.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      First what is referred to here as "scientific expertise" is really bureaucratic assertion which is neither scientific nor expertise.

      Exactly

  51. Hank Ferrous   3 years ago

    I'm calling Rico on the Team Blue trust in scientific community/expert consensus. The FDA has said this about covid: 'will likely circulate globally for the foreseeable future, taking its place alongside other common respiratory viruses such as influenza.' I don't foresee any change to the fear-mongering, panic-driven insistence that everybody wear a mask, get the latest booster that doesn't provide more that 90 days of effective 'resistance,' or any of the other irrational and cowardly lashing out that Team Blue has engaged in for the two weeks of flattening the curve.

  52. Cyto   3 years ago

    This "mistrust science" thing is a byproduct of the capture of academia by the far left.

    As a scientist by training and by personality. I think of the generic scientist as being a natural libertarian. The methods, thought processes and agnostic attitude are very congruent.

    But starting about 20 years ago I started noticing a difference. Even back in the 80s, professors were largely of the left, even in the hard sciences. But they were a libertarian left, corrupted by a reliance on government grants.

    The last 2 decades have seen a huge shift. The far left began pushing politics into everything. And they require fealty. So you must declare a side, lest you be branded an enemy.

    So we saw climate science become a Marxist tool. It wasn't enough to describe global climate trends and their causes and make predictions about future changes... It became imperative to proclaim that capitalism must be brought low, lest we all die.

    Reality has a liberal bias.

    They began pushing into all areas, proclaiming their opinions to be scientific fact. The race huxtors convinced the social sciences to join the fight, proclaiming "implicit bias" to be the driver of all things. After 20 years of this, we arrived in the world of race essentialism, where being white is evil and being brown is virtuous, and science declares itself to be racist because Europe.

    Even noble and respected pure scientists fell victim. They self-flagelate about rooting out the biases in their own work (in virology or cell surface protein mobility). And they are coopted through guilt to flog for the partisan political party of the left.

    Of course the right does not trust "the scientific community". They have proven to be partisan hacks. They have proven that they will say literally anything their political team requires.

    Remember 2020, when "the experts" in science all agreed that Trump was lying when he said that a vaccine would be ready in the fall? Remember the "experts" all agreeing that it would take 2 years?

    Then remember those same experts immediately switching to "you are a science denier if you question the approval process for these vaccines"? It was the same, exact people, separated in time by 6-8 months.

    My favorite skeptic and science based medicine proponent told me that there is no evidence that cloth masks are effective at preventing the spread of respiratory viruses like flu and colds. He told me this had been extensively studied in Asia where masking in public is common in big cities. Then, the same guy completely forgot that he had ever said that and began preaching that a national mask mandate was the only responsible way to govern... And the nasty bad man in office was killing people because he didn't follow the science.

    Same dude. Maybe 2 years apart.

    That breaks trust. Science is objective and neutral. It deals in facts backed by testing and evidence. It does not bend to the whims of partisan politics.

    Worse.... They believe it.

    That is the truly scary and Orwellian part of all of this. Left and right, the last 6 years has completely ripped the scales from the eyes of those who will see. The capacity of the people -of all walks of life- to truly, deeply believe anything at all that their team tells them to believe is truly staggering.

    I would exempt us miswired libertarians from the scorn. But we all witnessed the back-to-back failings of our own libertarian press during Obama and Trump. They proved every bit as susceptible to groupthink as either of the big party teams.

    This mistrust in science is not ancillary, more is it isolated. It is right in the middle of the hyper partisan phenomenon that fuels mistrust in the media and our other institutions. An intentional push into tribalism has broken the national psyche.

    1. JimboJr   3 years ago

      "As a scientist by training and by personality. I think of the generic scientist as being a natural libertarian. The methods, thought processes and agnostic attitude are very congruent."

      100% true. The agnostic nature, the natural skepticism, and the process: always question, always verify, and take as truth what you have found consistent evidence for and havent been able to actively disprove. And always attempt to disprove what is taken as fact...if you cant, then there may be truth there.

      The opposite from modern day democrats. They have taken the faith of religion and applied it to govt diktats under the guise of "science". Nothing more.

      The take from the article should have been "Dems willing to trust specific "experts" despite those experts consistently proving they are not worthy of trust, and wrong more often than not". There could be nothing more anti-science than this principle.

