Edward Snowden: *Why do conspiracy theories flourish? Because the truth is too hard to handle.*

The article explains that the most dangerous conspiracies are not secret, and that imaginary conspiracies serve as a distraction from them.

Scientific American published an article whose title explicitly stated a controversial political stand. It said that the authors "stand in solidarity with Palestine." Later the magazine took it down.

The article should never have been published there, because Scientific American's purpose is science education. It should not politicize that education, except perhaps to defend science from anti-science.

Depending on how far the stated solidarity extends, I might agree with the authors' position. (I support the existence of Israel as well as the existence of Palestine.) I might possibly have stated agreement with the article.

However, the issue as I see it is not about which stance the article took. If the proclaimed solidarity were with "Rojava", "Hong Kong", "Taiwan", "the United States", or "Israel", the issue would be the same. The article belongs in a place where political stands belong, and Scientific American should not be that place.

US citizens: call on Biden to introduce a strong climate bill.

US citizens: call on Biden to appoint an FCC commissioner to fill the vacant seat.

US citizens: call on Congress to stop Elon Musk's union-busting by passing the American Jobs Plan.

The Capitol Switchboard number is 202-224-3121.

If you call, please spread the word!