As jaded as I’ve become in my later years, there are still some things that make me shake my head in a “Are you fucking kidding me” way. Usually, this comes from the federal government, online culture warriors, or media types, but recently, we had the perfect storm of fuckery, thanks to a federal agency.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced it was considering banning natural gas stoves, citing health concerns because of course. Recent peer-reviewed research published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health found an alleged link between the use of gas stoves and childhood asthma, a danger further underscored by co-author Brady Seals of the Rocky Mountain Institute. More on this later.
Once this news became public knowledge, online culture warriors went to work to amplify the CPSC suggestion, which promptly made the media go into “Republicans Pounce” mode. At first, the CPSC tried to deny what the commissioner, Richard Trumka Jr., clearly said, which as we all know makes everything instantly better! Then, Trumka, who made the initial statement “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned,” issued a tweet “clarifying” his statement, saying they weren’t coming after gas stoves after all, and any new regulations would only apply to new products.
It got so bad that CPSC chair Alexander Hoehn-Saric had to issue further clarification, and stated the organization was evaluating the health risks in light of the aforementioned research. Furthermore, Hoehn-Saric said no new regulations were on the table right now.
Meaning, they’re still on the table, but they’re being hidden behind the boiled radishes that nobody wants to eat until they can be reintroduced as though nothing had happened.
And believe me they will.
This is because the Left and its government stooges (but I repeat myself) love to have as much power over us as possible. Controlling how we cook our food, as meaningless as it is in the grand scheme of things, is exactly the kind of shit they’d do if given the chance…or if they take the chance.
But then they fucked up by not only giving away the plot, but by assuming the opponents wouldn’t have receipts. Oh, but they did. Lots of receipts. They even got the Socialist Socialite to defend her use of gas stoves while simultaneously doubling down on the science.
And just what was the science, you ask? Remember the peer-reviewed study I referenced earlier co-authored by Brady Seals? Well, turns out she might have a vested interest in the outcome, given her association with the Rocky Mountain Institute. If you look at the Board of Trustees, you’ll notice a few different themes and some familiar names in Leftist circles. Of course, none of this is ever discussed in the news pieces citing the paper Seals co-authored. After all, why let a little thing like complete transparency get in the way of a good scare piece?
But before you damn me for guilt by association, let me also point out one other tiny problem with the paper: it’s fundamentally flawed. What’s more, the problems raised in Seals’ paper and in the subsequent media stories can be addressed somewhat by using a range hood. So, banning or even adding new regulations for the use of gas stoves isn’t even necessary.
But it is necessary if you’re trying to persuade people to adopt an alternative to what we currently used.
Surely, electric stoves are better for the environment, right? Oooooh, sor-ray. Turns out it takes more energy for an electric stove to do what a gas stove does. And since most of our energy production comes from fossil fuels, that means to use the allegedly safer technology, we have to create more pollution. Brilliant!
Oh, and the best part? Natural gas is cleaner than fossil fuels. Even Leftist eco-nuts (again, I repeat myself) admit that, but they always love to throw in the “but X” to explain why natural gas isn’t the good deal it’s made out to be.
“But the study was peer-reviewed!” some might say. My response is that peer review is only as good as the intellectual rigor used by the peer reviewing it. As we’ve seen, peer review has its flaws and scandals that have tarnished its reputation for being, well, reputable. And the fact it keeps happening year after year after year doesn’t help make the case why a peer reviewed paper is more valid and truthful than a paper a puppy pees on.
But the Left needs people to ignore the problems and “trust the science” because it plays into one of their favorite logical fallacies, appeal to authority. If you are impressed by the credentials and don’t look into the facts, you can be persuaded to adopt an idea as true basely solely on who says it. But titles in and of themselves don’t necessarily mean the person with them should be listened to on a given subject. Remember, Neil deGrasse Tyson says some stupid shit.
But the Left count on people being ignorant enough to listen and believe and not listen and mock mercilessly. However, the online culture warriors unwittingly give the Left ammunition (which is ironic given how the Left hates guns) to dismiss all criticism. Although the critics were mostly right factually, the way they presented the facts made it sound like a crazy conspiracy theory. And remember the media love to do the “Republicans Pounce” thing to cover the Republicans’ response to a Leftist scandal instead of the scandal itself. This rhetorical slight-of-hand takes attention away from the actual story to get people to pay attention to the distraction.
