Give the web’s UFO enthusiasts another notch in the belt for discovering NASA’s attempt to hide a mysterious alien spacecraft captured by the Hubble orbital telescope and filed as an asteroid collision which left a highly distinctive trail shaped like an X. Or if you’re a conspiracy theorist, like a trident and obviously, a huge node of an extraterrestrial craft which appears to be roughly the size of the American Southwest from tip to what we should assume to be the engines extending far beyond the supposed node. One wonders how you would be able to analyze the rather blurry image to make sure it was really an alien craft rather than just debris from the comfort of a home office using just a few image filters, but it seems that if you play the conspiracy card, all that matters is claiming a UFO and every fuzzy outline and blurry shape are undeniable proof of alien presence…

For the sake of argument, let’s play around with the idea that the orbital telescope caught a blurry glimpse of a massive alien craft. Considering its sheer size, the civilization that would have to build it must be hundreds, if not thousands of years ahead of us technologically. Besides having to put together trillions of tons of material into a working ship and powering it up with enough reactors to provide energy to half the Earth’s population at peak demand hours, its designers would have to work around the curvature of their home planet to build what amounts to a small, floating continent. Yes, when we account for the physical requirements of traveling across interstellar space we’ll end up with a huge ship comparable in size to our tallest skyscrapers. But this seems like a pretty major overkill and should raise a lot of questions unlikely to have an uplifting answer. Something this big could be used to transport anentire army, or a planet’s population. If they set their sights on our solar system, what do they want and what would it mean for us?

We should also take into account the very likely rarity of alien civilizations that could build spaceships like this hypothetical craft, their potential aversion to making contact with us, and how short ufologists tend to fall when it comes to providing solid evidence for their claims. Regardless of how old or wise alien empires might be, or how fair technology manages to advance during their existence, they’ll be still be subject to basic laws of biology and physics and any proof for their existence has to be more than a blurry image, promises of grand revelations to come, and indignant rants in response to any critique of their proclamations. But none of this matters to ardent ufologists. They need there to be proof of alien spacecraft visiting our planet, something to convince them that they’re not alone in the universe and that enlightenment from above will rain down from the heavens in the form of advanced alien technology from benevolent extraterrestrials. Alternatively, they’ll be perfectly happy to live in a world of government cover-ups and secret alien plots which is a far more exciting place than the dull routine with which many of us have to deal in our daily lives.

[ illustration by Guille Krieger ]

We have to admit the hard truth sometime and it might as well be now. Super Bowl ads over the last five years have been going downhill in quality and humor. But you can still find a finely polished gem in what’s becoming a rather mediocre ad mix. Take this year’s ad from Intel for example. Not only is it fun to watch a robot pouting, the glimpse into this future technology is probably one of the friendliest I’ve seen in recent years. If in the next few decades bots like this would be available for the mass market, they’d be a hit on looks alone. They would be like a big, friendly toy, as opposed to the usually eerie visions of household machinery of the future.

There’s another thing I like about this robot and that’s how it’s designed by the animators. Instead of the highly problematic bipedal system that requires lots of maintenance, sensors and computing overhead, it’s using a big wheel. It’s gentler on the machine and actually would make it more maneuverable. Granted, it wouldn’t be able to navigate stairs on its own, but we could assume that future house designs would probably consider if there’s a robotic helper in the house and maybe even install elevators, or escalator like stairways for them. Its biggest hurdle though would be the required level of intelligence and comprehension of human commands. Considering that the first generation of cybernetic butlers and caretakers would probably be assigned to help senior citizens or for basic medical assistance in hospitals, they would need to understand what they’re told and be able to recognize when the human is feeling cranky, upset or is in pain so they can react appropriately, just like “Jeffrey” did in the commercial when a careless employee negated its importance.

This is where something interesting might happen. Because the robot looks so playful and a lot of work gave its digital brain the ability to read and react to human emotions, people may actually consider them intelligent and form an emotional attachment to them, just like they would to a pet. Would that make these robots a valid success in AI development? Would it matter that it’s just following code constructed by humans and can’t feel any emotions, or are its good looks and ability to work with humans enough to qualify it as intelligent?