    2. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      The scientific community is destroying its faith with the public in two ways. First, a lot of what is called "science" is at best immature and useless and at worst a straight up cargo cult. The science of the spread of communicable disease is a good example of this. It got the spread of HIV totally wrong in the 1980s and 40 years later proved no better predicting the spread of COVID. Yet, we were all informed that lockdowns would stop the spread of the virus and prevent the hospitals from being overloaded because "science says so".

      Second, scientists are constantly it seems leaving their lane. Instead of providing expert advice, they try and make moral judgements and decisions about people's lives and bodies they have no right to make. An "expert" may be able to tell me what the risks of not taking a vaccine are, assuming he knows what he is talking about, but he has no moral authority to tell me if I should take that risk. Only I have that authority. The whole phrase "listen to the doctors" is nothing but the medical profession claiming moral authority where they have none.

      So, people have gradually stopped listening to experts in many cases. The reason for this is not that they don't believe in expert authority or the value of expertise like the experts are claiming. The reason is the experts in these cases either are not really experts at all but instead charlatans peddling cargo cults and or they are seeking to impose decisions on the public when they have no moral authority to do so.

      1. BigT   3 years ago

        Don’t you remember the scholarly debates and open discussion that took place before all the mask mandates and lockdowns determining how effective they would be??

        Me neither.

    3. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

      Very well said.

    4. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      The last 2 decades have seen a huge shift. The far left began pushing politics into everything. And they require fealty. So you must declare a side, lest you be branded an enemy.

      This was right around the time that the New Left Boomer professors started retiring and were replaced by the Gen-X and early Millennials that they'd radicalized with neomarxist social theories, which has "repressive tolerance" and historic determinism as its philosophical cornerstones. So it's not a coincidence that this kind of political ideology became a lot more prevalent, especially as the 21st century advanced.

      Academia is so corrupted by this crap, that it's eventually going to be targeted the way Disney was, either by completely cutting off its funding at the state level, or the end of student loans altogether if this dumb debt jubilee actually goes through.

      1. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

        Another measure might be making it illegal for employers to require a college degree before considering employment.

  53. raspberrydinners   3 years ago

    If we're just gonna approve what the EU has then why do we have the FDA?

    Dumbass.

    1. Cyto   3 years ago

      Nah.. the EU does the same thing. In the world of free trade agreements and the world court, protectionist barriers are bad and can be punished.

      But safety regulations don't count.

      So in Europe, GMO is bad and evil. And incidentally, American agricultural products are much cheaper and higher quality. And they use GMO to accomplish this. So they are totally not being protectionist in a continent with a population of farmers that insists on protectionism. They are just being safe.

      Same thing here. European baby formula manufacturers are huge. Can't have that competition. So it is regulated. It would take about a week to review and approve formula from Europe if they wanted to. It isn't like it is that divergent. Nor is it terribly complex. And the data already exists from safety studies.

      No... This is protectionism gone wrong.

    2. Zeb   3 years ago

      Why, indeed?

      Supply isn't going to artificially restrict itself.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Recognizing EU approval and only requiring a product to go through the FDA process if it has been disapproved by the EU, would be a really easy way to improve the system. This dumb ass actually has a good idea and is too stupid to realize it.

    3. Illocust   3 years ago

      It seems a better solution would just be too require waiting two years after it was approved in Europe, and if no safety issues have popped up, approve it. Let Europeans be test subjects.

      1. R Mac   3 years ago

        Do we really need 2 years to determine the safety of baby formula? After granting the base that the government should be controlling this at all.

    4. R Mac   3 years ago

      Nice self-own shitlunches.

  54. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

    Democrats love science sexually, unless you are talking about X and Y chromosomes. That don't believe in that bullshit.

    1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

      Democrats love calling things science, like beliefs. They have a marked antipathy towards the scientific method itself.

      1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

        Marxism and fascism both came wearing the garb of science.

        1. BigT   3 years ago

          Lysenko and Mengele were visionary!

      2. JimboJr   3 years ago

        Dems: Trust the science!

        Also Dems: A man with cock and balls and XY chromosomes is a woman because they say so. Because science.

      3. Cronut   3 years ago

        The scientific process is white supremacy.

        - The Smithsonian.

