Condescending Parents: I Don't Want Kids, and I am an Adult

Source

As a teenager I began to think that I might not want to have kids when I got older.  By the time I was in my
mid-twenties I was pretty certain that I wasn't going to have any kids.  Now, at the age of thirty, my thirty three year old life partner and I have decided, unequivocally, that we don't want to have kids.  We came to this decision for a variety of reasons including but not limited to our desire to travel, broader family issues, a desire to maintain and expand upon a lifestyle that is not necessarily amenable to raising children, and morally fraught proposition of bringing someone into this world that might not want to be here in the first place.  My partner and I had both been thinking about these things before we met, and have discussed them at length while examining and questioning our reasoning constantly.  In other words, we've put a lot of time and thought into this decision.

However, you would never know that if you saw how people react to us when we tell them that we don't have, nor do we want, kids.  The reactions are typically shocked, dismissive, and condescending, especially from those who have children.  Responses vary, but there are a few that are very common.  Among the most common are: "Oh you're still so young, you'll probably change your mind in a few years;" "But you'll never have a truly fulfilling life / be a true adult / know what love really is;" "Who will care for you when you're old?" and my favorite "But isn't that kind of selfish?"  Let's take these one at a time.

You're still so young, you'll probably change your mind
Yes, my partner and I at thirty and thirty three are so damn young.  Sort of.  Yes, we are biologically still of an age where we can easily reproduce, but that window will be closed in a decade or less without fertility treatment and all of the intended risks (to the parent and child) that come with that.  When I'm met with this response I find it to be very dismissive, invalidating, and condescending.  It was one thing when I was fifteen and I said I didn't want kids.  I was fifteen and wanted to sound cool and rebellious, and at that time I didn't know what the hell I wanted out of life.  Now, though, I've been thinking about these things for more than fifteen years.  I've put a lot of time and mental effort into this and my decision is based on intense moral reasoning and personal introspection.  When you say that due to my age I will probably change my mind what you are implicitly saying is that the decade and a half of thinking I've done on this issue is of little consequence; that all of the mental time and effort I put into this decision is not that important; that I'm the equivalent of a petulant child trying to piss off the elders.  So, thanks for telling me that my decision is naive and childish.

But you'll never have a truly fulfilling life / be a true adult / know what love really is
This line of thinking is summed up very well in a blog post by Sarah Larson entitled "I Think People Without Kids have Empty Lives and I'm Not Sorry About That."  Here is an excerpt that gets right to the meat of it:

I never thought of myself as the kind of person who judges other people’s choices. But after spending enough of my life with kids and without, I can’t deny what I really feel: It’s a perfectly fine choice to never become a parent, but there is absolutely no chance that your life will be as full or meaningful, or that you will learn as many essential truths about existence, as you would if you had kids. 

Because when it comes down to it, there are certain truths about life that you literally cannot know until you've become a parent. The list of those truths could go on forever (no, it really could), but the core truth behind all of it is about what human life is about, how we relate to each other, how to care for each other, and the tiny moments that, in the end, are what we do all this other shit to support.

This is so offensive that I don't even know where to begin.  Firstly, the author says she doesn't like to judge other people's choices, then jumps right into doing so.  It kind of reminds me of the old trope "I'm not racist, but . . ."  Yes Ms. Larson, you are judging my choices and telling me that I'm wrong.  Beyond that she writes about certain truths about life, such as how to care for and relate to others, that one "cannot"  know if they don't have kids (Interestingly, later in the post she says that people can learn these truths without kids, just that it will be more difficult and less meaningful).  Well, she's wrong.  Let's take her line about learning to "care for each other."  Having worked in education for several years, and specifically having spent time working in behavioral classrooms, along with having spent time caring for loved ones with mental illness, I have learned a lot about how to care for others.  I would argue that I am actually much more caring and compassionate, especially when it comes to children, than many, many parents that I know.  I've known kids with very 'loving' parents that beat them with coat hangers; that would say things like "Fuck you you little cunt!" to ten year old kids; that would leave their kids in daycare every night not because they had to work, but because the wanted to go out to happy hour.  When you argue that I can never truly care for others if I don't have kids you are invalidating all of the work I've done to care for others and to help make their lives a little better.  Try telling them that I don't know how to care, they'll disagree.

