Animal Rights Extremists Are At It Again (Updated again)

Just to be sure I am very clear, I do not believe that all animal rights activists are terrorists or extremists. I make three distinctions that are very important. First are the activists - people who engage in peaceful protest and sometimes in peaceful civil disobedience. They belong in the very reasonable category of activist, even though I believe they are wrong. Then there are the extremists, people who do not engage in, but who advocate violence and other terror tactics. And finally there are the terrorists - people who engage in terror tactics. There is a great deal of difference between activism and the latter two categories, while there is only a fine line between the last two. When I am writing about animal rights issues, I am generally not talking about the activists, except insofar as I am talking about something they believe in too.

I just received an email from the David Jentsch PhD, of the organization Pro-Test. Apparently some animal rights extremist web sites have noticed the petition that, if you have yet to sign, you should absolutely sign now. While they do not publicize your personal information, your name does appear and some extremists are now doing searches for information on signatories and harassing us.

Yesterday, a few websites hosted by animal rights activists have encouraged their readerships to visit the list of Pro-Test signatories in order to find names and to contact those persons to express their opposition to animal research. While your email addresses on the RaisingVoices.net website are secure and not publicly listed, the animal rights groups encourage people to use the wide array of Internet tools to find contact information and to use it.

I just got a response to a request for the specific sites involved; The websites "Negotiation Is Over" and "Thomas Paines Corner," have simulposted a piece entitled; "Pro-Test Was Kind Enough to Provide a Directory of Vivisectors." Please be warned that these are extremist hate sites.

David Jentsch was one of the growing ranks of scientists who happen to do research that involves animals, to be attacked by these terrorists, in March of this year. Unlike many of the victims of these attacks - ten on UCLA professors in the past three years, Dr. Jentsch decided that enough was enough and taking the cue from colleagues in the UK, Pro-Test came to the U.S.

As many of you know, I am an ardent opponent of terrorism, regardless of the cause they claim to support. Over the last several months I have tangled with animal rights extremists online, on several occasions. They sometimes pay lip service to opposing these terrorist fucking bastards, but it is more than a little obvious that they have a great deal of sympathy and some have outright appreciation for their actions. I have been vaguely threatened by a couple of these assholes and expect to be in the future.

Terrorism is - always is inexcusable. I have denounced terrorism in the name of environmental issues, losing friends in the process. I have denounced terrorism among the Palestinians - again, losing friends in the process. And I have denounced terrorism for animal rights - and refused to join protests at OHSU, yet again, losing friends in the process. I was told by some of those same animal rights extremist friends, that I am evil. That I am disgusting and my support of animal testing is little different than offering my children for experimentation. I was told that karma would come back on me for being such a horrible fucking person.

Makes me wish there was such a thing as karma, because I am pretty sure that some scumbag who firebombed someone's car, terrorized someone else's family, blowing up labs and generally terrorizing people - intimidating people to get them to do what the want - they would have some serious repercussions for that. And now these people are out to intimidate some more - over the internets no less. Well, good on them for letting us know that our efforts - small as they may be on the parts of many of us, are not in vain. It is nice to know that they are displeased and feel the need to try to stop us from apposing their extremist and often terrorist agenda.

So please, if you have not signed, now is the time to lend your support. Let these vile cretins know that you support science, you support medicine, you support a better understanding of disease, you support new medicines and improving old ones.

Let them know you support a better future for your parents, your children, your grandchildren, your friends - yourself. Let them know you support the scientists who are helping make that better future and will not tolerate violence against them.

Privilege and The Importance of Discomfort

There are certain discussions that make me really uncomfortable. Not always, but often enough. I am really uncomfortable, for example, when race/gender/sexuality/ethnicity - pretty much any identity discussions hit on something that I should feel kind of guilty about. I also get very uncomfortable when discussions about behaviors and choices start to force me to think about behaviors and choices that I am not happy about in my own life - when the discussion hits close enough to the mark that I start making associations. Sometimes it gets really uncomfortable - like lose sleep over it, feel like shit about it uncomfortable.

That's the best time, because the worse it feels, the more you are growing and making positive, fundamental changes.

We don't change our thinking or behaviors when we are all cozy and comfy. We don't have any impetus when things seem rosy, so we get complacent. It isn't until we are uncomfortable that changes we need to make can happen. The problem with this, is that all too often we decide to just blame what or whoever exposed us to the discomfort and attempt to banish them or at least get them to shut up and stop making us uncomfortable. Like we really want our token brown/gay/trans/ethnic minority friend around to make us feel hip and progressive - we just wish they would talk and act more like us and quit trying to make us understand their perspective. It is sooo uncomfortable when they do that...

The problem is, by and large they do. They want to - you know - work and have friends and all that, so they do shut up and just pretend it's ok. They often actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt! I want you to think about that for a moment - one of the many things that privilege means, is that minorities actually feel guilty for our fucking guilt, so we don't have to be uncomfortable enough to do something about it. Talk about fucking privilege - we make them feel guilty about our guilt that wells up when they talk about their discomfort. Here's a tip - the feelings of the disenfranchised are valid. They have a right to feel that way, even if you didn't intend something you said that was offensive to be offensive.

I have been trying to write this post for sometime now, but keep getting blocked by my anger about one of the most egregious points of contention; I have the privilege of writing this post without much concern for retribution. I don't really need to worry overmuch about how people who will have an impact on my career - my future might feel about me for saying this. I am not going to get labeled an angry brown/gay/trans person for saying this. Sure, some folks may argue with me about this, but in the end I sport beige skin and rather than a uterus, I have a cock - and I am engaged in a heteronormative relationship.