    2. JeremyR   3 years ago

      Or nuclear power. Or genetically modified food

  55. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

    White House: Suddenly SCOTUS Protests No Longer Justified

    I think they realize that many of the protesters are lawyers and attorneys (DC has the largest concentration of lawyers in the US), some of them being government lawyers, and it's against the lawyers rules of professional conduct to threaten judges and justices. The WH is trying to stop mass disbarments of attorneys and government attorneys.
    Without the deep state, the left can't control government.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Most government attorneys do not have a DC Bar. You can have a license in any state and be an attorney for the federal government. You don't have to have one in the state you work. The DC Bar is totally corrupt and would never disbar any attorney for engaging in a crime that furthers the leftist cause. They didn't even discipline the cretin at the FBI who pled guilty to lying to the FISA court as part of the Russia fantasy. Other states' bars, however, are likely to be a little more hardnosed about terrorizing judges at their homes.

  56. Griffin3   3 years ago

    New record gas prices! Whoo!
    Regular Unleaded $4.374 5/10/22 - record set
    Diesel $5.550 5/10/22 - record set

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      Everything is "Better With Biden" !
      interest rates
      food prices
      gasoline prices
      number of regulations
      tax hikes
      censorship
      new government boards for disinformation
      illegal border crossings
      judge intimidation
      almost everything is "Better With Biden"

      1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

        Who do you plan to vote for this year?
        ...I'll be voting for Joe Biden... A feeble president Biden seems like an opportunity to erode the power and glamour of the dangerous cult of the presidency and also push socialists, nationalists, and identitarians back to the margins, creating space for a more libertarian-friendly coalition to emerge.
        - Matt Welch

        1. Mother's Lament   3 years ago

          Sorry, that was Zach, not Matt.

          Matt said "I might have considered holding my nose and voting for the person most likely to supplant the eminently fireable incumbent."

  57. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

    I know many of you like my Biden press conference coverage, so here's the latest:

    https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/biden-speaks-about-inflation-without

    1. Outlaw Josey Wales   3 years ago

      Funny. I like your stuff. Keep it up.

    2. R Mac   3 years ago

      Needed more ULTRA-MAGA!

  58. ElvisIsReal   3 years ago

    Trusting the science is now an aspect of the Team Blue personality, even more so than distrusting it is for Team Red.
    --------
    I think you mean "trusting The Science", which is much different than actual science. Actual science doesn't have to commit fraud to gain FDA approval.

    https://simulationcommander.substack.com/p/it-sure-looks-like-pfizer-committed

  59. Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland   3 years ago

    Public health pointers from disaffected members of the right-wing junior varsity playing journalist are always a treat.

    Thank for playing, Robby.

    Carry on, clingers.

    But only so far and so long as your betters permit, of course, as usual.

    1. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

      Gecko.

    2. Red Rocks White Privilege   3 years ago

      Open wide, hicklib--you're about to have progress in the form of a coat hanger shoved down your throat.

  60. Unicorn Abattoir   3 years ago

    I once again refer you to the amendment proposed by Unicorn Abattoir (I - Delusion) - Any medical/food product approved by a first-world regulatory agency is automatically approved in the USA unless the FDA can show just cause.

  61. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    It poses serious social problems, from vaccinating large numbers of Americans to blunting the ill effects of climate change.

    "We know exactly what's wrong with the world and exactly how to fix it. Please leave us alone while we do it. And don't ask questions.

    What's that you say? You want to ask questions?

    WHY DON'T YOU TRUST THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY?!! WE'RE BLUNTING THE EFFECTS OF *checks notes* CLIMATE VACCINATION CHANGE!"

  62. Diane Reynolds (Paul.)   3 years ago

    Reason: Now fully engaging in full-frontal scientism.

    I would say I'm "disappointed" but I'm way past that now.

    1. Briggs Cunningham   3 years ago

      Nothing says personal sovereignty and freedom like OBEY!!

  63. Ben of Houston   3 years ago

    Trusting science is a very different thing than trusting the scientific community.

    I'm part of it, and I definitely don't trust the people who purport to lead the scientific community. Those of us who just put our heads down and get to work are not the ones who are leading publication charges. In fact, many of us are the ones who are getting shouted down. I see highly ineffective solutions touted as being dictated by "the science", "Following medical science" leading to mass exodus of practicing doctors from the field, publication and touting of research that I would fail at an elementary school science fair, and political favor being more important than anything else.

    So no, I don't trust the scientific community. Nullius in Verba.

