CNN’s Top 6 Hypocrisies and Lies in Defense of NFL Crybabies

If nothing else, the uproar over these spoiled NFL millionaires who work only 16 days a year but still feel the need to spit on the American flag and anthem, has proven once again that our national media is infected with a lethal dose of Groupthink.

Within the MSM, no one has shown the courage or even the ability to think for themselves. It is quite a thing to witness.

Just as fascinating is the media’s glaring, audacious hypocrisy — most especially from CNN. In its never-ending quest to destroy President Trump,  the leftwing cable network’s credibility-killing shamelessness has been on display for quite a long time. But in defense of these crybaby one-percenters, it has been especially shameless.

CNN’s Definition of ‘Divisive’

According to CNN, it is not at all divisive for a bunch of pampered millionaires to politicize a sport, to take a side in the culture wars during a football game, to openly disrespect the American flag and anthem.

No, according to CNN, this issue only gets “divisive” when you criticize this abominable behavior.

You see, in order to keep things from becoming divisive, normal people are just supposed to shut up and take it.

* Criticizing NFL Whiners Who Trash America Is … Raaaaaacist

While I believe Trump went too far in calling for NFL players to be fired, I personally cannot think of a more important role for an American president than to shame a bunch of millionaires expressing contempt for a country that has given them everything, including the freedom to disrespect that country.

But of course proven serial liars, like CNN’s Jake Tapper, have intentionally lied by insinuating Trump’s criticism is an act of racism.

Missing from this ongoing CNN smear is the fact that Trump also spent last week criticizing a number of white people, like Hillary Clinton, and even some white people in his own party, like Senators John McCain and Rand Paul.

* Trump Given Zero Credit for Criticizing His Own Billionaire Supporters

Does CNN not want politicians who are not bought?

Does CNN not want politicians willing to stand up against their own donors?

Does CNN not want politicians who are not puppets to big donors?

Then why is Trump getting zero credit for blasting away at the nine anti-American football owners who donated more than $10 million to his campaign and inauguration?

* Suddenly CNN Claims We Have First Amendment Rights in the Workplace

CNN’s Chris Cillizza, who is both breathtakingly dumb and a proven liar, best summed up the glaring hypocrisies at work here. In defiance of Trump and in defense of millionaires trashing America, Cillizza tweeted…

"The US is literally premised on the right of people to freely express their beliefs without fear of reprisal"

And this:

"But that is the athlete’s choice. If they want to speak out, they should be allowed to. That they are athletes is meaningless."

And this:

"That we shouldn’t be allowed to express our 1st amendment rights because you happen to play a pro sport? Really?"

One question…

Where was this very same CNN’s defense of Americans expressing their constitutional right to “freely express themselves without reprisal” when Christians bakers and florists protested participating in the sacramentalization of sin that is a same-sex marriage?

Well, as we all know, CNN did not defend those Christians; in fact, CNN spent countless hours smearing those Christians as haters and bigots.

Moreover, CNN mercilessly attacked Kim Davis, a Kentucky clerk protesting same-sex marriage by refusing to personally issue gay marriage licenses.

CNN was nowhere to be found in defense of Brenden Eich, the CEO of Mozilla, after he was bullied out of his job over his support of traditional marriage.

Where was the CNN campaign to defend the Google engineer fired just last month for expressing his pro-science opinion about gender?

And where was the CNN campaign to protect these very same NFL players when the league threatened to fine them for their free expression in support of police officers. 9/11 victims, and breast cancer awareness?

CNN so believes in the right to express yourself without fear of reprisal that CNN itself threatened to destroy a man’s life after he ridiculed CNN.

* CNN Claims Trump Is Distracted from Important Stuff

As I said above, I can think of nothing more important for a president than to defend our flag and country against a bunch of crybaby one-percenters.

But because this is a winning issue for Trump, and the left hates it when the right engages in the culture wars, CNN anchors are snidely and sarcastically criticizing Trump for his focus on “important things” — as though Trump cannot possibly do more than one thing at a time.

And yet, here was this very same CNN just last year gushing over President Obama’s annual NCAA tournament picks.

Oh, and here is CNN gushing over their Precious Barry’s 2015 picks. Man alive, you just gotta see this to believe it…



* CNN Used to Be Fine With Presidents Who Told The NFL What to Do

When President Obama told the Washington Redskins to change their name, here was CNN’s reaction. No freak out, no questioning of Precious Barry’s focus on priorities…

But when a president criticizes a football team for trashing the flag, CNN goes nuclear.

