Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
John Stossel :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Media Likes Scaring Us, and We Like It
by John Stossel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


I'm embarrassed by my profession.

We consumer reporters should warn you about life's important risks, but instead, we mislead you about dubious risks.

I first started thinking about this when interviewing Ralph Nader years ago, before he stopped speaking to me. Nader worried about almost everything: Food? "It can spoil in your own refrigerator," Chicken? "[It's] contaminated with pesticides, herbicides, fungicides." Flying? "Inadequate maintenance." Carpets? "Rugs are dirt collectors. And dirt collectors mean internal, indoor air pollution." Coffee? "Caffeine is not very good for you."

He went on and on. Just interviewing him was exhausting. Nader and interest groups like his fuel the Fear Industrial Complex: the network of activists, government bureaucrats, and trial lawyers who profit by scaring people.

The media should be skeptical of their prophesies of doom, but we rarely are.

My TV program, "20/20," has done frightening reports on the dangers of paper shredders, soccer goals, lawn chemicals, cell phones, garage-door openers, and more. There's always some truth behind the scares -- someone got hurt, or some study somewhere found a risk. But we rarely put the danger in perspective. We give you a breathless rush of alarm over every possibility, often delivered with a throbbing rock beat.

Sometimes we don't even get the numbers right. Remember the summer of the shark? It was nonsense. That summer the number of shark attacks was hardly different from two previous years. But in those other years we had an election to cover, or OJ was on trial. Mid-summer 2001 didn't bring many sexy stories, so Time did a cover story on "the Summer of the Shark."

It should have embarrassed the media into putting risks in perspective. But it didn't.

Listening to us, you'd think our growing exposure to pesticides, food additives, and other mysterious chemicals has created America's "cancer epidemic." But in truth there is no cancer epidemic -- cancer incidence is flat, and death rates have been falling for years. But such good news doesn't get much play. No interest groups benefit from it.

Remember the breast-implant scare? Some lawyers and activists said silicone from breast implants caused lupus, breast cancer, and more. Connie Chung did a scare story on CBS, the FDA banned silicone implants, and soon many women were certain that their medical problems were caused by their implants.

How could they not think that? The Fear Industrial Complex told them they were being slowly poisoned. Lawyer John O'Quinn helped spread the fear and reaped the reward. He sued implant makers again and again until they paid his clients over $1 billion. Fortune called O'Quinn and his partner "lawyers from hell." O'Quinn won't say how much money he made off those lawsuits, but he's now rich to have a warehouse that holds 900 valuable cars.

After the suits from O'Quinn and others bankrupted implant maker Dow Corning, and after many women were terrorized -- some so much they cut their own breasts open to get the implants out -- scientists started saying there's no evidence that silicone causes autoimmune disease and cancer. Study after study failed to find a link. Sherine Gabriel, chair of the department of health sciences research at the Mayo Clinic, announced that there was "no significant difference in the occurrence of connective tissue diseases between the women who had the implants and the women who did not."

The FDA has now re-approved silicone implants, and thousands of women are having implants inserted, implants that contain the very same silicone that was used before.

So has O'Quinn apologized for scaring women and bankrupting Dow Corning? No. Did he give the money back? Of course not. The lawyers never do. Instead, O'Quinn impugns the authors of the medical studies. "Who bought and paid for that science?" he said to me, indignantly. He told me he's proud to sue rich businessmen.

Reporters rely on lawyers like O'Quinn, bureaucracies like the FDA, and interest groups like Nader's to give us safety warnings and "dirt" on evil companies. We should be more skeptical. The Fear Industrial Complex has motives of its own.

Next week we'll look at another example of how the media scare us stiff.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
John Stossel blogs at http://blogs.abcnews.com/johnstossel/ is an award-winning news correspondent and author of Myths, Lies, and Downright Stupidity: Get Out the Shovel--Why Everything You Know is Wrong.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read John Stossel's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Thanks John…
For bringing this to light. Americans need to be made aware of the 'snake oil salesmen' trying to sell us on their latest scam. Nader is a phony scare-monger out for his own profits and everyone goes running when he opens his mouth. He's been doing it for too long. He goes away, and people forget what he did the last time and they fall right back in line. The Corvair, breast implants, rugs & coffee, What a kook.

