Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Mike Adams and Natural News: There Will Be Blood on Your Hands

Source
Recently on NaturalNews.com noted anti-GMO activist and charlatan Mike Adams wrote a paranoid, rambling, and quite frankly dangerous screed against GMO proponents.  Adams takes the position that those who support and advocate GMO technologies are the same as Nazi collaborators and should be treated as such. This is not just wrong, it is highly offensive and dangerous.

In over 4000 words Mike Adams screams in bold print about how there is a "scientific regime" taking over akin to the Nazi regime which killed over eleven million people.  He compares Nazi bastardization and abuse of science to promote eugenics to the biotech industries use of science to promote GMO technology.  At one point Adams says:

The warning signs that "GMO science" is following "Nazi science" are difficult to ignore. There is already a kind of scientific dictatorship surrounding GMOs which routinely invokes mafia-style tactics to silence scientific opposition, blacklist GMO skeptics in scientific circles, and destroy the character and careers of any who oppose the biotech regime. Monsanto's suing of farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMO seeds is especially grievous, and the online activities and tactics of its supporters very closely resemble the criminal mindedness of Hitler's Brownshirts.
The sad thing about this quotation is the fact that this is not at all true.  There is no scientific dictatorship around the use of GMO technology, but there is a consensus as to it's efficacy and safety.  Scientists don't blacklist or silence anti-GMO activists, they ask them for evidence and ignore them when none is forthcoming.  That is what science does.  Science is not a democracy where all people vote on the truth.  Furthermore, the comparison of GMO supporters to the Brownshirts is just laughable and historically ignorant, and it belittles and trivializes the horrors that the Brownshirts wrought on target populations.

Worst of all though is that Adams actually calls for vigilante justice to be taken against GMO supporters (which he denies within the same sentence):


Interestingly, just yesterday German President Joachim Gauck celebrated the lives of those brave Nazi officers who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944. (1) Their attempted Wolf's Lair bombing failed, but it was an honorable attempt to rid the world of tremendous evil by killing one of the people responsible for it. 
This official ceremony sends a message to the world, and that official message from the nation of Germany to the rest of the world is that "it is the moral right -- and even the obligation -- of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity." (UPDATE: Those are the paraphrased words of the German government, not my statement.)
So, since he quoted someone else means he is not condoning the killing of GMO technology supporters.  Except that he is.  He even goes on to suggesting that someone set up a website listing the names of "Monsanto Collaborators" along with helpful information to track them down.  Unfortunately, someone did just that: http://monsantocollaborators.org/ (fortunately it seems to have crashed).  Mike Adams has gone on to write that this website might actually be a false flag operation:

At first, I was pleased to see the list being published, but within a day, I decided the site was more likely another false flag trap set up by biotech operators who troll internet sites spamming message boards and intimidating bloggers and journalists. My best guess right now is that MonsantoCollaborators.org will be used to try to sucker in anti-GMO activists and then it will call for some sort of extremist violent action which can be blamed on activists. That's why I've warned the public about this up front in an effort to disarm that tactic. False flags will be used by biotech operators in precisely the same way Hitler used false flag operations to justify military invasions of his strategic enemies.
It is interesting to note that Adams cites absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this belief.  In fact, he cites no evidence whatsoever for his comparison of GMO proponents to Nazis.

In the end if you think Monsanto is pure evil and the GMOs are going to kill us all then fine, go on believing that.  You will soon be left behind by the rest of the humanity as we continue to progress and improve the human condition.  However, if you feel the need to use anti-science propaganda to justify your political ideology; if you feel that the scientific consensus around GMO technology does not fit your worldview and hence must be wrong; and most importantly, if you believe that those who support GMO technology need to be killed, then I care.  I care about the safety of good people trying to cut through the haze of anti-science misinformation so as to better inform public policy.  I care about the safety and well-being of small, unpaid bloggers like myself who try to promote science and skepticism.  Even if Adams does not seriously want people like myself to be killed his dangerous screed will contribute to it.  It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.  Mike Adams and Natural News should be held criminally negligent should any harm come to any person listed on Monsantocollaborators.org.

