President Obama has said he would like to see a “moonshot” effort to cure cancer. Remember that he’s also said “put America first” and “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor”.
So, if we need serious medical research on cancer, why is the government squandering our tax dollars on research grants that have no apparent value to relieving human suffering or protecting the environment? The NIH gave 5 million dollars to study if birds slurred their songs when drunk; the NSF awarded 3.9 million to study sexy goldfish; and, the worst, the NIH gave 3.5 million dollars to China to study why people see the face of Jesus in toast! Why are we giving millions of dollars to Communist China? If we’re going to squander money at least keep it in our economy. As I’ve said before, China is NOT our friend.
While on the subject of cancer, lung cancer is the number 1 cancer killer, yet lung cancer research is vastly under funded compared with other common cancers. There are no high profile fund raising events, free screenings, or commercials advocating for lung cancer victims. While survival rates for breast, colon, and skin cancers have improved significantly in the past 40 years the survival rate for lung cancer has barely moved. There’s an unholy reason for that. Lung cancer is associated with smoking (although its also caused by radon gas and pollution), so years ago the nation decided that smokers were morally weak and therefore “deserved” what they got. That attitude is similar to the one which we saw during the early years of the AIDS epidemic when gays were considered morally weak and deserved what they got. Political activism changed that situation but there’s no activism for lung cancer victims. Now that addiction is considered a medical problem rather than a moral weakness there’s no excuse to keep lung cancer research at a low priority. Many consider nicotine to be more addictive than heroin. The fact that we squander millions of dollars on goofy grants shows just how dysfunctional our government has become. Agencies that can’t assign sensible priorities to research are assuming that tax dollars are unlimited. They need a lesson, starting with a few firings.
Hats off to medical research though. They may not be able to help lung cancer victims but they can grow longer eyelashes (wink, wink).
Just when you thought political correctness couldn’t get any worse, it has. Young liberals have coined the term “micro-aggression” to refer to anything that they might find “offensive” or contrary to their hardened socialist beliefs. There’s an underlying evil to this apparent stupidity. By incorporating the word “aggression” they’re implying that any challenge to their beliefs constitutes a real threat. Once a challenge becomes a threat legal action is possible: action to restrict free speech. If someone says they’ll “punch you out” it’s a threat and you can report it to the police but if someone disagrees with your opinion it’s not. Let’s look at three examples of how they want to change that.
- Students at numerous colleges have sought to block screening of the movie “American Sniper” because it might offend Muslims, pacifists, and those who hate the troops who defend their right to say dumb things. If students were forced to attend they might have a gripe, but they’re not. The rational action is simple: if you don’t want to see the movie, don’t go. That’s not enough for these tyrants who demand the tolerance they’re unwilling to give . Their view is that if they don’t like it no one should see it, so it’s basically 21st century book burning. What about students who respect our military or who just like good action movies? Curiously enough these same students won’t unite to protest the brutal Islamic State that has murdered and enslaved thousands and destroyed the cultural heritage of a nation.
- Students at one college rallied to block Chick-Fil-A from campus on the grounds that it’s micro-aggression against the LGBT community. Again, if you don’t want to eat there, don’t, but respect the rights of many who think that’s the best fast food chicken around. “Choice” isn’t just for abortion, kiddies.
- Now for the worst case. Students at a college said they “didn’t feel safe” because a conservative speaker had been invited to talk. This brings the word “aggression” into sharp focus. They’re equating a speaker to a shooter. College is supposed to be an opportunity for exposure to different ideas but these students reject that concept. Obviously the liberal public school system has provided plenty of indoctrination to turn them into wimps.
There’s a joke that says anything liberals like should be free and anything they don’t like should be banned. To some it’s not a joke.
UPDATE: Our progressive administration has jumped on this bandwagon. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is spending over a half million tax dollars to film engineering students in college labs to determine if male students are causing “micro-aggressions” to female students. I guess “shrimp on a treadmill” wasn’t enough.