Dear media, please stop.
If you're looking for good, quality information on "science" stuff, I'm thinking looking to Ralph Reed is probably a bad idea
The chairman of the Faith and Freedom coalition, Ralph Reed, argued that LGBT, adoptive, single parents and foster parents are less capable of properly raising children than their biological parents Sunday on Meet the Press.
During his Meet the Press appearance, Reed, who is one of the original architects of the culture wars of the 1990s and remains one of the leaders of the social conservative movement in the United States, said, "The verdict of social science is overwhelming and irrefutable, and that is without regards to straight or gay," that biological, two-parent homes are the best environment for children.
Reed's been on this kick for a while now, presumably because it lines his wallet; one recent foray saw him arguing to the Wall Street Journal
that gay marriage is bad because an anonymous CEO told told him that "the number one determinant of how hard they worked
" was if the worker bees came from a loving family, and gay people probably couldn't provide that so shut up. You know, science!
Reed then proceeded to claim that science shows the earth is 6,000 years old, dinosaur bones were actually props left by a wide-ranging ancient Egyptian film crew, and that tribal gaming is very, very bad unless the tribes pay Jack Abramoff money. Or not, I wasn't listening. Anyway, this all leads to the biggest scientific question of all: Just how shamed and discredited do you have to be before Meet the Press and the Wall Street Journal will stop propping your sorry ass up as someone we all ought to be hearing from? The press is still looking for insights into the moral issues of our time from Ralph Effing Reed? Why?
A side note: This is just a crazy thought, I know, but could we maybe have a Sunday show called "Meet the Scientists"? I'm pretty damn sure professional lobbyists and other grifters have quite enough exposure as is, thanks, but maybe we could have one show devoted to actual scientists telling us what actual research says about things. You could fill entire shows with explaining how we know what we know about climate change alone. Maybe one about asteroid strikes, that'll bring in the viewers. And no, thanks, I do not want to know what Ralph Reed or James Inhofe thinks about asteroid strikes, thanks—I don't think y'all at the networks are really grasping my point here.