Algore is doing the same thing with the GW lie. I just wish more Americans would wake up and start realizing these scammers are only out for number one. Follow the money.



I am looking forward to the next article in this series.

Cancer and Heart Disease
Whenever anyone brings up the number of people dying of cancer, I always say the same thing:

Everyone has to die of SOMETHING. If you're dying of cancer or heart disease, it usually means you lived long enough. So it means we aren't dying of wild animal attacks, starvation, typhus or polio.

So, whenver I hear someone tell me heart disease is on the rise, I take it as a good sign. We are living long enough, and with so few diseases, that the slow, degnerative diseases of old age are killing us.

Typo
Second paragraph, second sentence should read:

If you're dying of cancer or heart disease, it usually means you lived long enough to develop a degenerative disease.

And, yes, I know cancer strikes all age groups, but, by and large, those who die of cancer tend to fall into those well into, or past, middle age. And heart disease even more so.

My point being, in primitive societies very few live long enough for cancer to kill them. And those who do develop cancer tend to die of something else (starvation for example) as soon as cancer begins to weaken them, rather than dying of obvious complications of cancer.

In other words, it is a sign of as healthy, affluent society that people die of the diseases of old age.

As an aside, I always love hearing "AIDS is now the third leading cause of teen deaths" or similar numbers. What this ignores is that very few die in their teens. So even a modest number of deaths due to any single cause will be in the top ten causes of teen deaths as those deaths are relatively rare in our society.

Mr. Stossel,
I hope your second article to come will not be about the media and vaccines! 20/20 viewers already got the chance to see how embarrassed you were about your profession (oh really?) in that story where you actually interviewed your own daughter as a "experienced voice" regarding vaccine safety, along with an "expert doctor" (who was responsible for bringing to market the defective rotovirus vaccine no less!)all the while NOT interviewing one parent of a vaccine injured child, nor one medical professional who has seen first hand vaccine repercussions. What the media (which includes you) SHOULD DO is report on BOTH sides of these "scares" so that people can then make up their own minds without YOUR value judgement being added (such as with the column above where you attack the lawyer as a money grabbing shyster and accept the comment by Sherine Gabriel of the Mayo clinic as scientific "absolute truth." The truth is probably somewhere in between the two extremes, but a reader would not know that from your article.

The biggest scare story of all
Don't forget the biggest scare story of all (vehicled by the international media, that): the infamous Karl Rove, the despicable Republican Party, the terrible neocons, the greedy capitalists (and/or Americans), and the clueless George W Bush.

I find the title objectionable
I DO NOT *LIKE" BEING SCARED. (Of course, I am not scared of those things you mentioned.) The MSM says 'blood leads' or 'scare sells' but that is THEIR opinion. Because they make a short sound *bite*.

Sure, we read those articles. We also read the Enquirer (a national *news* rag.) Sometimes, they ARE equal. And equally true.




You hit the nail on the head, but beware
Thousands of people suffer thumb injuries because hammers are poorly designed! Think about it, has the hammer changed significantly in the past, I don't know, 5,000 years? Where are the air bags to deploy when we'r eon the verge of hitting our thumb? Why don't nails have special guides to ensure that, no matter what, the hammer hits the head every time? For that matter, why haven't nails been improved? They're pointy and sometimes rust!

One of our candidates for President, when he isn't on the road styling his hair or acting righteously indignant over Ann Coulter's comments, spends his time in a palacial, 28,000 square foot home in North Carolina. How does he afford it? He's made more than $70 million for himself on lawsuits over Cerebral Palsey.

Now, no one is denying that Cerebral Palsey is an awful disease, and no parent wants to see their child saddled with it, but Edwards has convinced multiple juries (for hundreds of millions in damages) that the obstetrician delivering those babies was responsible. Edwards went so far as to "channel" a dead baby in court once!