So it's all good, because I am in baby!!! I'm part of the club.

But if, for example, my totally brilliant and super hot girlfriend decided to write openly about this under her real name, it could well have an adverse affect on her future. Folks might decide that they really don't want to hire an angry brown women. At the very least, she will be told that her feelings aren't valid. Hell, that whole thread is chocked full of people who just can't believe that people who really don't like to be referred to as "the brown person" have valid feelings on the matter.

The message I am getting there is; "Your discussion about things that make you uncomfortable is making me uncomfortable - I sometimes say things like that and hearing how it makes you feel is making me feel vaguely uneasy and bad about myself. And of course, my feelings are far more valid than yours, so please just shut the fuck up and let me get on with feeling good about being a decent person."

Shut the fuck up, you whiny little asshole. Seriously. Shut the fuck up and consider why you feel uncomfortable. Hell, just think about that discomfort and consider that rather than shutting people down for making you feel that way, you can actually change your behavior and respect the feelings of others. Because the last time I checked, my GF can't change the color of her skin (and I would be really bummed if she could and did - she is totally hot). Isis can't change the experience she had growing up. That token queer friend of yours can't do anything to change how he internalized all the times he was separated out by his sexuality.

You however, can accept and embrace your discomfort, allow it to foster change in your life so you can quit being a fucking asshole and making others feel bad about things that they cannot change.

If you gotta Godwin: A rule for Anti-vax loons and other Denialists

Orac is getting rather bored with the damned Hitler references already. Now I can't say that my new rule - more a suggestion really, will get you much further than calling anyone Hitler will. But lets try to get creative about it, 'k? In the spirit of turning over new leaves, of entering exciting new realms of hyperbole, I thought I would help you folks out. Lets stop being so generic. Hitler is so very early millennium - socialism is the new fascism.

Keep in mind though, many of these will easily apply to those of us loons who are rather more keen on evidence than hysteria. And they needn't be restricted to vaccine denialists either. These work just as well for cancer denialists, HIV/AIDS denialists, even psychiatry denialists. I am pretty sure the more creative among you - and there is a lot of creativity amongst the denialists - can even work it for 9/11 denialism and other non-medical woo.

1) Chairman Orac and his merry band of Maoist poison peddlers!!1!11!! (or Chairman Tara and her...)

2) Pal Pot, the anti-smoking mass murderer and pharma shill!!!11! (sorry, but I don't think that one really works for anyone else)

3) McCarthy Hoofnagle thought crime investigator!!!11!!

4) Mike the murdering Bolshevic!!1!11!!!

5) PZ Stalin - Christian baby eating Cthulu worshiper!!1!!!1!

6) Ed Satan and his dispatches from hell!!1!11!!

7) Osama Greg Laden - Islamosocialist terrorist!!1!!111

8) DrugCaligula evile cloner of human/lab animal hybrids!!1!!11!!

9) Bad Ass Cylon destroying the human race!!!1!!1!11!! (stolen from the Science Pundit)

10) Jason Chavez, totalitarian commie gun thief!!!11!!1!!!

11) Imelda Podblack, laughing in her million dollar wardrobe, while poor babies are injected with toxic sludge!!!11!!!!1! (Mike Haubrich, FCD)

12) Dave and Greta Mussolini, with their propaganda rag, the Communist Daily!!1!!11!!! (Lousy Damned Canuck)

13) Jamestiltskin on his Island of the Damned, dragging down teh human race one royal firstborn at a time!!1!11!!!1 (Stolen from that Damned Canuck)

14) Stephanie Genghis Zkhan, barbarian warlord, murderer of peasants and pusher of wordiness!!1!!!!1!! (Osama)

15) Mike Jong-Il, repressive socialist sociopath, who probably hangs people who aren't "rational"!!!11!1!!!!!

16) Greta M Hari, flaunting evidence, sexuality and erototoxins - she's into that toxic sludge marinading too!!!1!!111!!!

17) Lucretia Sci Borgia, the treacherous temptress of science, injecting the poison directly into your BRAIN!!!11!1!!

18) Ben Goldtorquemada, turning the tables on the inquisition!!!11!111!! (David D.G.)

Come on, lets make this list longer, so we can provide an exhaustive reference for those times when irrational arguments are wearing thin and only a Godwin will do!!! Help a loon out - or if you are a loon - get creative!!!

And if someone calls you Hitler, you can send them this way!!!11!!!1!!

Criminal Stupidity

I really despise incompetent morons who decide to charge people money to fuck up their homes. Every time I turn around and look at the shit the criminally, pathologically stupid son of a bitch who worked on my parent's home did, I get more and more angry.

But the stupidity on their roof really takes the trophy for ridiculously fucking stupid. What he did around their chimney is so egregiously incompetent, that I doubt anyone reading this blog would think that it would actually shed water. I am quite confident that any one of you would have managed a far better job of it - I don't care if you're blind and missing one arm - you simply could not screw it up as bad as this idiot did.

This is a level of stupid that should land people in jail.