Even so, the culture warriors don’t seem to get this. Oh, they’ll mock/complain about the “Republicans Pounce” tactic, but their passion turns into the distraction the Left needs to escape responsibility for being utter fuck-ups.
Almost.
Once you see the bait and switch the media pull (see the recent scandal related to Puddin’ Head Joe and classified documents for evidence), you can’t unsee it. Like a Micheal Moore porn video. But unlike “Fahrenheit 9-11 Inches” or “Balling for Columbine” you don’t need brain bleach, therapy, and a Men In Black memory wipe to function after witnessing it.
The moral of this story is to be skeptical of a gut reaction given amplification by people with a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind, even if you agree with them. A little information can go a long way towards finding the truth, often found in between the extremes. But there are still some pretty good rules of thumb that are easy to follow.
Whenever the Socialist Socialite talks about anything other than, well, herself, believe the exact opposite because she’s a fucking idiot.
Hmmmm…maybe there’s something to the science saying gas stoves affect cognitive ability after all…
Tag: junk science
Is it right for you?
Turn on any TV channel in America today and you will eventually see a commercial for some kind of medication.
These run the whole spectrum of ailments. From constipation to mental illness to cancer and auto immune diseases. And everything in between.
All of these commercials follow the same basic format. One or more people with the same ailment and how it limits or otherwise impacts their daily lives. Then the drug gets introduced.
Then there is the consultation with a doctor or pharmacist and how the drug can help the impact that was previously stated. The commercial ends with the people saying how great it was that they started taking it. And how you should contact your doctor as well to see if the medication is right for you.
Of course all during this we have a voice over describing the potential side effects of the medication. Death is sometimes included and what you should do if you start getting some side effects.
Every drug uses this advertisement pattern. From over the counter medication through prescription drugs to potentially life saving wonder drugs made of miracles.
Every one of them. Except for the Covid-19 vaccine drugs.
The commercials that exist for these drugs are very different. First they use an emotional attack approach. Thus causing you to have an emotional reaction to it instead of a reasoning and rational one.
At no time during these commercials, or anywhere else, is any report of side effects of any variety from getting the Covid-19 shot. It is as if this life saving wonder drug has no side effects at all since they aren’t mentioned. Yet we all know that there are dangerous and deadly side effects to taking this jab.
Also there is never the statement to check with your doctor to see if taking the jab is right for you. It is always right for everyone aged 5 years and older. No questions asked or even allowed.
In fact if you ask questions about the Covid-19 wonder vaccine. You become the cause of all misfortune in the world.
You are why other people die.
You are why other people can’t visit their family.
You are why a business had to close.
You are why other people can’t travel where they want to go.
You are why someone else lost their job.
You must be a religious fanatic.
You must be a science denier.
Except for the very fact that science isn’t fixed. The very nature of science is to question everything, including itself. And to question the answers one gets to see if they hold true and for how long.
I question the ads for medications.
I question the medication.
And I always ask. Is this medication right for me?
And so should you.
Masks are Political
ABC ran a story on the CDC about double masking. And reading it you will discover a few interesting bits. These get glossed over by the media but they are actually telling the truth here too.
The article is located at:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/masks-cdc-study-finds/story?id=75789183
The 1st and obvious issue is that the URL has the story in the Politics section and not in the Health section of ABC’s website. Why? Because mask wearing is political and has nothing to do with health.
The 6th paragraph in the article clearly states that researchers at the CDC used mannequin-like forms to text exposure. Using test dummies is fine for testing cars or ballistics. But it tells you nothing about a respiratory system of a human being.
Further down in the article. The CDC is reported as saying that wearing tight-fitting N95 masks is not recommended because they are hard to breath in. And wearing N95 masks isn’t necessary in public places.
Wearing of masks is 100% political. There is no science behind this mask wearing. Using mannequins is not scientific at all when it comes to the study of a virus and how it is transmitted and effects the body.
I’m not going to say don’t wear one. If it makes you feel better by all means wear it. In your car by yourself too. Whatever floats your boat. But when such an article is posted in the political section of a major news organization. It speaks volumes.