The only problem? THERE IS NO LINK between CP and delivery problems. Oh, that doesn't stop the trial lawyers. Trust me, as soon as they can figure out how, they'll be suing the Catholic Church for hurricanes and tornados. "You say that your Church is the Body of Christ, right? Well, Christ is one person of the godhead, right? Hurricanes are an act of God, right? Then, since you are the body of one of the three persons of God, then you're responsible. That will be $50 billion dollars, please. Make out two checks: the first one, for $49.999 billion is to me, my firm, my research staff, my experts and the caterer. You can spilt the other million bucks between the 10 million members of this 'class action.'"

Let's face it, "class action" lawsuits, and the lawyers who prepetrate them, are strictly no-class!

We all owe a debt of gratitude...
...to Ralph Nader.In 2000,he ran for president after the Dems begged him not to.Nader got 20,000 votes that year in FLORIDA!

What term do you like:"President Bush" or President Gore"?

We'reAllGonnaDie!
My kids learned to yell "We'reAllGonnaDie!" following up with loud laughter, whenever one of these "scare stories" came on the air. Their personal favourite was "Killer Bees Are Coming To Georgia!" My own was the Great Anti-Egg Scare, because I happen to dislike eggs and it was nice to have someone tell me that things I dislike are bad for me. Then I don't have to say "I don't like that". I can say it's bad for me. Unfortunately eggs are actually not bad for you. Liver, however, still remains deadly. Did you know that when an animal dies under mysterious circumstances, the first place they look for evidence is in the liver? Scary, eh?

One of the most entertaining sights in the world is the hysteria in Atlanta when snowflakes are spotted in Memphis. Although everyone in Atlanta knows that a "blizzard" (more than 3 inches of snow) will last at most two days, everyone runs shrieking into the street to stock up on videos and bread, milk,diapers and batteries to keep them safe from everything but numbing of the brain and cholesterol for at least two weeks. My favourite storm was the ice storm of 1993 when the power went out, so those who had stocked up on videos were unable to watch those videos and forced to sit home running up late charges. Meanwhile the kids and I were playing Monopoly by flashlights.

And my all time favourite Scare Shriek was heard in Duluth Minnesota. There is a place to eat called Grandma's where they sell incredibly greasy fries, for the express purpose apparently of providing sustenance for sea gulls. My oldest boy was 10 at the time and his Uncle Dave and I joined him in prompting the sea gulls to do aerobatics in pursuit of greasy fries.

And across the sidewalk from us a Mommy was shrieking at her little girl, "NO NO! THE SALT AND FAT WILL KILL THEM!"

Zack looked at her, at me, and said, "Mama, sea gulls live on garbage. NOTHING can kill them."

And then all three of us yelled "We'reAllGonnaDie!" and went back to feeding salt and fat to the gulls.

beez - the problem isn't hammers...
it's obvious that defective thumbs that have been developed without the proper protective devices. Unfortunately, the O'Quinns', Dickie Scruggs', Peter Angelos' and John Edwards' haven't figured out how to "process serve" God.
Clearly He had to have known of the design flaw and He certainly had the means and the power to correct the defect. Maybe it's just because he doesn't have deep pockets. Does God even have pockets?

I suspect because they've managed to bilk out enough dollars to build their kingdoms here on earth, the kingdom of heaven too few riches that would interest them.

The biggest problem we have
with all of this is that the Supreme Court made the Newspapers impervious to civil suit. If they had left it alone a lot of this "studies" cr*p would never be published and the professional scare mongers would go away. Ralph Nader is the Jessie of the consumerist set. He has always made a living off of phony research and inadequate studies. His signature piece, "Unsafe At Any Speed" was a diatribe against the Corvair which was my older brother's first car and I myself owned one for a while in California. I never had a problem with it unless you were extremely unlucky or if you pushed it past the limits. The rear end was heavy and if you let the rear end slide out toward the front in heavy cornering it would get away from you. This did not happen because of bad design. It happened because young idiots like me would push it.