Sometimes I think that Luke McKinney and Casey Kazan of the Daily Galaxy have never heard of fact-checking and will publish just about anything that has a shocking headline. They’ve done this before with their posts on research into aging, studies of how quickly natural selection can do its work, astrobiology and of course, a major pet peeve of mine, utopian transhumanism. Unable to resist the lure of yet another sensational article title, they decided to take a quote from retired computer scientist and sci-fi author Vernor Vinge and turn it into a tale of how in the coming Technological Singularity, artificial intelligence will leapfrog our brainpower in the next decade, and the changes this may entail to the world as we know it today. Oh boy, here we go again…

First of all, let’s give credit where credit is due. Vinge is generally noted for coming up with what we know today as the Singularity concept in a 1993 paper which touches on a very wide array of wild possibilities for cyborgs, computers, artificial intelligence and even the eventual obsolescence of humans. However, if you take a look, you’ll see that most of the predictions are severely lacking detail and range from AI takeovers, to humans who boost their brainpower and physical abilities by merging with machines, and everything in between. That kind of breadth could make a psychic’s cold reading seem very specific and detailed. Vinge hardly elaborated any of these ideas over the past decade and a half, so what we have are a lot of vague notions eagerly embraced by a number of transhumanists in a sort of quasi-New Age movement with computers and technology cast in the role of spirits and mystical woo which brings enlightenment and supernatural powers. This is why quite a few popular quotes about the Singularity speak of it with an almost religious reverence.

Over the past year, I’ve been sent plenty of papers on Singularitarian concepts of AI and mind uploading, quite a few of them very lengthy and passionate about their subjects. But, all of them begin with the idea that there’s a black box somewhere with whatever technology is required by the author(s) fully assembled, just waiting for someone to flip the switch. Then, the papers go on to describe how they’d like to manipulate this mystery box to create a friendly AI, a brilliant AI, an AI that gathers the wisdom of the web, and so on. If this isn’t putting your cart before the horse, I don’t know what is. Trying to customize a system that doesn’t yet exist is meaningless because how your system is put together will ultimately determine what you’ll be able to do with it and how. As we struggle to define intelligence in the first place, figure out the best first steps to an AI system, and try to come to a consensus on an objective definition of AI, there are hundreds of questions to answer, hundreds of papers to write and countless experiments to carry out before anyone can start pronouncing when and if we’ll be made obsolete by our computers with any shred of scientific validity.

And as long as I’m being an evil skeptic, I also want to take issue with the Galaxy’s description of Vinge as an AI pioneer and a legendary sci-fi writer. While he did a lot of speculating on the subject and talking about how amazing the Singularity will be, finding any peer-reviewed papers on artificial intelligence authored by him is a rather difficult task. By which I mean there don’t seem to be any. How exactly could one be a “world-renowned” artificial intelligence pioneer without a stack of papers on AI development in a high impact journal? Scientists are judged by their citations and their volume of published papers, so while he may be a renowned figure for the Singularitarians, calling him a pioneer based on a speculative, roaming paper in 1993 seems like a very, very long shot. But then again, it’s the kind of long shot that the Galaxy isn’t afraid to make. A similar dilemma applies to his sci-fi work. Yes, Vinge won prestigious awards for his writing and his idea of cyberspace was a major influence on several popular cult authors. But can we really affix the term “legendary” to his stories and novels? I’m pretty sure that’s a title bestowed only on sci-fi titans like Heinlein, Asimov and Bradbury.

Regardless of what we decide to make of Vinge’s objectively significant literary efforts, Singularitarian notions about a future ruled by computers that can outthink humans with half their processors in sleep mode, cyborg elites, or just exponentially growing technocracies, should be taken with a very heft grain of salt. Without hard details backed up with thorough experimentation and working AI prototypes showing some actual cognition in the lab, all their speculation is just that, futuristic speculation which assumes that somehow, by the power of the exponential curve, all the necessary technologies will suddenly click into place precisely as they envision it. Pardon me if I don’t hold my breath for that to happen anytime soon…

There’s just something mysterious about breasts. No, not how entire business empires are built on the basis of showing them to a ravenous public. That’s not exactly what you’d call a mystery. The big question is why the female human breast evolved the way it is today. Is it a matter of comfort and security for the offspring as some studies suggest? It is an odd twist in the evolution of what began as a part of mammalian immune systems? Or is it, as some hypothesis offer, a kind of auto-mimicry that evolved as part of human bipedalism and has a lot more to do with attracting the opposite sex than nursing? In any case, it’s very hard to deny that there really is sexual selection involved since some women go so far as to get surgical help with their natural assets…

