Was Obama too smart to be president?

One of the most disappointing current examples of hijacking of science for left-wing political purposes is Scientific American, which in more ways than one has become the New York Times of science. Both publications were, at one time, interested in accurate reporting of facts, with opinion kept separate, and even then, mostly balanced.

But in the 1980s, Scientific American began to infuse its reporting of politically charged subjects, such as the topic of global warming, with opinions that at best have questionable factual basis. This has contributed to the false leftist mantra that, “the debate on global warming is over. The science is settled. Human industry is wrecking the planet, perhaps irrevocably.” The underlying propaganda message is that, the free market system is going to burn us all to death. Conservatives are evil.

Of course, Scientific American does not phrase its articles in those exact words, but the message comes across loud and clear. It treats the Al Gore version of climate change as something that every sane person knows is true. There is no rational reason to even question it. Every item of data which refutes that false claim is either portrayed as an outlier, denied, misrepresented, or ignored altogether.

Global climate is not the only topic on which Scientific American's increasingly leftist bent is displayed. For example, on the issue of abortion, there is not one single reference that describes the fetus as, in scientific, biological terms, a human being. Nor has it been noted that the American Medical Association has stated that there is never any medical justification for partial birth abortion.

Even worse, the January edition features an article that blatantly portrays Barack Obama as, the smartest man in the room. Titled “Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders,” the article states that, “leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others -- the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did.” It goes on, “I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people,” Antonakis says, “is to speak in charismatic ways.”

Indeed. Barack Obama was too smart to be president, but he was skilled at deceptive oratory.

Maybe that description, with slight modification, could be applied to Scientific American.

One of the most disappointing current examples of hijacking of science for left-wing political purposes is Scientific American, which in more ways than one has become the New York Times of science. Both publications were, at one time, interested in accurate reporting of facts, with opinion kept separate, and even then, mostly balanced.

But in the 1980s, Scientific American began to infuse its reporting of politically charged subjects, such as the topic of global warming, with opinions that at best have questionable factual basis. This has contributed to the false leftist mantra that, “the debate on global warming is over. The science is settled. Human industry is wrecking the planet, perhaps irrevocably.” The underlying propaganda message is that, the free market system is going to burn us all to death. Conservatives are evil.

Of course, Scientific American does not phrase its articles in those exact words, but the message comes across loud and clear. It treats the Al Gore version of climate change as something that every sane person knows is true. There is no rational reason to even question it. Every item of data which refutes that false claim is either portrayed as an outlier, denied, misrepresented, or ignored altogether.

Global climate is not the only topic on which Scientific American's increasingly leftist bent is displayed. For example, on the issue of abortion, there is not one single reference that describes the fetus as, in scientific, biological terms, a human being. Nor has it been noted that the American Medical Association has stated that there is never any medical justification for partial birth abortion.

Even worse, the January edition features an article that blatantly portrays Barack Obama as, the smartest man in the room. Titled “Why People Dislike Really Smart Leaders,” the article states that, “leaders should use their intelligence to generate creative metaphors that will persuade and inspire others -- the way former U.S. President Barack Obama did.” It goes on, “I think the only way a smart person can signal their intelligence appropriately and still connect with the people,” Antonakis says, “is to speak in charismatic ways.”

Indeed. Barack Obama was too smart to be president, but he was skilled at deceptive oratory.

Maybe that description, with slight modification, could be applied to Scientific American.