Another meme that comes along with this line of thinking is that one will never truly experience unconditional love without children.  When I write 'unconditional love,' I mean loving someone no matter what they may do to you or others.  For example, despite the fact that your spouse routinely beats your with a paddle and limits your autonomy you still love them and feel obligations towards them.  That's unconditional love.  I feel unconditional love for many people, and I'm working hard to stop doing that.  Unconditional love has led me into a toxic, enmeshed relationship (not with my life partner, but with another loved one) which I would have ended long ago had it not been for the 'unconditional love' that I feel for this person.  Because of that 'unconditional love' I'm spending large amounts of time and emotional energy to try and salvage a relationship that most sane, rational people would tell me to end ASAP if this person was not a loved one.  Instead I'm doing all I can to salvage a relationship that negatively impacts my life and damages my relationships with others.  Maybe if so many people didn't love their spouses/ parents/ children unconditionally then many fewer people would be the victims of domestic violence.  I've experienced unconditional love, and I want nothing to do with it.  Unfortunately many people take unconditional love as permission to verbally, emotionally, and physically abuse those giving the unconditional love.

Furthermore, I am a fully realized adult, and my life does have meaning.  I find meaning in every child that I finally understands multiplication after I help them with their homework.  I find meaning in the deep, loving, and trusting relationships that I have with my life partner, my friends, and my family.  I find meaning in the smile on my niece's face, and the grunts that come from her mouth, when I ask her if she wants to play monkey.  All of these experiences contribute to the person that I am and have helped me to mature into the adult that I am today.

Who will care for you when you're old?
Probably the same people who will care for you: the nurses, doctors, and orderlies in the nursing home that your children put you in.  Additionally, if one of the main reasons why you want to have kids is so that someone will care for you when you're old, then you're being incredibly selfish.  Additionally you are assuming that your child will actually love you enough to take care of you in your elder years.  You can be the greatest parent ever and still end up with adult children who hate you.  I wouldn't plan your retirement assuming that your kids will care for you.

But isn't that kind of selfish?
Admittedly, at least in my own experience, I am met with this reaction less and less these days.  But I still get it regularly enough.  I guess you could say that it's selfish of me to not want to give up going out of town on a moment's notice, or to give up sleeping in on the weekends and having a long lazy morning.  And I'm not sorry about that.  I don't want kids because I don't want to begrudge them or resent them because I had to give those things up.  Unfortunately, too many parents end up doing exactly that.  The truly selfish ones are those that have kids because "That's what people do," or because "Kids are so cute and I love playing with them."  Regarding the latter, if you want kids because they're fun and cute, get a job in a daycare center or a day camp.  Regarding the former, having kids because it's another milestone in life that everyone goes through is probably the worst reason to have a child.  You are bringing a human life into the world.  This is not like taking a shitty job or moving into an apartment in sketchy neighborhood when you're in college.  You can change those things, but you can't change the fact that you brought a human life into the world.  If you have kids because you think it might make you feel better, or that you'll seem like more of an adult in the eyes of others, then you are the selfish one.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

In the end, the people hurt most by these types of responses are not people like myself and my partner, but parents and children.  The responses I go into detail about above are part of a larger juggernaut of social pressure  and obligation to reproduce.  Many, but not all, parents became parents not because they truly wanted to.  They became parents because it was expected of them.  They never questioned their desire to have children.  They never asked themselves "Is it me that wants to have children?  Or is it other people?" So many people bring children into this world without considering what it truly means to create a human life. I'll give a pass to those that have children at very young ages.  Often very young parents made a mistake, and they know it.  What I cannot every respect is those who have kids because that just what you do at a certain age.  Your child is not a new car.  Your child is not a college education.  Your child is a human being and you'd better be damn sure that you are ready and aware of what a monumental task this is.  If you haven't done that but you still had kids, then you are a selfish prick who is potentially going to create and subsequently destroy a life.  

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.

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 . . .

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.

Climate Change Deniers Should Be Mocked, Ridiculed, Shamed, and Marginalized

Source

Earlier this month President Obama delivered the commencement address at the University of California at Irvine.  The president took the opportunity to call out climate change deniers and referred to them as posing "a serious threat" to our future.  I applaud the president for taking such a strong stance on an issue which is backed by broad scientific consensus.

As a good skeptic I try (and often fail) to critique and attack people's ideas, not the people themselves. Attacking someone personally and not their idea is a logical fallacy known as an ad hominem attack.  Most of the time I believe it is incumbent on skeptics, rationalists, and the scientifically minded to take the high road and avoid ad hominems.  Ad hominems are great for preaching to the choir and riling up your base, but they don't further rational discourse and rarely win people over to your cause.

However, like many things in life, there is room for exceptions.  Dealing with climate change deniers is one such instance.  This post is not about refuting the arguments of climate change deniers point by point.  That has already be done ad nauseum and it has been to no avail (see here for a great point by point refutation of all climate change denial arguments).  The deniers are as strident and deluded as ever, and no amount of science, data, and reality are going to stop them.  Unfortunately those in the popular media still give equal time and air to climate change deniers.  For those of you have not yet seen it John Oliver did a great job of addressing the ridiculous nature of this 'balance' on his show.

