Debunking Global Warming, Part 2: More on Crichton, his Critics and the Tedium of Factual Debate

More on Crichton, his critics, and The First Church of Climate Change. And don't forget that Hockey Stick.

Previously, I asserted that when discussing issues of hard data, or even issues that make points via logic and rhetoric, that if there is a tendency to address those making arguments of data and rhetoric by discrediting them, attacking their character, or attacking their motivations, or using other strategies that completely ignore the actual data, and the actual rhetoric, it’s a red flag. It’s a red flag that suggests there is something wrong with the opposing argument, in that they either cannot or will not address the issue of the data, or the logic of their opponent’s assertions. Then I note this is common approach to the arguments of Global Warming skeptics. One notable case would be Bjorn Lomborg, who wrote The Skeptical Environmentalist.

My second red flag, which will be discussed in greater detail in my next post, is when one side of the argument consistently attempt to silence and punish critics and skeptics, rather than addressing and refuting their arguments in honest and open debate. And there were several attempts to prevent the original publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, the English language version, and to keep Bjorn Lomborg from speaking in a variety of venues. In one, where he was speaking, he got a cream pie (from a caring environmentalist) in the face. But Lomborg was also attacked based on accusations of incompetence, of insufficient training in many of the fields of study he was researching (what is known as a fresh, outside-the-box perspective when leftists agree with the conclusions), and attempts were made to discredit him based on the fact that conservative publications and pundits frequently cited his book!

Another notable case would be Michael Crichton, who makes a number of specific points regarding environmental science that are glossed over, or completely ignored—see the Michael Crowley post, previously.

In Fear, Complexity, and Environmental Management in the 21st Century Crichton makes a number of salient points. He notes that Chernobyl, which was supposed to have been a global disaster, and certainly a local environmental disaster, was nothing of the sort—despite the doom and gloom prediction of the pundit class. Reports, he notes, have anywhere from 15,000 to 30,000 people dying, now or in the future, but the actual number turned out to be 56. Now, is that number wrong? Might be. But the critics seem to focus on how Michael Crichton, desperate for fame and attention and importance he really doesn’t deserve, puts sex scenes in his sci-fi novels and got an award from a petroleum association.

Crichton writes:

But, of course, you think, we’re talking about radiation: what about long-term consequences? Unfortunately here the media reports are even less accurate.

The chart shows estimates as high as 3.5 million, or 500,000 deaths, when the actual number of delayed deaths is less than 4,000. That’s the number of Americans who die of adverse drug reactions every six weeks. Again, a huge error.

For the moment, let’s presume these statistics are irrefutable, or at least independently confirmable, because, thus far, Crichton’s harshest critics—as far as I can find—have not disputed them, although they’ve have very mean or disparaging things to say about Crichton the man. His larger point is one that is deductive, and rhetorical—it’s a logical conclusion, rather than specifically a recitation of facts, and thus even more open to debate or a good, solid logical refutation:

But most troubling of all, according to the UN report in 2005, is that "the largest public health problem created by the accident" is the "damaging psychological impact [due] to a lack of accurate information…[manifesting] as negative self-assessments of health, belief in a shortened life expectancy, lack of initiative, and dependency on assistance from the state."

In other words, the greatest damage to the people of Chernobyl was caused by bad information. These people weren’t blighted by radiation so much as by terrifying but false information. We ought to ponder, for a minute, exactly what that implies. We demand strict controls on radiation because it is such a health hazard. But Chernobyl suggests that false information can be a health hazard as damaging as radiation. I am not saying radiation is not a threat. I am not saying Chernobyl was not a genuinely serious event.

But thousands of Ukrainians who didn’t die were made invalids out of fear. They were told to be afraid. They were told they were going to die when they weren’t. They were told their children would be deformed when they weren’t. They were told they couldn’t have children when they could. They were authoritatively promised a future of cancer, deformities, pain and decay. It’s no wonder they responded as they did.

In fact, we need to recognize that this kind of human response is well-documented. Authoritatively telling people they are going to die can in itself be fatal.