Misogyny, Misandry and What Lies Beneath

DuWayne has been very, very bad. We're talking horribly evile and possibly even stoopid. Recently, I had the gall to use the term misogyny, while totally failing to counterpoint it with accusations of misandry after being attacked with an apparent attempt at misandrist rhetoric. Worse, it was then noted that in all my posts about gender, I have only mentioned misogyny once and never mention misandry. Apparently it didn't matter that the time I posted about misogyny, it was to chastise someone who made a flagrantly bullshit accusation of misogyny. No, what matters is that I have completely ignored misandry.

Evile I tell you, I am totally evile...

Or am I?

There is a reason that I haven't really discussed misogyny and misandry. While I definitely do not approve of either, I am far more interested in writing about the roots of misogyny and misandry. Rather than focusing on specific incidents of M&M, I want to focus on why I think these are persistent problems in society and the evidence that suggests that I'm correct in my perception of the underlying problems. And while there are plenty of folks discussing specific incidents of M or M, there aren't so many discussing how to deal with the root causes.

While I am not one to shy from illustrative anecdotes, I tend to be a rather abstract thinker. I am more interested in the why than I am in the specific whats. The why is important, because until we understand the why, we can't deal with the whats and ultimately we'll just be stuck in a reactionary mode that will never accomplish anything.

But I think there are some very important points to be made about M&M. Accusations of M or M tend to fly way too freely. Like many other sorts of accusations, the overuse of M&M has gotten to the point that both words, especially misogyny, have been rendered virtually meaningless. Like the post I wrote about misogyny - accusing someone who is criticizing someone else of misogyny, simply because the person being criticized happens to be a women is absolutely absurd on it's face. Likewise, taking the lying gameplaying insult at Greg's blog and assuming that it exemplifies misandry is absurd. It was a personal insult leveled at me and men who share some similarities with me - it was far from a generalized statement of man hating.

These should be very powerful words, yet like many powerful words they are rapidly becoming useless. When I was a child, bigot was a word of similar power and while it is still a relatively nasty word, one can't assume that a person being accused of bigotry has said or done really horrible things. It has gotten to the point where we just use too many damned power words in inappropriate places. We just destroy the potency that such words should have and render them useless when it is appropriate. And I say we because unfortunately, I am occasionally guilty of it as well.

What's really rather ironic, is that I didn't really think that the original post that fostered this discussion (warning: there are rather nasty trolls on this thread, do not read scroll down that thread if you have bloodpressure problems) was showing something that is inherently misogynistic. Rather, the very old childrens book pictured perpetuates gender roles that lend themselves to misogyny and destructive gender role conflicts. That book and the bullshit it perpetuated is definitely worthy of discussion and I plan on writing about it at some point. But even that is not worthy of accusations of misogyny. Rather, it is worthy of fostering a discussion of what lies beneath misogynistic attitudes and ultimately misandrist attitudes that were fostered in the backlash of the social gender constructs that book fosters.

But even beyond the discussion of M&M, it would really behoove us to quit acting like complete and utter fucking morons and use power words sparingly, so that they can retain their power.

Ya Think (bloody damned morons)

I needed a little break from my final paper, so I thought I would take the moment to share this little nugget of wisdom I found in The Cognitive Therapy of Substance Abuse. Keeping in mind that this is in the context of the first session with a new client:

For example, the cognitive therapist would be ill-advised to speak in the following manner:

"We're going to be examining your thinking processes, to understand the kinds of cognitive distortions that lead you to engage in maladaptive behaviors such as drug abuse and antisocial behaviors."

I'm sorry, but if you are honestly stupid enough that it would ever cross your mind that saying anything at all like this to any patient would be reasonable, you really need to find a career that doesn't involve cognitive therapy of any kind. And if you are stupid enough that you would consider saying that to an addict you would actually like to see get help, you really need to consider a career that doesn't put you in a position to be a risk to others - like pressing buttons that go bing.

What irritates me about this example, is not simply that it's so completely absurd, it's that there are a host of more subtle mistakes that a therapist could make that aren't shown. For example, I could see a therapist saying the following, especially if said therapist was new to this and rather nervous:

"So John, what I'd like to do is explain a little bit about how cognitive therapy. I'd like you to feel free to ask me any questions you might have about this type of treatment, so don't be shy. We're going to try to understand how you see things, how you feel about your life, who you are - about using drugs. This is important, because it can give me a good idea of where your coming from and where things went wrong. This will also start to help you understand yourself a little better and help you turn your life around in a direction you would be more satisfied with."

Do you see the problem ? It's subtle and could actually turn out to be language use that the client will be comfortable with. But there is no way that the therapist can know that in the very first conversation with a client - especially a client who is a substance abuser. Even when they were the one to initiate contact, drug abusers are notoriously reticent about help seeking. Quite often the first session is going to be the only session - even if the therapist does everything right. So this first session is walking in eggshells - you will not get a second chance to fix any mistakes you make.

"...where things went wrong." is the problem statement. Yes, they are there because something is very wrong and presumably things went wrong somewhere. Odds are pretty damned good that if they're in your office, they even know that things went wrong somewhere and assume that you know this too. The problem is that verbalizing this smacks of judgment. The client may well decide you believe that they are wrong as a person. Even if they don't go to that extreme, it is likely to both anger them and flare up their shame response. One simple word like that can easily cut the chances that the client will return in half.