The science is overwhelming at this point.  Average global temperatures are rising, and the rise in temperatures is anthropogenic.  The scientific consensus behind these two facts is as solid as the consensus over gravity and the heliocentric nature of the solar system.

Given the overwhelming fact of climate change the deniers should be given the same kind of time and attention that we give to flat earthers and creationists.  The opinions of climate change deniers are based on a blatant denial of reality and are therefore wrong.  Arguing with them over the scientific merits of their arguments is useless because there is no scientific merit to their arguments.  Climate changes deniers will likely always exist, just like Holocaust deniers will always exist.  The difference though is that Holocaust deniers are mocked, ridiculed, and marginalized in the popular media, whereas climate change deniers are not.

The beliefs of climate change deniers are dangerous and threaten our chances of effectively mitigating the worst effects of climate change.  Their beliefs are more dangerous and threatening than those of Holocaust deniers or anti-vaccers because unlike the latter two groups the opinions of the former are treated as being just as valid as those of us who live in reality.  This is not acceptable especially when considering that these deniers actually have a great influence over public policy in this country.  News networks, newspapers, and websites that give these people a platform to spread their delusions and pseudo-science should be shamed and boycotted.  If you read an op-ed from a climate change denier in a popular newspaper write a letter to the editor letting them know that this is not acceptable.  If the same happens on television e-mail that station and shame them for allowing these moronic, science denying scumbags to pollute our airwaves.

So let's begin.  Let's make it a point to mock, ridicule, shame, and marginalize all of the climate change deniers and their enablers.  We need to make it so that those who are still on the fence regarding whether or not they believe climate change is real are afraid for their own dignity and self respect to be associated with climate change denial  Let's call out people such as Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, David Bellamy, James Inhofe, Ted Nuggent, Michale Chrichton, Ann Coulter, Donald Trump, and all of their enablers for being the superstitious, reality averse, anti-science, planet raping, science hating, Bible thumping, dumbshit, motherfucking troglodytes that they are.

The Millers, Conspiracy Theories, and Domestic Terrorism

On June 8 a young married couple in Nevada decided that they wanted to launch an revolution.  Jerad and Amanda Miller walked into a Las Vegas pizzeria, drew their weapons, and shot at point blank two police officers who were enjoying their lunch break.  Afterwards the couple draped the officers in Gadsden flags, and were reported by witnesses as shouting "This is the start of a revolution!"  They then retreated to a nearby Wal Mart where they were involved in a short gun battle with police which soon ended in a murder/suicide after Amanda Miller shot Jerad and then herself. 

There is a lot about this case that is very disturbing, but what disturbs me the most is how few people in the mainstream media (major cable and network outlets, national news papers) are calling this an act of domestic terrorism.  Secondly very few outlets are paying attention to the fact that the Millers were obsessed with conspiracy theories, which likely helped them to rationalize their plans.  

According to the FBI "'Domestic terrorism' means activities with the following three characteristics:

• Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
• Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination. or kidnapping; and
• Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S."

Given the motives behind this horrific act, which the Millers were clear about in their post on various social networks, including noted 9/11 conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' website, it becomes quite clear that this act, besides occurring within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., and involving acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law, was intended to violently influence government policies by intimidating and coercing civilian populations.  This was an act of domestic terrorism.  Many in the mainstream media have only mentioned this offhandedly, although Tom Ashbrook in his radio show On Point did a great job of analyzing this story within the context of domestic terrorism.  

Regarding the Millers' belief in conspiracy theories this has been mentioned, but not discussed.  Among others the Millers' believed the following conspiracy theories:

• 9/11 was an inside job
• Chemtrails
• New World Order conspiracies
• Obama socialist agenda conspiracies

This is a very important piece of this story.  I spend a lot of time debunking conspiracy theories with my friends and family and I'm often asked about what the harm is in having some crazy ideas.  Well, the Millers are the harm.  The Millers lived in a world awash in conspiracy theories that see all governments as evil, authoritarian, illegitimate, and murderous.  I highly doubt that the Millers would have been willing to go so far in their 'activism' if they didn't believe that local, state, and federal governments are malevolent entities bent on exterminating the sheeple.  

This is a story of domestic terrorism fueled by belief in many popular conspiracy theories.  Conspiracy theories are not harmless, they are dangerous.  Considering that this nation is armed to the hilt, paranoid, and polarized politically those spreading conspiracy theories are throwing gas on the fire.  All of those purveyors of government conspiracy theories have blood on their hands. 

