I think one of the things I dislike most is when an obvious double standard is used.
One obvious example has been the disagreements that I (and my son Patrick) have had with numerous "Orac-ites" who go crazy over the fact that the "snake oil-salesman" Dr. Buttar has not done any peer-reviewed studies on a chelator he uses -- TD-DMPS -- to treat autistic children who he believes suffer from mercury toxicity.
But these same people simply ignore the fact that there are ZERO toxicity studies proving the safety of mercury amalgams or the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal. Dental amalgams ("silver fillings") and vaccines effect hundreds of millions, maybe even billions, of people worldwide. These substances are endorsed, approved, allowed, etc. by the FDA, ADA, CDC, IOM, NIH, etc. So for the Orac-ites, there is an apparent blind faith in these organizations where in comparison, there is everything from skepticism to pure hatred for Dr. Buttar, even though TD-DMPS is only being used by a few thousand people, it that.
This makes for a strange and aggravating double standard, even in the face of success stories! (Read more about the Shoemaker's and the Champagne's.)
Switching subjects, I believe a major double standard is being applied to the yet unnamed Supreme Court Justice that President Bush will soon name. Democrats are already threatening terrible things if someone more conservative than John Roberts is named. Someone more conservative than Robert's has been virtually been pre-labeled by Dems as "UNQUALIFIED!"
And yet just 12 years ago Ruth Bader Ginsburg was nominated to the Supreme Court and was eventually confirmed by a vote of 96-3. The Republicans at the time did not revert to labeling Ginsburg as an "ideologue", "unqualified", "left-wing kook", or "activist". They acted with civility because President Clinton had earned the right (by virtue of election) to name whoever he wanted.
Could the Republicans have gone crazy over the fact that Ginsburg was an ideologue and an activist by the standards that the Democrats are using today? Consider this small snippet from Wikipedia about Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
In 1971, Ginsburg was instrumental in launching the Women's Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU's General Counsel from 1973-1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974-1980. In this position, Ginsburg successfully argued several women's rights cases before the Supreme Court, including 1973's Frontiero v. Richardson.
As a legal scholar, Ginsburg was qualified for SCOTUS. But has she turned out to be a middle-of-the-road judge with closely held views? No. Does the ACLU known to represent the views of mainstream America? No. (Ask the boy scouts!) Was Ginsburg an activist during her career? Of course she was.
If President Bush names someone who looks like the opposite of Ginsburg, I think the Democrats may start a civil war, literally!
Does the rational American with common-sense see this double standard? I think they do. I HOPE they do!
Related Post: What is Law?
Technorati Tags: SCOTUS, George W. Bush, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ACLU