I don't want to give the impression that this book is horrible. Actually I think it does a fairly admirable job, though I disagree rather strongly with some of the base assumptions of the authors. It is a book intended to be supplemental material for the practicing cognitive therapist who is getting involved in treating substance abusers and addicts. Ultimately, this is really my problem with the aforementioned scenario - while the example they give should be absolutely obvious to anyone who was able to become an accredited cognitive therapist, the example I provide might not be as obvious. And while making a "wrong" statement to any patient should be avoided in initial sessions (with most clients, at all), it is especially critical when dealing with addicts. If an example of what not to say under the circumstances were necessary, it would make far more sense to use one that is more subtle - a reminder to reinforce what the cognitive therapist has already learned, probably repeatedly, over the years they've spent in school.

As a complete aside, I will note that under pressure and feeling rather crappy, I have managed to smoke only three cigarettes thus far today. Although my Joni Mitchell station on Pandora is helping an awful lot. That and my e-cig...

Seroquel: Day 2 Night 3 on my new meds

Sorry, there is some cursing going on here and I am not really feeling up to mucking about with the HTML to put it under the fold.

So on Friday, I went not only to my normal Friday therapy appointment, I also went to my doctor. I can not begin to explain how wonderful it is to be seeing the doctor I grew up with (or a doctor at all for that matter). I am not able to see him for general health concerns, because the visits are out of pocket. But to be able to deal with him for my psych meds is just so much easier, than dealing with the sliding scale clinic would be. Dr. T has known me since I was a relatively small child and knows a lot of my proclivities. He is also aware of my substance abuse issues and takes that into consideration.

Above all, it is really great to be dealing with a doctor who exemplifies everything great about family GPs. And who is also a licensed clinical psychotherapist and psychiatrist.

We spent about half an hour discussing my concerns and fears about going on a mood stabilizer. He was very clear that whatever we end up with, I am going to have to accept that some of what I am afraid of losing, is going to be lost. Ultimately, some of what I am afraid of losing is part of what is holding me back. I understand this, but it is not easy to accept - but then there are those beautiful little boys in the last post and it's a little easier to accept. So I am now taking Seroquel.

That said, I almost didn't take my new meds again last night. I don't like this, feeling like this and not feeling like I usually do. I am fucking angry and frustrated and really don't like it. Yesterday was fucking awful. Four or five times I just broke down and cried. I couldn't think straight to save my life. Today was a little better and tomorrow should be even better - we'll see. But I am also supposed to increase my dosage here soon, not as quickly as a lot of people do, but still. I really don't want to have another day like yesterday.

I am coming to understand it, but it boggles my mind that I got through thirty-two fucking years without really accepting or understanding what the hell is happening in my head. I chalked it up to the ADHD and honestly never really bought into the bipolar diagnosis. I mean I accepted that I may well be bipolar, but I never really grasped the actual impact it has had on me. I brought this up to Dr. T, because while there has been a several year hole, he's known me for almost twenty-five years.

He suggested the very thing that I brought up in my first of a series on Thursday, I have been dealing with this since I was born. I have had my entire life to learn ways to compensate. I didn't have a sudden onset as a teen or tweener, I got a leg up on them by working through my childhood on being less atypical. And I had the ADHD to blame for what I couldn't manage.

Fuck! I just took my pill for the evening ten minutes or so ago. And I am just fucking drifting now. I can focus, but I am not able to focus - it's really hard to explain. The bitter irony, there was a time when I would have been thrilled to have this shit. It's a fucking high to be sure. But I don't control it. I would love nothing more than to flush this crap down the fucking toilet and get a bag of weed. It may not be as effective, but at least I have control of my high. And the first half hour to an hour with weed doesn't make me keep getting weepy. Though I have to admit that that too is not as bad tonight, as it was the first night, or even last night, which wasn't as bad as the first.

I am going to give it the week at least, probably more. Even if it doesn't work out, we need to know exactly what kind of problems I am having with it, so we can move on to the next with a higher likelihood of success. And the few nights I've taken it are just not a reasonable assessment period. But this really fucking sucks.

I am, by the way, going to continue writing that series I started on Thursday. But it is going to be in my own time. It's not all that easy for me, though it is extremely valuable to me. And I would also really like to write about the issue of these "conscientious" objecting pharmacists, who don't want to fill scripts for meds that they think are wrong, but honestly, it just makes me so fucking angry that I have a hard time writing about it rationally. I already blew up big time at Abel's TerraSig and started to really lose it at Pal's White Coat Underground. Sorry guys. But I would really appreciate it if you would take a look at their posts and after, take a look at this clearinghouse for proposed and passed state legislation about conscience clauses for pharmacists and other health care pros. I would like to say that I will get around to posting about it, but it's highly unlikely - I have way too much on my plate. Two midterms on Tuesday and homework I haven't touched since Friday, because of these fucking meds. Not to mention home repair projects for a couple of very supportive friends, that are piling up.

An Open Letter to Graham Lawton

Mr. Lawton is a print journalist for the magazine The New Scientist. He has rather pissed off several science bloggers with his sensationalist cover story; Darwin Was Wrong. While he has found some support from folks in the "intelligent design" movement, actual scientists and science bloggers have gotten a little bit pissed off with him.

You seem to have a very bad attitude about blogs and an overinflated notion of your impact as a print journalist. Let me talk a little about the impact of blogs and science blogs in particular, on my own life.

I'm a thirty two year old high school dropout. Not because I'm stupid, but because I have a whole host of problems that brought me to this point in my life. I'm actually a rather bright fellow, with a wide range of interests that I tend to be rather well informed about. One of the biggest challenges I've faced, while trying to get back to school; I didn't know what I wanted to do.