Monday, July 14, 2014

Why Women and Men Need Feminism

Source
Recently I've seen a meme going around on facebook that I find to be quite disturbing and misinformed.  This meme, published on IJRreview.com, features pictures of 15 women holding up signs explaining why they don't need feminism.  I don't deny that the women in the pictures are sincere in their beliefs, and they are of course entitled to hold those beliefs.  However, their beliefs are based on a complete misunderstanding and ignorance of what contemporary feminism is all about.  Most of the ideas expressed in these pictures have many common themes.  There are three themes in particular that appear in some or all of these signs. They are:

  1. Women are not victims of anything
  2. Feminists demonize men.
  3. Men have issues too.
Each of these themes expresses the mainstream of the conservative understanding of feminism, and they bear little resemblance to reality.  Each idea listed above is based on a caricature of feminism, not the reality of feminism.  The caricature painted by these photos presents feminists as women who hate men and want to overthrow patriarchy and monopolize power for themselves.  Additionally these 'feminists' want all women to have indiscriminate sex all of the time, to revel in and enjoy having abortions, to eschew motherhood and femininity, and make sure that all women view themselves as helpless victims who are entitled to unearned government subsidies. Fortunately for all of us this is not actually what contemporary feminism is all about.  I can anticipate many readers saying "I know that this isn't how all feminists think, but there are some like that."  Okay, this may be true, but in all of my reading of feminist literature, in all of my time spent with feminists, I've never once encountered such attitudes.  Sure, maybe this mythic man hating, power hungry, abortion loving, man raping bull-dyke exists, but if she does then she has absolutely no influence over feminist thought and philosophy nor standing in feminists circles.  Period.  So, without further delay, let's address each of the themes above one by one so we can come to an understanding of what feminism actually is and is not, and how it benefits both women and men.

Women are not the victims of anything
This is just wrong and a denial of reality.  One in five adult women and one in seventy one adult men report having experienced rape at some point in their lives.  A national survey of high school students conducted in 2011 found that 11.8% of girls, and 4.5% of boys in grades 9-12 reported that they had been forced into sexual intercourse at least once in their lives.  Keep in mind, this is based on what people have reported. Given that many rapes and sexual assaults go unreported the numbers are surely higher.  Lest you worry that I'm getting these statistics from some sort of biased feminist organization I didn't.  These numbers come from the Centers for Disease Control.  Anecdotally I can report that no less than three women in my life whom I know very well have each experienced rape and sexual assault.  I was the perpetrator in at least one of those instances of sexual assault (see the twelfth point here).  Feminists do not seek to make all women believe that they are victims.  What feminists seek is for society to recognize both women and men who have been victimized by sexism and patriarchy.  Feminists want us all to recognize that there are victims of sexual violence and that they deserve justice just the same as anyone else who has been the victim of violence.  We want people to not fear coming out about their experience and working through the difficult and debilitating emotions that come along with having been victimized.  Feminists do not seek to create victims, we seek to recognize victims, bring their perpetrators to justice, and fight to keep others from being victimized.  

Feminists Demonize All Men
Again, this is just plainly wrong.  Feminists do not seek to demonize men, but they do seek to highlight and point out male privilege.  This is not demonizing men, it's recognizing reality.  Similarly, pointing out male privilege is not attack on the person with the privilege, it is a critique of the social system which confers certain privileges on some while denying them to others for purely arbitrary reasons.  The idea is not that women should take these privileges and deny them to men, it is that both men and women should have these privileges.  Furthermore it is actually the anti-feminists out there that demonize men and belittle women.  Anti-feminists would have you believe that women who are raped or sexually assaulted deserve it because they must have been dressed provocatively or behaved indecently.  Such an attitude implies 1) that men are beasts incapable of controlling their primal sexual urges to rape anything with a vulva; and 2) that women need to have their dress and demeanor policed lest they entice one of these beastly, uncontrollable men to rape them. Personally, as a man, I find this to be highly offensive.  I've been guilty of sexual assault and harassment.  I knew better.  The women involved were not necessarily dressed proactively nor 'acting slutty.'  They did nothing to cause me to do that.  What did cause me to do those things was a sense of entitlement that I felt to their bodies.  That's my problem to figure out, not theirs.  Golda Meir put it best when she was asked about the possibility of imposing curfews on women in Israel after a series of rapes had occurred.  She responded, "But it is the men who are attacking the women.  If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."  

Men Have Issues Too
This is true.  Men do have issues as well, and many of these issues are tied up in sexism and patriarchy.  Men are oppressed by patriarchy as well, but in different ways.  Feminists do not deny this fact.  Feminist thought in the current moment is very cognizant of the issues that hurt men and recognizes the links between men's issues and women's issues.  They are in fact the same issues.  They are human issues.  Patriarchy hurts everyone involved. For example, the policing of sexuality is an issue that affects both men and women negatively.  Patriarchy dictates that women not to be sexual. We know how this oppresses women, but this same patriarchal view of sexuality dictates men should always be virile and horny. Any woman who is sexual, or any man who isn't, faces disapprobation.  Even the men who dominate society are too oppressed by patriarchy.  Men who digress from prescribed gender roles are marginalized, mocked, and ridiculed.   Unlike women though we at least have the ability to hide those aspects of ourselves, although this is still very damaging.  Take myself for example.  I break gender norms in that I love to cook, I do much of the cleaning in my home, I write poetry, I cry, and I have a rich emotional life.  I've taken a lot of shit for these things over the years.  My masculinity and sexuality are constantly questioned.  I've spent years of my life downplaying, hiding, or denying these aspects of myself.  Only now am I just beginning to understand myself as a person.  Only took THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!  Sexism and our society has repeatedly denied, invalidated, and belittled who I am as a man.  I am a man, and I cry, and fuck you if you can't take handle that.  The feminists in my life accept and respect me for who I am, not for who they think I should be.  My issues are not denied by women and feminists, they are embraced, highlighted, and recognized.  I would not have understood these issues without feminist thought.  