The worst words in the new English language are "studies show". I have learned that that means that some axe grinding set of professional issue pushers have collected data and tried to show a phony correlation between their data and their favorite issue. Never mind that correlation and causation are totally separate things. They push this and the public buys it because most of the public has never been educated in scientific method and if the pushers are glib enough the public will buy it. It’s even worse in court. Anyone with half a brain on these issues will never make it to the jury. Ambulance chasers like the Breck Boy will select their venue in large cities and then insure that the jury is comprised mostly of inner city drop outs who already have an axe to grind against the evil wealthy of the country. If there is a chance that someone with education gets on the jury the lawyer scum doesn’t have to use up too many of his free exclusions to get them off.

The latest scam on this kind of “study” is global warming.

Rukle changes
To thsoe who mentioned Edwards, it is interesting to note that the Feds loosened up the evidentiary rules and basically invited in junk science:

To quote:

What accounts for the proliferation of pseudoscientific shantytowns all around the modern American courthouse? Beginning in about 1975, when the federal rules of evidence were codified for the first time, both federal and state courts began to be far more permissive about scientific testimony. Many abandoned an old standard -- known as the Frye rule, after a 1923 ruling on the use of lie-detector evidence in a criminal case -- which had previously required an expert witness to report views "generally accepted" in the wider scientific community. The upshot has been what federal court of appeals Judge Patrick Higginbotham has criticized as the "let it all in" approach to evidence. As Donald Elliott said in a speech given before he took his present position as general counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency, the law today "extends equal dignity to the opinions of charlatans and Nobel Prize winners, with only a lay jury to distinguish between the two." Edward Imwinkelried, co-author of the treatise Scientific Evidence, says that today's courts "accept a wide range of scientific testimony that would have been patently inadmissible ten years ago."

http://www.overlawyered.com/articles/huber/junksci.html

(Warning to lefties, it is a "right wing" source quoting a "right wing" author, so you will not believe it is true.)

Title
That should read "rule changes". I am typing horribly today.

Beez and SJR
Actually, I used to joke (before dropping out of law school) that lawyers would start suing God. I even came up with a way to do it. Since the rules allow you to serve a "registered agent" instead of the defendant, and the Pope claims to be Christ's Vicar on Earth, obviously he can be made to accept service on behalf of God.

Collecting a judgment on the other hand would be much more difficult.

reporting
It isn't just consumer reporting. Just look at this current attorney bunk. Finally Bush is standing up! The media purposly panicks everyone just so they can control them. The worst part this country has become so uneducated they fall for it. Critical thinking...what's that?

Hey, where did my post go?
I posted here last night that I hoped Mr.Stossel's second installment to his TH column would not be on the media and vaccines. Viewers of the television show 20/20 recently had the opportunity to see just how much Mr. Stossel "was embarrassed" by his profession when he did a 20/20 report on the scare tactics used by the media regarding vaccine safety. His report included interviewing his own daughter (how is that for journalistic integrity?) for her supposedly unbiased opinion on vaccines,
one "expert" physician paid by vaccine manufacturers and the same doctor behind the defective rotovirus vaccine first unleashed on the general public, and a lawyer (shown to be a greedy huckster) who had sued on behalf of parents whose child suffered vaccine injuries. He also interviewed the woman who began the National Vaccine Information Center for consumers. The NVIC has been instrumental in providing consumers with the PROS and CONS of vaccines, providing much information that is NOT given freely by the medical community in general. He completely dismissed her argument, stating that all the NVIC does is "scare" people. Mr. Stossel then claimed that his report supported how the media scares consumers. While I generally support Mr. Stossel's idea of the media needlessly scaring people, I felt his journalism standards were no better than the journalists he claims to be "embarrassed" by. For one thing, he failed to interview parents who have experienced significant vaccine reactions and he failed to interview medical professionals who have seen up close and personal these same vaccine reactions. In other words he did not fairly and accurately represent ALL sides of this volatile issue. Mr. Stossel has pretty much done the same with his above column in that he portrays the lawyer as a greedy shyster and accepts the statement from the Mayo Clinic representative as being
absolute truth. He then attempts to discredit women who believe their health problems were a result of silicon implants withOUT interviewing one of those women, as well as contrasting it with a woman who has had no problems with her silicon implants. I believe journalists should present BOTH sides of these kind of "media scares" and allow readers/viewers to make up their own minds. THIS is what responsible journalism is about.

media likeSSS, and we likeSSS. Ouch.
I assume Mr. Stossel didn't write the headline.
But, given the grammatical error in the headline,I had to laugh at his 1st sentence, "I'm embarrassed by my profession."