Ok, so it’s pretty obvious that natural selection helps shape breasts and keep them around, but how and why did they appear? According to the hypothesis proposed by zoologist Desmond Morris in 1967, the breasts we know today are an evolutionary side-effect of bipedal locomotion. Walking upright gave our ancestors an edge by freeing up appendages for carrying things, manipulating tools and having a higher vantage point when they walked on the ground. However, it also meant that the shape of the pelvis had changed, and so did the typical arrangement during intercourse. Mating from a rear position supposedly became mating face to face and so, the female breasts swelled to let the males know that there’s been a slight shift in the location of reproductive organs. It’s an idea, but there’s a reason why it hasn’t become the official theory and I bet you can see why.

First off, as a number of studies suggest, baby primates need softness and comfort when feeding or trying to relax. Baby humans love to cuddle with their moms and yes, they love to rest their heads in a soft, comforting cleavage. And the same goes for their evolutionary cousins, baby chimps. While they may not have the same kind of breasts to hang on to, they sure love to latch on to something soft and warm as well, showing that our common ancestors were already playing a role in shaping the evolution of breasts in hominids. That means that a purely sexually selective role for the breast just doesn’t cut it. Additionally, it seems like an adaptation to signal reproductive availability to males due to a change in hip and spine structure would require an unlikely turn of events. Plus, let’s factor in that there’s a very wide spectrum of breast sizes and that sex doesn’t always happen only in the missionary position, and we’re left with a lot of questions that the Morris hypothesis and all its variations still fall far short of answering.

But if neither the needs of baby primates or reproductive hints to males explain the whole story, leaving plenty of issues that need to be resolved, what could explain why female breasts are so distinct in the animal world? Well, there is some work which shows how mammary glands may have evolved in the first place, starting out as patches of skin secreting proteins and sugars loaded with antimicrobial agents that help innate immune systems of infants, providing chemical that evolved to kill bacterial infestations. After analyzing the pathways that regulate lactation in mammary glands, one team of biologists proposed that the breasts actually swelled due to their primary function and the rest is implied to have been up to selection. Still, there’s no answer to the question of why they swelled so much in humans but not in the vast majority of other mammals. And maybe, just like with many evolutionary mysteries, we’ll never know exactly why and the best explanation we’ll have is an educated guess with a hefty dollop of constant doubt on top…

See: Vorbach, et. al., (2006). Evolution of the mammary gland from the innate immune system? BioEssays, 28 (6), 606-616 DOI: 10.1002/bies.20423

Say what you will about Chris Mooney, but where he excels is in consistency. He has the same solution to just about every problem between scientists and crackpots, and he’s not afraid to suggest it again and again with absolutely no details or regard for the nature of the conflict he wants to resolve. Previously, he’s done this with the evolution/creationism manufactroversy and scientific literacy. Now, after managing not to resolve either problem and missing the fact that blaming scientists for a culture which rejects science and expertise as a manifestation of elitist snobbery doesn’t actually accomplish anything, he’s off to make friends with the anti- vaxers and implore doctors and epidemiologists to build bridges with zealots who demonize their critics as baby-eating monsters. Really, it seems that Chris is firmly committed not to learn from his past mistakes…

After profiling the anti-vaccination movement that blames vaccines for every pediatric evil in the world and their long record of conspiracy mongering, one would think that Mooney, of all people, would know full well that a negotiation with the likes of J.B. Handley, Jenny McCarthy and Lyn Redwood would be futile. I could argue that it would be like trying to explain the validity of evolutionary theory to someone like Ray Comfort, but Mooney has already proposed doing just that to combat creationist influence in schools. And it’s in this obliviousness that he suggests an exercise in building communicational bridges to nowhere…

I believe we need some real attempts at bridge-building between medical institutions, which, let’s admit it, can often seem remote and haughty, and the leaders of the anti-vaccination movement. We need to get people in a room and try to get them to agree about something — anything. We need to encourage moderation, and break down a polarized situation in which the anti-vaccine crowd essentially rejects modern medical research based on the equivalent of conspiracy theory thinking, even as mainstream doctors just shake their heads at [their] scientific cluelessness.