The goal of feminism is not to overthrow patriarchy and replace it with a matriarchy in which women monopolize power and oppress men.  The goal of feminism is to overthrow an inequitable, oppressive, and patriarchal system and replace it with an equitable, egalitarian, system in which all people share power and work collaboratively towards addressing and solving the problems facing humanity.  In other words, feminism is humanism.  

One last thing to note for all of the men out there reading this and saying to yourself "Y'know, this guy's got a good point," keep in mind that the women in your life have already told you these things.  You just didn't listen because, y'know . . .

Tuesday, July 1, 2014

Hobby Lobby Hypocrites

Source
Liberals, progressives, secularists, humanists, and many, many others are shocked and dismayed by yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court allowing Hobby Lobby and other 'closely held' corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees (even if those employees do not belong to the employers religion, and even when the employers religious beliefs fly in the face of reality and good public health policy).

We are shocked because this sets a precedent that may allow for corporations, already considered 'persons' by the Supreme Court, to opt out of other laws, or parts of laws, that they don't like as long as they can prove their reasoning is motivated by religious belief.  The decision was limited specifically to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and contraception coverage, but it sends a signal to 'closely held' corporations that they may find a sympathetic ear at the Supreme Court when they decide that their 'religion' obligates them to seek exemption from other laws the impinge on their beliefs (labor laws? environmental regulation?).

We are dismayed by the fact that the Supreme Court seems to believe that the religious liberty of 'persons' such as corporations supersedes the human rights of women.  There is no war on religion in this country, but there is an assault on secularism, and this case is a perfect example.  From gay marriage and sectarian prayers at public meetings, to abortion and opposition to the ACA, the religious right in this country is fighting not for the right to practice their religion, but for the right to oppress and eliminate the rights of others based on religious belief.

And we are galled by the fact that the Supreme Court has said that religious conviction allows a 'person' or closely held corporation that employs others has the right to let their religious convictions supersede the personal medical decisions privately agreed to between a woman her doctor, and her partner (to all the men, this isn't just a 'women's' issue).  This is by far the most highly offensive part of this ruling.  Anyone who values personal autonomy, privacy, and basic human rights should be livid over this decision.

However, the most offensive thing about this whole decision is not the decision itself, but Hobby Lobby.  The family behind Hobby Lobby, the Greens, are devout Christians.  They seek to run their company based on Biblical principles.  They claim to be sincere in their beliefs and that's why they needed to seek redress of their grievances, and they took it all the way to the Supreme Group.  This is so galling, so heinous, and so abhorrent because not only are they seeking to impose their superstitions on their employees, but because they are outright hypocrites regarding this very grievance.  In April Molly Redden reported in Mother Jones that:
Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).
You read that right.  Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that manufacture the very contraceptives that so offend their religious convictions.  The Greens are hypocrites in the truest sense of the word.  They are dissemblers seeking to deceive for their own ends.  Ben Domenech writing for the Federalist tried to defend the Green's hypocrisy by saying that "the investments and decisions with them [401[k] plans] are made by employees, not employers [emphasis in original].  The menu of choices is provided not by the employer but by the administrator of the plan, offering a wide range of mutual funds . . . "  According to Domenech these retirement plans are administered by the plan administrator, not Hobby Lobby, so their hands are clean. There are two problems with this argument.

First, Domenech makes it seem as if Hobby Lobby has no control over which companies money that they invest in a 401[k] will go to.  This is false.  Rick Ungar of Forbes debunked this claim in short order by noting:
[N]ot only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401[k] is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.  
He went on to name mutual funds such as The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund which filter out companies that manufacture contraceptives and or support Planned Parenthood.

Second, Domenech's argument that Hobby Lobby had no control over which companies a given mutual fund invested in is precisely the same control that they sought over the administration of the health insurance plans offered to their employees.  Apparently Hobby Lobby believes that it has a right to uphold its religious beliefs when it comes to restricting the human rights of its female employees, but that it isn't necessary to stick to their religious beliefs when it profits them.  Lying, greedy, self righteous, God damned hypocrites.