The Top 5 Pseudo-Scientific Beliefs of Portlanders

Anyone who has spent more than five minutes in southeast or downtown Portland will quickly learn that Portlanders love their pseudo-science.  Does the scientific consensus over GMOs contradict what you believe about the evils of technology?  We've got pseudo-science for that!  Are you tired of all of the 'chemicals' that 'they' put in the water in order to poison/brainwash/control/enhance the dental health of the sheeple?   Well, no worries!  We've got pseudo-science to back up that bunk as well! Let's take a look at the five most popular pseudo scientific beliefs of Portlanders.

Source

1) Flouride in the water causes brain damage/cancer/genocide-  In 2013 Clean Water Portland successfully defeated a ballot initiative to fluoridate Portland's water supply.  Despite the fact that water fluoridation is lauded by public health experts as one of the most successful, beneficial, and cheap public health policies every,  that over sixty years of community fluoridation across the country has yielded no negative health or environmental effects, that fluoridated water is the only defense that those living in poverty have against tooth decay, Clean Water Porltand managed to convince Portlanders that water fluoridation is a scheme by 'Big Fluoride' to profit from poisoning every resident of Portland.  Because, y'know, chemicals!

Source

2) GMOs causes brain damage/cancer/genocide- GMOs are scary.  People don't want to eat 'genes.' Fortunately, we don't need to worry too much about GMOs according to more than two decades of GMOs existing in abundance in our food supply, and an overwhelming scientific consensus that GMOs have not been shown to harm personal health or the environment.  Luckily, if that pesky scientific consensus doesn't fit with your all natural worldview you can find your own 'science' to back up your beliefs, because that's how science works, you develop a belief, you try to prove it, and if you can't you keep trying until you make the data prove it.   This is exactly what we've done here in Portland.  There is a campaign going on here to put a proposal on November's ballot to require food manufactures to label GMOs in their food.  This campaign has glommed on to pseudo-science to push through their agenda!  Take for example the often cited is a study conducted by Gilles-Eric Séralini in which he found that GMOs fed to rats caused them to grow massive tumors.  The results were not so surprising when one considers that Séralini used a species of rat that is very prone to tumors, and that he covered the food in quantities of pesticides far in excess of what people would actually be exposed to when they eat GMO food.
and 'chemicals.'  Can't we just keep genes and chemicals out of our food, please? 

3- You can cure cancer/AIDS/autism/arthritis/obesity/ADHD/ and everything else with 'energy,'

Source

'forces,' and 'fields'- Portlanders love their alternative medicine.  Absolutely love it.  Why fill your body with poisonous 'chemicals' to cure your lung cancer when all you need to do is have your chakras realigned?  This city is awash in snake oil doctors that claim to be able to cure anything by harnessing your bodies own natural 'energy fields,' or aura, or whatever the hell forces reiki manipulates.  All of these services are couched in terms that sound sciency, but make absolutely no sense in context.  The next time someone tells you that you can cure your gout by harnessing your body's 'energy field' replace the words energy and field with their actual scientific definitions.  Energy is defined as the capacity for vigorous activity.  Field is defined as a region of space characterized by a physical property, such as gravitational or electromagnetic force or fluid pressure, having a determinable value at every point in the region. Now, you can cure your gout by harnessing your body's capacity for vigorous activity space characterized by a physical property.  Does that still make sense?

Source

4- Organic Food will stop global warming and make you a superhero- We love our organic food here. Decades of research has shown two things about organic food.  First, that organic food is no more or less nutritious than conventionally grown food.  Second, that it is not necessarily any less destructive of the environment than conventionally grown food.  Either way, what the hell has science ever done for us anyway?
 Because only some food is organic, despite the fact that all food contains carbon (technically anything that contains carbon, ie; all living or formerly living things, is organic).

5- Vaccines Cause Autism-  I got my child vaccinated.

Two days later my child began to show the first signs of autism.  Vaccinations cause my child's autism, in   much the same way that my breakfast cereal caused the pimple that appeared on my ass five minutes later.  Any good scientist will tell you that correlation ALWAYS means causation.  Oh wait, no they won't, only a pseudo scientist like Jenny McCarthy would tell you that (althought, my partner thinks that she doesn't even deserve that distinction).  Unfortunately for many children their parents fall for this very basic logical fallacy, and the consequences are serious.  Because parents (mostly white, liberal, college educated, and middle class) are refusing or delaying vaccinating their children serious childhood diseases such as whooping cough and measles are making a frightening comeback.  Besides putting their own children at risk these parents are putting other children at risk who really can't be vaccinated due to real medical conditions.  If too few children are vaccinated then herd immunity is diminished, and the most vulnerable among us (the elderly, infants, the immunocompromised) are put at serious risk because 'I'm a super parent and being a parent gives me magical powers that allow me to ignore science and good public health policy.'  Oh yeah, and vaccines contain chemicals.

So remember, if you want to live in Portland, chemicals are bad, nature is good, and my science is better than yours.