This is really classic Mooney. He proclaims that the scientific establishment seems distant and aloof and as soon as we get any kind of a consensus on anything going, there will be a huge cascade effect as those who throw temper tantrums the instant you tell them than we’re not vaccinating kids too soon or too much, or that autism may might have genetic causes, will suddenly see the light of science. It’s not going to happen. They are far too invested in their worldview and there are too many quacks and cranks making millions off selling a whole range of snake oil concoctions and remedies to “cure autism” by exploiting their fears. Autism quackery is a big business and it fuels anti-vax hysteria. Try and remove the likes of Joe Mercola or Andy Wakefield and his woo crew in Texas off their perch, and they’ll fight back with even more disinformation because they have a mortgage to pay and families to feed. Likewise, we have to admit that sometimes science is complicated and just because scientific institutions seem remote, it’s not always the scientists’ fault.

Yes, there’s always jargon, science-speak or academese standing in the way of easy explanations in almost any field of scientific research. However, not everything lends itself to an easy ten to fifteen minute explanation because some of the concepts require years of study. In my own experience, anything that has to do with AI or intelligent agents in computer science is awfully hard to condense in simple terms just because of the scope that has to be covered for a truly comprehensive discussion and each subset of AI theory has to branch out in several different directions, affecting a wide range of disciplines. That scope makes the topic exciting and very rewarding, but it can also lead to quite a bit of confusion. And topics in medicine and biology aren’t any easier to explain. Besides, if those of us either studying to be scientists or with fully fledged PhD’s could summarize everything we do and study in an afternoon or two, why would we spend so much time buried in books, tests and labs? Grad school would be over in a month instead of between two and seven years.

In any case of crankery, scientists and experts are dealing with people who formed very strong opinions on an impressive range of subject matter they know very little about. To explain to them that they have it wrong could only result in their rejection of the explanation. Instead of being used to endless critique and take it as a given that their conclusions will be debated, they take it as a deep personal insult that someone dares question a worldview they hold near and dear. Rather than listen to the experts, they’re going to be advancing their own agendas and rebelling against any skeptical thought or inquiry into their actions. To suggest otherwise, is the kind of typical Mooney argument we’ve seen in the Unscientific America debacle. His suggestions for all those involved in a big public dustup over science to sit around a campfire and sing Kumbaya, are born from a lack of consideration for the psychology of both sides and the environment from which they come, and if they really worked, he wouldn’t even have to write about militant anti-vaxers and creationists in the first place.

There’s money to be made from other people’s misery. A good example of this is the repossession industry, a currently thriving line of business due to the skyrocketing defaults in the wake of the recession. And according to the upcoming dystopian flick Repo Men, the near future is looking even better for those who repossess the unpaid wares of their clients. When people facing death from organ failure or in need of a new eye, or arm buy artificial organs on credit and can’t afford to keep up with the payments after their surgeries, they might just get a visit from a repo man who’ll take the machines inside their bodies back. How? Well, let’s just say that a very sharp set of scalpels is involved. Nothing personal, it’s just their job. So, still want that robotic liver or what?

First and foremost, I have to ask what kind of government would allow corporations to send what amounts to a team of professional hit men to cut out people’s organs after they miss a few monthly payments. Yes, I know, that’s the whole point of the antihero-doing-something-morally-questionable-has-an-epiphany-and-fights-the- system tale, but those only work when the stories are either close to real events or seem highly plausible. The notion of legally killing people for not being able to pay their bills and recycling their used mechanical organs is just too excessive to meet that criterion. It’s one thing to explore the dark side of today’s societies with a film that’s already built on a fantastical or surreal premise. We can go along with that. But a setup we can imagine being outlawed in the blink of an eye is in the cinematic uncanny valley territory where films lose their potential punch. Instead of truly considering the implications of the world being presented to us, we just brush it off as a relatively typical action flick based on a classic storyline.

The second big problem that jumped out at me when looking at the film posters and the viral site promoting the artificial organs of The Union Corporation, the fictional stronghold of the movie’s villains, were the prices for the robotic hearts, livers, kidneys and eyes. A heart for $975,000? Kidneys at $1,048,000 a pair? A liver for some $756,000? Bionic arms starting at $375,000? Either people are being sold the very first prototypes that were custom built for them with handcrafted, never before used machinery, or natural donors are no longer an option for any patient. Even buying organs on a black market would cost less than a tenth of the eye-popping price tags to which we’re treated in Repo Men. True, having artificial organs that work as well as the real thing would mean there would be no need to wait for a suitable donor heart. Depending on the materials used for the machine, you could even minimize the risks of severe foreign-body rejection and with a new generation of power supplies for internal medical devices, they may even have a long working life. But for decades to come, they would be a bridge between lethal organ failure and finding a suitable donor.