A few years ago I discovered the blogosphere. Not terribly long after that, I discovered science bloggers. Joy of joys, I discovered that I could not only learn something, I could get involved in the conversation. And nobody cared about my educational background. As long as I was basing my own assertions on evidence, I was accepted as a valuable contributor to the conversation. Even better, I suddenly had some access to people with relevant background in fields that really interest me (even Bora here, was kind enough to answer some of my questions way back).

I had questions about genetics, a Phd geneticist was happy to take the time to answer. I had questions about drug interactions, a professor of pharmacology could help. I had questions about the workings of the human brain, there's a neurologist positively thrilled I was interested. I wanted to discuss addiction, there's an NIH funded addiction researcher glad I provided the insights of someone with substance abuse issues.

And now I'm in school and I have a direction. I'm in a position to incorporate several fields of interest, into a degree that will place me into a position to have a positive impact on my community and society. And I have the support and validation of a host of academics, some of whom are as excited as I am that I've begun this journey. People who have emailed me, to make sure that I know that they are a resource I have at my disposal. The same people who fostered discussions that helped me find my direction, also feel some compulsion to help me succeed.

What I have gotten out of a few years in the blogosphere and have every reason to expect I will continue to get, is something that just doesn't exist with print journalism. Not to say that it doesn't have it's place, but ours is a brave new world that values discussion over dictation, interaction over awe for the author's grasp of a concept. And above all, truth over sensationalism. Which is not to say that sensationalism doesn't have it's place, we're all human after all. But when the sensational takes precedence over honesty, folks will crawl out of the woodwork with the truth of things.

And it is more than truth, it's perception of truth. Your cover story chose the sensational over a reasonable perception of the truth. In a time when science has been under heavy fire from the forces of ignorance and darkness (and while the UK is doing better than my own nation, the difference is one of degree, not the problem itself), you just provided them with more fodder to attack reason.

And lest you find yourself pretending the internet forgets, just google society of homeopathy, or truth homeopathic. The latter won't get you as many critical hits as the former, but there I am at number two, for a post I wrote fifteen months ago. Google the former and you will discover why the UK's Society of Homeopathy probably regrets using a bullshit lawsuit threat, to silence criticism of homeopathy. Here's a hint; if you try to google them to find their site, you have to get through a couple pages of pieces on them, most of which post the article that offended them to the point of lawsuit.

Homeopthic Thuggery Thwarted

Aww, that poor SoH. Us nasty old bloggers are just too mean. From the SoH;

The Society of Homeopaths took the content of the 2006 BBC Newsnight programme on malaria very seriously and responded via press statements and media interviews promising action if it were required. We contacted the programme makers directly to ask for their evidence that any Society members had given dangerous or misleading advice to members of the public. They were unable to provide a single example. The Society's professional conduct procedures cannot be invoked without a specific complaint, an alleged offender or any evidence. In these circumstances, The Society was unable to investigate a specific case. Nevertheless, as a further precaution, we reissued our Guidelines on advice for the prevention of malaria and sent a copy to every member within a day of the programme being aired.

The Society instructed lawyers to write to the Internet Service Provider of Dr. Lewis' website because the content of his site was not merely critical but defamatory of The Society, with the effect that its reputation could have been lowered. Dr Lewis, in his article, stated as fact highly offensive comments about The Society and it is for that reason that The Society decided it had no option but to take action. The very crude abuse posted on various websites and e-mailed to The Society since our action suggests that these bloggers/authors are not people who are interested in a real debate on the basis of either science or the public good but who simply want to attack homeopathy, for the very sake of it.

Due to the unpleasantness and surprisingly vitriolic nature of the postings on the Quackometer website and others, The Society has taken a conscious decision not to respond to these bloggers.

As a commenter at Orac's opined;

It's kinda like my five-year-old whining about me sitting in her imaginary friend's seat.

I think that sums it up nicely.

I will have a post up soonish, about this and other methods of chilling speech. But as my last post mentioned, I am without a connection at home right now, so it could be a bit.

Want To Silence Your Critics, Go After Their Kids

Addendum, the technorati search now turns up nothing, but it was there earlier, when I clicked over to it.

Another one from Orac. For those who don't click over, in short, a scum called John Best, managed to get a great voice for neurodiversity, Kev of Left Brain, Right Brain, to close up shop. Not through lawsuits, not through direct threats of physical violence, but by attacking Kev's daughter. Real class act, our Mr. Best. I will not link to Mr. Best, or his anti-neurodiversity screeds. But here is a quote that was found via technorati, by two of Orac's commenters;

1. Hey Dad, if you stop treating me like a monkey to teach me how to perform some simple tasks, you might find out that I'm very ill mentally. I can't learn those things you want me to learn because my brain just won't work right. You're a real horse's ass Dad, for defending the drug companies who scrambled my brain. Any decent father...celebrating, Dad. Being autistic sucks. Not being able to talk sucks. Not having friends sucks

2. Hey Dad, Weren't you listening to me? I didn't ask you to attack that nice Mr Best who wants me to enjoy my life. I asked you to help me. How does attacking a parent who helps his son help me, Dad? I don't care about this neurodiversity crap, Dad. I just want to be like normal kids. Please Dad, I hope you won't be mean

Calming down now. I have autistic friends. My five year old has autistic friends. This makes me very angry. Beyond the pale kind of pissed. If you have read me for long, you might have noticed my discussion of ADHD and bipolar, which touched briefly on neurodiversity. I will discuss it again soon, as it is obviously needed. But this post is meant to illustrate yet another tactic that is quite handy for stifling criticism, a theme lately.