'Media like, and we like.'
Or 'Medium likes, and we like.'

'Media' is plural, 'medium' is singular.
And, of course, 'We' is plural.
The previous sentence is correct.

Ain't grammar fun?

silicone breast implants
Actually, long before the lawsuits and the scare mongering, scientists and the medical data had been saying that there was no connection between silicone breast implants and mysterious diseases. Those myths were fabricated out of whole cloth by the media and trial lawyers despite the contrary evidence of scientists and physicians. Physicians knew at the time David Kessler, then director of the FDA, that there was no evidence that silicone breast implants had any relation to lupus, MS, and other strange autoimmune and neurological diseases. David Kessler knew it to. His action, as head of the FDA, to ban silicone breast implants was a strictly political decision, not a medical or scientific one, and he knew it at the time. It was his action that resulted in the lawsuits, as it ostensibly supported the claims of the alarmists. This was of course reprehensible behavior from someone who is supposed to be the guru of "evidence-based" medicine. It also got him the position of Dean of the Yale University School of Medicine. It is the kind of behavior exemplified by Dr. Kessler that convinces us practicing physicians of the complete politicization of medical decision making in regulatory bodies. It was also Dr. Kessler's action that became the basis for the Trial Lawyer-media-regulatory (FDA) cabal that has been employed repeatedly since that time to induce mass torts against drug companies, doctors, and medical product manufacturers. The process is 1)claim some injury from a drug 2)file lawsuits 3)trumpet the suits in the press 4)spook the FDA to take an action against the drug, most often based on no good scientific evidence, only extremely exagerated claims 5)advertise for clients and pursue mass torts, counting on the courts to consolidate mass claims into class actions without perusal of the validity of individual claims 6)lawyers make off with big bucks from gullible juries and judges who let any nonsense into evidence as "scientific" 7)plow political contributions back to elected officials to produce more regulation and thus more liklihood of trumped up claims (which Congress is trying to do with the FDA right now) give more police power to engender more fraudulent claims of damage from drugs, more lawsuits, more money for lawyers, and the beat goes on. This is indeed a Fear-Industrial complex, much more dangerous than the Military Industrial complex Eisenhower warned about. FDR doesn't know how right he was. We really need to fear Fear Itself.

Why bother with facts?
are "urinalists" so stupid they do not realize that if you ask million people to get earth's average temperature, you will have MILLION DIFFERENT RESULTS?
You cannot measure the temperature of an earth or the universe!!!!! Too BIG!

Silicone implant lawsuits
And yet everytime someone tries to push Tort reform (mmmmm... torte reform...) through Congress, we end up with trial lawyers and special interest groups falling down with apoplexy screaming about the poor poor victims - won't SOMEbody think about the poor poor victims.

Americans need to get it through their heads that this kind of entitlement thinking will eventually RUIN our constitutional freedom as we lean more and more torwards socialistic behavior.