Still, let’s stay with the idea of perfectly working artificial organs for just a moment since they are possible and there’s a lot of research and development happening in this field. However, the stratospheric prices of the film would mean that none of the resulting devices would ever be suitable for mass market use. In reality, with the application of economies of scale, we should expect the prices of mass produced artificial organs to drop to several tens of thousands of dollars. Today’s most expensive and sophisticated prototype of an artificial heart costs $192,000 while less ambitious devices run between $70,000 and $100,000 according to the numbers floating around news sites. The supposedly safe, efficient and effective artificial organs made by the thousand in industrial labs around bound to cost far less than that, just like computers today are a lot cheaper when the new ubiquitous technology was in its infancy. Now, the implantation could still run into six digits, but since it’s covered by insurance companies, the patient would only be on the hook for a part of the bill, even in the worst case scenario. And come to think of it, wouldn’t insurance companies of the future also try to cover proven and reliable artificial organs, thus lowering the out of pocket costs even further?

So it seems that Repo Men managed to not only create a totally implausible set of laws for our future, but also made major mistaken when it comes to robotics, medicine, healthcare and business. It’s very difficult to take morality tales seriously when you know full well that everything happening as the story unfolds simply wouldn’t happen and a potentially terrifying allegory for what could happen if creditors are given far too much leeway to collect their debts is reduced to just another action flick based on a rather shaky premise.

Have you heard about the patient who forgot to take his homeopathic medicine? He died of an overdose! Or at least that’s how the joke goes. In reality, on January 30th, a group of UK skeptics publicly took an overdose of homeopathic medication and demonstrated that taking lots of sugar pills does absolutely nothing. Of course, the homeopaths were quick to point out that you can’t overdose on their cures because they’re so natural, safe and work in magical ways that science still struggles to understand. Or in other words, tried to pretend that the stuff they’ve been selling to the tune of billions isn’t just placebos with fancy names and big promises. Now, if the skeptics in question tried to do the same thing with herbal supplements, they might’ve suffered dangerous drug interactions, especially if any of them were on widely prescribed blood thinners or heart medication…

Proponents of alternative medicine like to claim that their remedies are perfectly safe, even without any clinical testing to support this assertion, and somehow couldn’t harm a soul, unlike those evil chemists working for a pharmaceutical cabal hell bent on poisoning people for fun and profit. But the same people who can easily recall every conventional drug that’s ever been pulled off the shelves for any reason whatsoever, don’t seem to care that the supplements they pitch so passionately have a record of harming the people who take them. For example, at least 130 people taking the alternative cold remedy Zicam permanently lost their sense of smell. Supposedly all-natural diet pills which use herbs to kick start weight loss can often contain illegal drugs like methamphetamines, and toxic chemicals because there are absolutely no controls over their manufacturing process, courtesy of DSHEA. And you probably shouldn’t look at the pictures which can accompany accounts of what “cancer-battling” herbal salves can do to your face on a full stomach…

And there’s even more reason to be careful when you a buy herbal supplement with ginko biloba. According to a review by a trio of cardiologists, they can interact with blood thinning drugs used to prevent blood clots and increase the risk of bleeding. Patients taking blood thinners already deal with prolonged bleeding, even from minor cuts. Taking something that would make them bleed even longer is probably not in their best interests, especially when ginko’s supposed memory benefits are also highly dubious and the resulting trade-off is all pain, no gain. And we’re not done with ginko yet. German researchers reviewing how the active ingredients in ginko-based products make their way through the brain, found that the supplements can increase the risks of seizures for those with epilepsy and reduce how well their medication helps control them. Likewise, St. John’s wort will could be pretty bad for your health too, increasing the risks of arrhythmia, elevated levels of the kind of cholesterol likely to build plaques in arteries of heart disease patients, and finally, hypertension.