This is probably the most common tactic used to stifle dissenting views. The use of personal and familial mocking and abuse. It is huge in the blogosphere. Not mere taunting or parody, but harsh, hard attacks on one's family. Sometimes it is taken too far and reaches the level of threats, that go a little past insinuation. But usually, the practitioners of this vile practice stay just this side of legal. Making it no less repugnant.

As I am way behind on all sorts of posting, I have to apologiuse, but those posts will probably be a while in coming. I am working on a few important pieces that are taking precedence. One is a longer post on methods of silencing critics and chilling free expression. Another is a long overdue discussion of neurodiversity that will probably encompass the end of my story about my life with ADHD and finally, I am working on a article about "alternative" medicine, that is intended for publication in one of the Portland weekly papers, here in the heart of CAM country. All that and I am still working a big job. I will try to get more short posts, referencing other bloggers and articles, but for the heavy writing, I am busy.

This would also be a good time to reiterate that I welcome guest and crosspostings. Just email me if you are interested. And as always, don't hesitate because you're afraid that I'll disagree with you. Unless you want to perpetrate denialism on my blog, dissenting views are welcome here, as long as they are civil (on the front page at least, try to keep it reasonable in comments, but there is a lot moree leeway there)

Reconstructionists In Michigan

To put a quick break to the free speech posts (don't worry, there's another one coming shortly, again via Orac @ Respectful Insolence), I thought I would cross-post from my brother's blog. First time and on his birthday no less. While I am linking to Ed, I would like to attract your attention to this great article he wrote in the Michigan Messenger, about the Seven Straight Nights for Equal Rights project. (yes, I will eventually get to posting about marriage equality, for now, please read that article and while your at it, catch this great commentary, much better than my own in that thread)

I have spent little time reading about reconstructionists, except to understand that they're a bit on the loony side. Just how nuts, I was not aware. Of especial interest is the commentary on North's affinity for stoning as punishment for crimes. Talk about fostering a sense of community, I guess that could be an advantage of stoning. So without further ado, thanks to Ed, for making clear he wouldn't sue me for copyright infringment, for the repost.

From Dispatches;
Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science and The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. (static)

I was having a discussion with the pastor of a relatively liberal (in both the theological and political sense) Christian church in Lansing recently and I asked him if he was familiar with the Okemos Christian Center. He replied that he was not. I was a bit surprised that he was unaware of this fast growing congregation, also known as the Living Water Church of God, that had made the local newspapers as a result of its lawsuit against Meridian Township for denying a permit to build a new 35,000 square foot facility that would house a Christian school for nearly 300 students. I was not surprised, however, at his reaction when I mentioned that I had brought them up because they are a reconstructionist church; his eyes got big and he was clearly a bit taken aback by this news as he simply muttered, "Wow...."

In order to understand the pastor's reaction, we must first ask the obvious question: what is reconstructionism? This term is often used interchangeably with other terms like dominionism, theonomy and theocracy. Let me offer two definitions at two different levels of analysis.

Longer, more detailed definition: Reconstructionism is a particular type of reformed, or Calvinistic, theology that is based primarily on the work or RJ Rushdoony, who drew on the work of Cornelius Van Til. Theologically, it is defined as presuppositionalist (meaning they argue from the position that no argument can be coherent without being based in Christian epistemology), post-millenialist (meaning they believe that Christ will only return after the establishment of genuinely Christian societies on Earth through massive conversion of the population, and theonomist, meaning that they believe in establishing God's rule as a matter of law.

Shorter, simpler definition: Reconstructionism is the belief that the Bible should determine the civil and criminal law of the nation.

It's also important, I think, to spell out what reconstructionsts are not, or perhaps more accurately, to distinguish between what we might call the mainstream religious right and the Christian reconstructionists. Your average religious right follower of, say, Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, are likely not reconstructionists. They may refer to the Bible in order to support their political views on gay rights, for example, but that alone does not make them reconstructionists for two reasons.

First, because most of the religious right is premillenialist, not postmillenialist; that is, they believe that Christians will be raptured (taken up to heaven) before the terrible end time events happen; reconstructionists, as mentioned above, are postmillenialist and believe that they must work to establish Christian rule on Earth before the end times can begin. Second, because even most of the rank and file followers of religious right ministers like Falwell and Robertson would not accept the establishment of the entire Mosaic law in this country. They may look to the Bible to support their views on some legal issues, but they won't go as far as to institute the death penalty for the vast array of things the Old Testament commands.

It should also be noted that reconstructionists do not advocate any sort of coup or violent overthrow of society. They take a very long term view of how society is to be reconstructed and they view evangelization as the primary means of achieving their goals. Their goal is to convince enough people to believe as they do that they will eventually be in the majority and in a position to pass laws that will create a Biblical theocracy in the United States. As the Okemos Christian Center website says:

The Christian believes the earth and all its fullness is the Lord's-that every area dominated by sin must be "reconstructed" in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the wider society, including the state. We therefore believe fervently in Christian civilization. We firmly believe in the separation of church and state, but not the separation of the state-or anything else-from God. We are not revolutionary; We do not believe in the militant, forced overthrow of human government. We have infinitely more powerful weapons than guns and bombs-We have the invincible spirit of God, the infallible word of God, and the incomparable gospel of God, none of which can fail.

