It’s hard to keep track of even a small fraction of the lies right-wingers are busy crafting and propagating at any given time; after all, this is pretty much all they do these days. One favorite is condemning President Obama’s “science czar,” John Holdren, for allegedly supporting eugenics. One of the co-morons behind Granite Grok, a stereotypical wingnut shitblog boasting an unlikely number of lies, errors, and misspellings, recently seized upon this myth in the course of yammering about his and his comrades’ upcoming radio program (which also boasted an appearance by perhaps the most egregious fuckup in the U.S. Senate, Jim DeMint):
Discussing national healthcare. (From the bill they probably won’t read) Page 16: Outlawing private health insurers. Page 425 (1:27mins): Every 5 years– “counseling” on how to end your life sooner. Couple that with a “science czar” that believes in eugenics, much like, apparently, Ruth Bader Gingsburg and, ahem, “prominent” famous scoundrels from history, and what have you got? Brave New World meets Logan’s Run?
The “outlawing private health insurers” bit is also bullshit, but again, wingnuts do nothing but lie and I can only deal in any depth with one whopper at a time.
Here’s the truth about Holdren’s association with “eugenics”:
In 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations.
However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they supported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions. In fairness, their text does read as dated today, ripe for quote mining. They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today.
The whole piece is worth a read–not hat most people need more examples of how wingnuts distort, exaggerate, and prevaricate, but this is a particularly good one.