Natural supplement purists might counter that if the herbs are interacting with conventional medication, it’s the medication that needs to go. After all, you can buy a herbal remedy that promises to cure just about anything if you believe hard enough. And there will be none of that evil, unnatural Western medicine with its man-made poisons to pollute your body, right? Well actually, no. Let’s note that ginko causes a greater risk of seizures for epileptic patients even when the medication used to control these seizures is not in the picture. Plus, we also need to take into account that other herbal supplements have their own risks and none of their claims are put to the test. They’re sold on faith and impassioned rhetoric alone. So here’s something to consider. When your questions about the safety of putting something unknown into your body are met with endless dumping on Big Pharma, you should be very cautious and for the sake of your health, keep asking questions…

See: Leistner, E., et. al., (2010) Ginkgo biloba and ginkgotoxin JNP, 73 (1), 86-92 DOI: 10.1021/np9005019

Tachjian, A., et. al., (2010) Use of Herbal Products and Potential Interactions in Patients With Cardiovascular Diseases JACC, 55 (6), 515-525 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2009.07.074

So it seems that the Constellation program is finally dead in the water, a conclusion that’s not surprising to all the bloggers and reporters watching its development. At best, it was a chance to relive the Apollo glory days, and at worst, it was a big step back for NASA. Intended to put humans back on the Moon by 2020, it was given so little cash that a lunar orbit by 2030 would’ve been a major achievement. Even worse, it was slowing down the technological development of safer, more reliable and more efficient space travel by going back to what was state of the art in the 1970s and abandoning all research into single stage launch vehicles. But the new budget for the agency looks to fix these problems and forge alliances with space tourism startups who would dearly love to start sending humans into deep space on brand new launch vehicles as soon as they can.

And that’s one of the good things about NASA’s new budget proposal. Rather than flag planting, the focus now is to create a new generation of space infrastructure, bolster robotic exploration to pave the ground for human travel, and come up with new ways of launching astronauts in space with the help of big dreamers who don’t just want to make money by launching people into space, but are driven by the kind of spirit of exploration that was beaten out of NASA by narrow-minded bureaucrats and budget cuts from politicians who lack any and all vision beyond their campaign funding strategies. Space travel isn’t being privatized of course, not yet, but the closer cooperation between the government and aggressive aerospace startups could be a catalyst for all kinds of new inventions. Yes, no privately built launch vehicle other than the prototypes for Virgin Galactic have been tested to launch humans safely into space and no company other than major defense contractors built a vehicle able to launch them into orbit. However, with an imperative to do just that and billions waiting for those who make it happen, expect space tourism startups to attack the drawing boards with renewed vigor.

But of course there is a catch here. The size of the actual budget itself is still quite paltry considering what has to be done, just a few billion dollars per year to crucial areas like propulsion R&D and robotic missions. That’s more than is being invested now, but still too little to discourage penny pinching and the kind of risk taking that could really produce spectacular results. And since about half of Americans already think we spend way too much on space travel as it is, there’s a risk of these funds being capped should the economy recover slower than expected by optimistic estimates. True, channeling about $6 billion to projects that create R&D, technical and engineering jobs is hardly going to impact a $15 trillion economy, but in tough times whenever the news announces that government money isn’t being spent on them, they get mad. And even though NASA says that it will be taking baby steps towards a more promising and fruitful course, we should keep in mind that all this should’ve happened decades ago and it will take a very long time to see America return to orbit after the end of the shuttle program. Unless the government suddenly decides to starve its space program again of course. Then those routine trips to space will be just something we tell our kids about at bed time…

[ illustration by Chris MacDonald ]

Unfortunately, people often act against their best interests and do so not because they haven’t been told what would be a better choice or had evidence withheld from them, but because they’re rebelling against authority, even if they chose these authorities themselves. That seems to be the thesis of psychologist Drew Westen in his book about the effect of politics on human behavior, as featured in BBC News. When people want to rebel and take matters into their own hands, facts seem irrelevant and whoever can stoke the most resentment will win the debate. Rationality and analysis have to fly out the window. It’s all about who can harness the rage of a furious mob and bend it to their whims. In the American healthcare debate, the Republicans have been by far the most skilled at doing so, proving that negative politics work amazingly well and anger can replace policy.

I’ve seen how this plays out firsthand, hearing people complain about how they don’t have health insurance of any kind because they can’t afford it, yet fuming about the “socialist totalitarianism” of a health bill what wanted to make that insurance more affordable and punish the companies offering policies for rejecting sick patients in the name of profit. One would think that’s a no brainer. If you don’t have coverage, why would you side with a corporate lobby that wants to keep prices high and reject you if given the slightest chance? Well, according to Weston, the thought pattern behind such a position goes something like this…

They do it because they resent having their interests decided for them by politicians who think they know best. There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots. As the saying goes, in politics, when you’re explaining, you’re losing. And that makes anything as complex or as messy as healthcare reform a very hard sell.