    1. BigT   3 years ago

      If only the Royal Society lived up to that.

  64. JeremyR   3 years ago

    If Democrats have now embraced science, does that mean they are more in favor of nuclear power? Or GM food? Against abortion when the fetus is actually viable outside the womb (which seems to be about 20-22 weeks)? Yeah, that last is expensive is hell, but they also believe in socialized medicine...

    1. Longtobefree   3 years ago

      They SAY they believe in socialized medicine, yet none of them are using Medicare, are they?
      First thing the new Republican majorities need to do is introduce legislation revoking the executive order that let congress and their staffs out of Obamacare. Dare the fascists to vote on the record about why they don't really believe.

  65. Art Stone   3 years ago

    Scientific consensus test:

    Do you believe:
    - Silicon Breast Implants are safe
    - GMO crops are safe (John Stossel has a video)
    - Organic foods are not healthier than ordinary products
    - 5G cell phones are not dangerous
    - high voltage power lines do not cause cancer or leukemia
    - Freon caused the Ozone Hole and banning CFCs is why the Ozone Hole is shrinking
    - High Fructose Corn Syrup is no worse than sugar

    1. BigT   3 years ago

      All except the Freon.

  66. Azathoth!!   3 years ago

    As both the article and the tweet make clear, the Republican Party's mounting hostility to scientific expertise is a recent and worrying trend.

    The right doesn't trust science. They don't have to. Science is a method that generates verifiable facts. the right USES science.

    The left, on the other hand, worships science, they have faith in it and trust it.

    And the pseudo-intellectuals the media reveres as 'experts'

    Which is why the graph shows that the right lacks confidence in those 'experts'.

  67. XM   3 years ago

    I don't think there's a widespread shortage of baby formula in many parts of the world, and America is less protectionist than Europe or Asia.

    The baby formula recall exacerbated an existing supply chain issue. Reason will obviously come galloping in like Paul Revere and shout "Imports and immigration FTW". But imports can't simply replace domestic products to meet demands overnight. If the country suddenly experienced a critical shortage of pork, how much import would be needed to meet demand for the rest of the year? There are nearly 400 mil people here.

    Imports should diversify a market, not become its primary products. Imagine if 80% of Japan's cars and electronics came from America or even Russia - Reason would call that fine and dandy since imports create jobs. In reality, Japan's economy would be in tatters. If you can't produce enough to feed and clothe large parts of your people and depend on outside help, you effectively become Ukraine. Or Germany, who made an enemy out of a country that supplied them with oil.

  68. jagjr   3 years ago

    Trusting the science is now an aspect of the Team Blue personality, even more so than distrusting it is for Team Red.

    except that it isn't. it is trusting the mandarins who CLAIM science, rather than trusting actual scientific evidence. the two "teams" have exactly the same approach, just opposite polarities. neither listens to science. both listen to their preferred talking heads and political suits, and either trust or distrust their claims irrespective of the science.

  69. TJJ2000   3 years ago

    I'm not so sure the founders had food safety in mind when they gave congress the authority to regulate commerce amongst the States.

  70. Leizl   3 years ago

    Well you have been misinformed. I have 2 breasts that failed to make enough milk and I had to supplement with formula. I invite you to peruse forums for women who find their magical breast malfunctioning. Lots of women really disappointed that they can not breast feed.
    But your a dude who apparently knows intimate details about the breasts of all women.
    Wet nurses no longer exist because of formula which should tell you that there have always been women with out magical breasts
    Sincere

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

Trump's FTC Chair Is Continuing To Push Lina Khan's Antitrust
Ideology

Jack Nicastro | From the June 2025 issue

Brickbat: They Won't Miss It

Charles Oliver | 5.22.2025 4:00 AM

America's Credit Is Falling—and the Government Is Still Digging Deeper Into Debt

Veronique de Rugy | 5.22.2025 12:13 AM

A Federal Judge Says New Mexico Cops Reasonably Killed an Innocent Man at the Wrong House

Jacob Sullum | 5.21.2025 6:00 PM

Supreme Court Orders Maine Legislator Censured for Social Media Post Must Get Voting Rights Back

Emma Camp | 5.21.2025 4:30 PM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS

© 2024 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

This modal will close in 10

Reason Plus

Special Offer!

  • Full digital edition access
  • No ads
  • Commenting privileges

Just $25 per year

Join Today!
OSZAR »