Let us not, however, make too much of this. That is simply a matter of means, not ends; and it is the ends they seek that should be feared by anyone who values freedom. Theocracy is the polar opposite of a liberal democratic society that values individual rights and the reconstructionists don't hide their intention to use the means of democracy to acheive their goal of destroying the very idea of a pluralistic and free society. Gary North, one of the most influential Christian reconstructionist leaders, minced no words in a 1982 article:

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

The notion that there is no neutrality, no pluralism, is a key idea in reconstructionism. From their perspective, a society is either Godly or anti-God, period. If a nation does not follow the Biblical law, they are condemned by God. Imagine for a moment the sort of society we would become should they succeed. Homosexuals would be stoned to death (Leviticus 18:22). So would women who are not virgins on their wedding day, blasphemers, heretics, witches and a whole host of others.

Indeed, stoning is advocated with disturbing glee by North, who wrote an article listing enough reasons why we should start stoning criminals again to make the Taliban beam with pride. First, he noted, "the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost." Well that's fiscally conservative, I suppose, but more importantly he liked how it brought communities together, noting that "executions are community projects--not with spectators who watch a professional executioner do `his' duty, but rather with actual participants." But he's just warming up. Finally, he says, "by far the most important reason is that stoning is literally a means of crushing the murderer's head by means of a rock, which is symbolic of God. This is analogous to the crushing of the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. This symbolism testifies to the final victory of God over all the hosts of Satan."

The Okemos Christian Center has close ties to North and to Rushdoony, the founder of the reconstructionist movement. Pastor Craig Dumont has written articles for the Chalcedon Foundation, the most influential reconstructionist organization in the country. He was a senior fellow with the Center for Cultural Leadership, run by reconstructionist pastor Andrew Sandlin. The Center frequently brings in reconstructionists, including Gary DeMar, Sandlin and many others, to speak.

Perhaps most disturbing is that Rep. Mike Rogers sent a letter last year (see it reproduced here) praising the Okemos Christian Center on its 15th anniversary. In that letter he praised them as a "bright light of hope and faith" and a "shining example of caring for others." He further praised them for their "fiften years of ministry and promoting God's word and for being "an example to people everywhere that that a commitment to God and ministry can overcome the perils of the world."

Pastor Craig DuMont of the Okemos Christian Center was invited several times to respond to questions and to state his beliefs in his own words. He agreed to an email interview and was sent a list of questions. Three times over the course of several weeks he promised to answer them, but apparently decided not to do so. Calls to Rep. Rogers' office went unreturned as well.

Of further interest, was this article in Reason linked by a commenter on the original posting. I also recommend clicking over to the comments there.

Homeopathic Thuggery, via Orac

I know, I know, I have other things to post. But after discovering this gent's ISP made him pull this post, because of a threat of a lawsuit, I felt the need to post it here. Found it via Orac's Respectful Insolence. Orac has plenty to say about it, so I recommend clicking over, but here's the post in full; (I also recommend checking out the quackometer, where it was originally posted, interesting site - sort of a brit Denialism Blog)

The Gentle Art Of Homeopathic Killing

Originally Posted by, Le Canard Noir

The Society of Homeopaths (SoH) are a shambles and a bad joke. It is now over a year since Sense about Science, Simon Singh and the BBC Newsnight programme exposed how it is common practice for high street homeopaths to tell customers that their magic pills can prevent malaria. The Society of Homeopaths have done diddly-squat to stamp out this dangerous practice apart from issue a few ambiguously weasel-worded press statements.

The SoH has a code of practice, but my feeling is that this is just a smokescreen and is widely flouted and that the Society do not care about this. If this is true, then the code of practice is nothing more than a thin veneer used to give authority and credibility to its deluded members. It does nothing more than fool the public into thinking they are dealing with a regulated professional.


As a quick test, I picked a random homeopath with a web site from the SoH register to see if they flouted a couple of important rules:

48 • Advertising shall not contain claims of superiority.
• No advertising may be used which expressly or implicitly claims to cure named diseases.

72 To avoid making claims (whether explicit or implied; orally or in writing) implying cure of any named disease.

The homeopath I picked on is called Julia Wilson and runs a practice from the Leicestershire town of Market Harborough. What I found rather shocked and angered me.

Straight away, we find that Julia M Wilson LCHE, RSHom specialises in asthma and works at a clinic that says,

Many illnesses and disease can be successfully treated using homeopathy, including arthritis, asthma, digestive disorders, emotional and behavioural difficulties, headaches, infertility, skin and sleep problems.

Well, there are a number of named diseases there to start off. She also gives a leaflet that advertises her asthma clinic. The advertising leaflet says,

Conventional medicine is at a loss when it comes to understanding the origin of allergies. ... The best that medical research can do is try to keep the symptoms under control. Homeopathy is different, it seeks to address the triggers for asthma and eczema. It is a safe, drug free approach that helps alleviate the flaring of skin and tightening of lungs...

Now, despite the usual homeopathic contradiction of claiming to treat causes not symptoms and then in the next breath saying it can alleviate symptoms, the advert is clearly in breach of the above rule 47 on advertising as it implicitly claims superiority over real medicine and names a disease.

Asthma is estimated to be responsible for 1,500 deaths and 74,000 emergency hospital admissions in the UK each year. It is not a trivial illness that sugar pills ought to be anywhere near. The Cochrane Review says the following about the evidence for asthma and homeopathy,

The review of trials found that the type of homeopathy varied between the studies, that the study designs used in the trials were varied and that no strong evidence existed that usual forms of homeopathy for asthma are effective.