My post disappeared for the second time
WHAT is up at Townhall? My post is a comment directly showing Mr. Stossel to be the very kind of journalist he finds embarrassing.
I posted here last night (the first post that simply disappeared) that I hoped Mr.Stossel's second installment to his TH column would not be on the media and vaccines. Viewers of the television show 20/20 recently had the opportunity to see just how much Mr. Stossel "was embarrassed" by his profession when he did a 20/20 report on the scare tactics used by the media regarding vaccine safety. His report included interviewing his own daughter (how is that for journalistic integrity?) for her supposedly unbiased opinion on vaccines,
one "expert" physician paid by vaccine manufacturers and the same doctor behind the defective rotovirus vaccine first unleashed on the general public, and a lawyer (shown to be a greedy huckster) who had sued on behalf of parents whose child suffered vaccine injuries. He also interviewed the woman who began the National Vaccine Information Center for consumers. The NVIC has been instrumental in providing consumers with the PROS and CONS of vaccines, providing much information that is NOT given freely by the medical community in general. He completely dismissed her argument, stating that all the NVIC does is "scare" people. Mr. Stossel then claimed that his report supported how the media scares consumers. While I generally support Mr. Stossel's idea of the media needlessly scaring people, I felt his journalism standards were no better than the journalists he claims to be "embarrassed" by. For one thing, he failed to interview parents who have experienced significant vaccine reactions and he failed to interview medical professionals who have seen up close and personal these same vaccine reactions. In other words he did not fairly and accurately represent ALL sides of this volatile issue. Mr. Stossel has pretty much done the same with his above column in that he portrays the lawyer as a greedy shyster and accepts the statement from the Mayo Clinic representative as being
absolute truth. He then attempts to discredit women who believe their health problems were a result of silicon implants withOUT interviewing one of those women, as well as contrasting it with a woman who has had no problems with her silicon implants. I believe journalists should present BOTH sides of these kind of "media scares" and allow readers/viewers to make up their own minds. THIS is what responsible journalism is about.

not ashamed to be right
Learn to organise thoughts into sentences. Learn to organise sentences into coherent paragraphs. Learn to punctuate,separate and anticipate how stupid your writing will look to others.

I am so sorry for the repeated posts!
Easrlier today I noticed that my posts would disappear once they got submitted. Now I see that they are all back on the board. Please accept my apologies.

Old Sarge,
Thanks for the English lesson. Have a good day.

earlier,
not easrlier

Boo!
Can't scare me! I'm vaccinated!

John Stossel -no friend to kids on bikes
John Stossel- no friend to kids on bicycles!

Stossel attacks helmet laws for kids!

Stossel;

brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=98] found that government regulations that are supposed to save lives actually end up killing more people.

Why? Because safety laws ALMOST ALWAYS (misterfact's bold face type) have unintended bad consequences.

For years I've ridden my bike to work without a helmet, which seemed especially dumb since "20/20"'s offices are in New York City. I feel much safer now, but it's not clear that I am safer.

Ian Walker, a human-behavior researcher at the University of Bath in England, put a sensor and camera on his bike and rode for miles with and without a helmet. His data showed that when he wore the helmet, 23 percent more cars came within three feet of him.


misterfact writes: Saturday, March, 17, 2007 11:04 AM

Stossel article- incomplete !


So what! Where are Stossel's data that showed that ACCIDENTS increased! He has none!

For all we know the helmet gave Mr. Walker a greater sense of security so he rode his bicycle further into the street!


misterfact writes: Saturday, March, 17, 2007 11:20 AM

more- Stossel's suspicious study

Ian Walker, a human-behavior researcher at the University of Bath in England, put a sensor and camera on his bike and rode for miles with and without a helmet. His data showed that when he wore the helmet, 23 percent more cars came within three feet of him.

misterfact replies:

I would propose a LAW in the above situation that would PREVENT cars from driving to close to bicyclists:

Require evey cyclist to have SAFETY mirrors on his helmet and/or handlebars- so that he can see cars approaching from the rear and thus move over 3 feet where possible! The law of self-preservation would insure that the cyclist installs and uses them.

Stossel shows that he has no interest in any study that shows the safety benefit of helmets. Stossel shows that he is more concerned with superficial "studies" that attack laws, rather than promoting laws which save kids lives!

Safety laws "ALMOST ALWAYS" have unintended bad consequences!!?? I have yet to see a good example from Stossel.

I would not classify his approach to safety as having much to contribute to the public interest.

Michael Corman

Misterfact@yahoo.com









wandagag
Given the content of other TH posts you have submitted I would venture to say there are some diseases for which you are most definitely not vaccinated. In the interest of civility I will refrain from mentioning them.

misterfact
It is called individual liberty, misterfact. No one is stopping parents from providing their children with bicycle helmets. In fact, if you so choose, you can buy one for every child in your block. The issue is whether we want government to tell us how to live our lives. I say we do not.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.