But the flip side is that the decision is still being turned over by politicians who think they know best. All they do is trade one set of smarmy, self-aggrandizing politicos for another. And those other politicians could very well be on the take from the insurance companies who want to keep making money from denying people coverage and keeping health insurance out of reach for millions of people. There’s also the huge element of red-baiting involved here. Calling anything “socialist” or “collectivist” or comparing it to “Communist Russia” immediately triggers outrage from a conservative base of voters who combine the above-detailed distaste for details with a searing, institutional hatred of anything that’s described by Cold War terminology. Richard Hofstadter’s image of “paranoid politics” in the U.S. is still alive and well.

The big question is how do we try to make laws that actually do something for a majority of the nation when an entire political culture hostile to facts, numbers and logical analysis has taken such firm root. We know that a furious monolog, or a feat of anti-intellectualism that manages to equate good education and command of the policy involved with elitism and snobbery, often substitutes the relevant facts for millions. But how do we get a real legislative framework in spite of these ridiculous political games? How can you run a rational government if emotions, hysteria and deep seeded paranoia frames every important action?

When tackling Mike Adams’ inane temper tantrum blasting those who don’t take his woefully uninformed and dangerous notions of medicine as gospel, it seems I made an error. Our snake oil salesman did manage to include a link to one of his “sources for the views of the skeptics” he so loathes, a 9/11 conspiracy video that attempts to prove that it was impossible for the World Trade Center to collapse after a direct hit by two aircraft and that only strategically placed explosives could’ve possibly done the job. Really, it seems that pretty much anything that goes against any mainstream consensus is more than enough to get Mike to believe it. As long as it’s different, it must be hidden knowledge that separates him from the blind sheeple, right? I wonder what he thinks of the Moon landings and at this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to find that he’s a Moon Hoaxer too…

For someone who chides his critics on believing everything they hear without question, Mike manages to pull a notable feat of hypocrisy by channeling 9/11 Truthers without asking some elementary questions about the basic premise he’s advocating. How would the thousands of people who work at the building every day ignore mysterious workers drilling into support columns and packing hundreds of pounds of odd bags around them? How would you keep those demolition crews silent? What about the planes and their passengers? Why did a number of intelligence agencies around the world send warnings about the potential a major terrorist attack to the CIA and FBI which were ignored if 9/11 was an inside job? And how would a government that can’t keep a simple office affair quiet for more than a year sit quietly on something like this, especially in an age when any random White House aide who was within a hundred feet of President Bush is getting six figure book deals by revealing every single detail of Bush’s glibness and arrogance?

The reason why people don’t believe that the U.S. government killed its own people isn’t because they’re just gullible meat with eyes who trust anything and everything politicians say. It’s because they know such a plot is ridiculously hard to pull off, impossible to keep secret, and runs contrary to a whole lot of evidence pointing to decades of broiling conflict between American politics in the Middle East and Central Asia, and radical Muslim groups coming to a head. But as far as Mike is concerned, evidence is just one of those things skeptics would use to cloud the truth that only he and a select few are wise enough to see. And that’s really what his tantrums about those who criticize him and the follow up in which he engages in vigorous back-patting are all about. In their own minds, he and his followers are enlightened and due to all cranks’ inability to take criticism, any doubt in their platitudes is seen as an enemy attack that must be repelled at all costs. How dare the skeptics miss how enlightened and ahead of the mainstream they are? Why they must be silenced! Oh wait, you can’t just make them all pipe down? Ok, then we need to tar them!

Just like those who believe that humans were created by alien experiments, or that the world is being ruled by alien lizards, or that swine flu was a biological weapons test by the New World Order, or even that we’re secretly on the verge of a war with aliens living on the dark side of the Moon, the most hardcore disciples of alt med woo are looking for some sort of secret, hidden knowledge they believe will give them an advantage, or make them seem like an enlightened elite. The wholehearted embrace of conspiracy theories as a shot at skeptics seems to be another glaring piece of evidence for that hypothesis. Like religious adherents who had a revelation, Mike Adams, his fellow snake oil salespeople and their fervent followers are defending what they believe makes them special and dare I say, superior to those of us who are just mindless sheeple with wool pulled over our eyes by the government, Big Pharma or Big Science. And all things considered, they pity us for our “close-minded ways” until we get under their skin and they decide to throw a fit in reply…