This is not a surprise given that homeopathy is just a ritualised placebo. Hopefully, most parents attending this clinic will have the good sense to go to a real accident and emergency unit in the event of a severe attack and consult their GP about real management of the illness. I would hope that Julia does little harm here.

However, a little more research on her site reveals much more serious concerns. She says on her site that 'she worked in Kenya teaching homeopathy at a college in Nairobi and supporting graduates to set up their own clinics'. Now, we have seen what homeopaths do in Kenya before. It is not treating a little stress and the odd headache. Free from strong UK legislation, these missionary homeopaths make the boldest claims about the deadliest diseases.

A bit of web research shows where Julia was working (picture above). The Abha Light Foundation is a registered NGO in Kenya. It takes mobile homeopathy clinics through the slums of Nairobi and surrounding villages. Its stated aim is to,

introduce Homeopathy and natural medicines as a method of managing HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria in Kenya.

I must admit, I had to pause for breath after reading that. The clinic sells its own homeopathic remedies for 'treating' various lethal diseases. Its MalariaX potion,

is a homeopathic preparation for prevention of malaria and treatment of malaria. Suitable for children. For prevention. Only 1 pill each week before entering, during and after leaving malaria risk areas. For treatment. Take 1 pill every 1-3 hours during a malaria attack.

This is nothing short of being totally outrageous. It is a murderous delusion. David Colquhoun has been writing about this wicked scam recently and it is well worth following his blog on the issue.

Let's remind ourselves what one of the most senior and respected homeopaths in the UK, Dr Peter Fisher of the London Homeopathic Hospital, has to say on this matter.

there is absolutely no reason to think that homeopathy works to prevent malaria and you won't find that in any textbook or journal of homeopathy so people will get malaria, people may even die of malaria if they follow this advice.

Malaria is a huge killer in Kenya. It is the biggest killer of children under five. The problem is so huge that the reintroduction of DDT is considered as a proven way of reducing deaths. Magic sugar pills and water drops will do nothing. Many of the poorest in Kenya cannot afford real anti-malaria medicine, but offering them insane nonsense as a substitute will not help anyone.

Ironically, the WHO has issued a press release today on cheap ways of reducing child and adult mortality due to malaria. Their trials, conducted in Kenya, of using cheap mosquito nets soaked in insecticide have reduced child deaths by 44% over two years. It says that issuing these nets be the 'immediate priority' to governments with a malaria problem. No mention of homeopathy. These results were arrived at by careful trials and observation. Science. We now know that nets work. A lifesaving net costs $5. A bottle of useless homeopathic crap costs $4.50. Both are large amounts for a poor Kenyan, but is their life really worth the 50c saving?

I am sure we are going to hear the usual homeopath bleat that this is just a campaign by Big Pharma to discredit unpatentable homeopathic remedies. Are we to add to the conspiracy Big Net manufacturers too?

It amazes me that to add to all the list of ills and injustices that our rich nations impose on the poor of the world, we have to add the widespread export of our bourgeois and lethal healing fantasies. To make a strong point: if we can introduce laws that allow the arrest of sex tourists on their return to the UK, can we not charge people who travel to Africa to indulge their dangerous healing delusions?

At the very least, we could expect the Society of Homeopaths to try to stamp out this wicked practice? Could we?

So the lesson is, if someone says things that might make you look bad, sue. At least in Britain. Because apparently, the truth is rather hard to deny, so it should be silenced. What I would like to know, is why don't they just, I don't know, actually stop their members from breaking there rules.

This also touches on the issue of denialism. Please go to the original posting site, where the comments are still up. You will see yet another fine example of denialism in action. Rather than actually respond to the article, commentors felt the need to attack evidence based medicine. Because EBM isn't perfect, it somehow makes the quackery ok. The reality is, in this case, quackery kills.

Note from the post. Mosquito net, impregnated with an insecticide; works. But to the average Kenyan, the fifty cent difference in cost, is a big deal. This is akin to HIV/AIDS denial, err, oh yeah they got the HIV woo too. So this boils down to some serious death woo. Go Society of Homeopaths, good on you for being complicit in murder, you bloody moronic cowards. Feel free to write them a letter about their tactics for dealing with members who don't follow their guidelines.

My Lovely Neighborhood

I just love my neighborhood. January, before I moved here. A couple of weeks ago, less than half a block away. Monday night, a little less than a block from home. To say that I am tired of living in this bloody pit, is putting it mildly. The police in both East Portland and Gresham (two blocks away), say they are going to increase their presence in the area, but I don't see how much they really can. You can't go a block without seeing a cop. Gresham and Portland cops crossover regularly, in a ten block buffer zone. Lately, Gresham cops have even been responding to complaints in my neighborhood (including my building), if they happen to be closest. Apparently, they are going to put cops on bike and foot patrols around the neighborhood.

I echo the sentiments of some of my neighbors though, if they can actually do more, why the hell have they waited this long? I have spent a lot of time talking to the cops in my neighborhood. We have community policing and I know many of the cops that patrol here, including the watch commanders, all shifts. In the short term, I imagine this means that we'll have an influx from the surrounding precincts. In the long term, who the hell knows? I know that I am bloody well tired of this crap hole and I am ready to move. This, by the way, is one reason I am bloody well good and pissed about this. We can throw away money and manpower, enforcing a ridiculous, pointless and ineffective ordinance like that, while we have to scramble to fight serious crime.