What does that tell us about CNN?

SOURCE

****************************

Time to Base Nutrition Policy on Science

A recent article in the Washington Post details five nutrition “facts” we used to be believe. It ends by saying something that you rarely read but is entirely accurate: “In fact, we don’t have a lot of answers about nutrition, which is considered a relatively new science.” But to listen to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and popular food activists, you would think the only issue is that Americans just aren’t listening.

The real problems don’t start with consumers, they start with scientific and economic shortcuts. The consequences of bad policies are dire: poor nutrition is linked to chronic diseases such as diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. Unfortunately, one out of every two adults suffer from one or more preventable chronic diseases.

But the federal officials who are charged with making nutrition policies continue to make poorly informed decisions. In 2009, the USDA instituted a program that excluded white potatoes from the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), presumably to address obesity. They did this despite the fact that many Americans have shortfalls in potassium and potatoes are a great source of this nutrient. Five years later, they finally asked the Institute of Medicine whether this was a good move.

Predictably, one of the Institute’s findings was that “Intakes of … potassium … among low-income women, fall short of current nutrient intake recommendations.” The program may have slightly affected obesity in children, although it is not clear that it has anything to do with potatoes.

The FDA, meanwhile, just finalized its regulations to put calorie labeling in restaurants, theaters, and grocery stores. The rule was initially finalized in 2014 but put on hold by the current administration. Studies are mixed as to whether or not posting calories will do just a little bit or no good whatsoever. But science is not the reason this rule is going forward.

The National Restaurant Association supported the rule, originally as part of the Affordable Care Act, because there was a growing “patchwork” of local and state laws requiring it. This is a perfect example of how not to make scientifically based health policies. In letting the rule go, the Commissioner announced that the rule would institute “predictable, uniform federal standards,” precisely what industry needed. Again, the real problem was with that we did not pay attention to the first adopters, who demonstrated that the information wouldn’t help with obesity.

At least the five nutrition facts cited earlier were originally based on some science. One myth in the article was that “All fat is bad.” But it was only in 2010 when the Dietary Guidelines committee stopped recommending limits on total fats, although they still recommended reducing saturated fat. The original myth was about total fat, but recently multiple studies have found that polyunsaturated fats (and possibly monounsaturated fats) found in foods such as walnuts, salmon, and soybean oil are now considered good for you.

Even more recently, a 2014 study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine was unable to conclude that even saturated fats caused heart disease. Moreover, it remains unclear whether unsaturated fats are good for you. These are still controversial findings, and, without clear scientific backing, policymakers should proceed with caution.

More specifically, public health policy must always be preceded by both sound science and cost-benefit analysis.

Sound scientific evidence must be present for a positive public health benefit to be amply demonstrated. Had there been more research to indicate what manufacturers might do to replace animal fats in the 1980s, activists might not have campaigned so hard against trans fats. As for cost-benefit analysis: “Trying” out public policies, such as nutrition labeling, without credible analysis showing that benefits exceed costs, removes public resources that can be better spent addressing public policies that do pass such a test.

These problems are exacerbated in the case of the new science of nutrition. For diet and disease relationships, dietary guidance and nutrition policy based on memory-based recall data have been shown by professor Edward Archer to be “pseudoscience and inadmissible.” These data, which underpin most of the advice from the Dietary Guidelines, ask consumers to remember what and how much they ate in the last 24 hours. Unfortunately, well over half of consumers do not report eating enough to stay alive. If the data that go into diet-disease relationships are flawed, then the correlations between dietary choices and disease may be wrong. This means that much of the current advice and policies may be wrong. 

Taking shortcuts to policy without sound science and cost-benefit analysis leads to policy failures — resulting in poorer health and declining faith in nutrition policies.

SOURCE

******************************

For more blog postings from me, see  TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH,  POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, and Paralipomena (Occasionally updated),  a Coral reef compendium and an IQ compendium. (Both updated as news items come in).  GUN WATCH is now mainly put together by Dean Weingarten. I also put up occasional updates on my Personal blog and each day I gather together my most substantial current writings on THE PSYCHOLOGIST.

Email me  here (Hotmail address). My Home Pages are here (Academic) or  here (Pictorial) or  here  (Personal)

***************************