These are logical, or rhetorical arguments, specifically addressing the danger of alarmism regarding subjects like environmental “disasters”, or global warming. If the facts are difficult to successfully challenge without straining credibility, certainly the logic can be attacked. So why are critics so quick to instead try to dismiss Crichton as a hack, a dilettante, and an anti-intellectual rabble-rouser?

Part of the problem is, no doubt, a factor the anti-Global Warming, and generally conservative, side of the argument has going for it: doomsayers, end-of-the-worlders, and doom-and-gloomers have a long history, and the main thing they share in common is being uniformly wrong. While this is not in and of itself mean that Global Warming is wrong, it does suggest that the latest prophesies of doom from environmental soothsayers should be taken for a grain of salt. And Crichton points out the poor predictive record of environmental alarmist quite often:

Once I looked at Chernobyl, I began to recall other fears in my life that had never come true. The population bomb, for one. Paul Ehrlich predicted mass starvation in the 1960s. Sixty million Americans starving to death. Didn’t happen. Other scientists warned of mass species extinctions by the year 2000. Ehrlich himself predicted that half of all species would become extinct by 2000. Didn’t happen. The Club of Rome told us we would run out of raw materials ranging from oil to copper by the 1990s. That didn’t happen, either.

It’s no surprise that predictions frequently don’t come true. But such big ones! And so many! All my life I worried about the decay of the environment, the tragic loss of species, the collapse of ecosystems. I feared poisoning by pesticides, alar on apples, falling sperm counts from endocrine disrupters, cancer from power lines, cancer from saccharine, cancer from cell phones, cancer from computer screens, cancer from food coloring, hair spray, electric razors, electric blankets, coffee, chlorinated water…it never seemed to end.

Crichton goes on to quote Lowell Ponte demanding action to prevent the imminent, perhaps unstoppable, man-made ice age in The Cooling, and environmental treatise warning of global cooling published in 1978. He quotes Paul Ehrlich, and 1972 study called The Limits of Growth regarding predictions of imminent disaster in the 1970s and 1980s that didn’t happen—that didn’t even come close to happening. Then, closer to our own time, he recounts the numerous prediction of doom, even a complete meltdown of civilization, from the UN Working Group on Informatics, The Y2K Personal Survival Guide, and The Y2K Survival Guide and Cookbook, predicting the end civilization, widespread unemployment, rioting, food shortages, a complete telecommunications breakdown, starvation, no police force . . . all because of some bugs in some software revolving around Y2K.

I don’t know about you, but when I read that I recalled hearing predictions that some power plants might blow up, that some missiles might automatically launch, and that the Air Traffic Control system might fail and that airplanes might start dropping from the sky—with the warning that we had to make sure no aircraft were flying over cities on the midnight of Y2K. Yet, what happened? Nothing. It’s a good example of how alarmism operates, of the dire predictions it makes, and the fact that it’s consistently, invariably mistaken. As Crichton writes:

What actually happened on January 1, 2000? Essentially, nothing.

But once again, notice the urgent language. The situation is desperate, unprecedented action is necessary, ordinary values must be pushed aside, anyone who disagrees is dangerous and reactionary. Terror, fear, and the end of civilization.

Perhaps Crichton is mistaken when he relates these past events of alarmism to Global Warming, perhaps he is not. But what is sure, he makes a compelling and, for those not already true believers in the Church of Environmentalism, a persuasive argument. But, surely, such a rhetorical and associative argument could be at least challenge with counter-examples, or additional information about Y2K or Paul Ehrlich Crichton does not present, rather than attacks on Crichton’s credentials and character. If someone has made such arguments, I can’t find them. Please point me to them, and I will amend this post, with credit.

Amendment: Searching hard, I found one, which links to another one: Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion at RealClimate.org.

Although, I must note, the critique, in many ways, could be said to be "praising with faint damns".

Back to the speech: Crichton then addresses the hubris of people attempting to “manage” the environment, regarding our hundred years and change of trying to manage nature at Yellowstone National Park. This is a long passage, but well worth reading, and should give any casual supporter of modern-day environmental management, which, like Kyoto, would spread the sort of disastrous hubris exhibited regarding the environmental management of Yellowstone into the world economy. The repeating fallacy of thinking we see a problem, coming up a fix, ham-handedly applying the fix, and causing more problems than the original problem, is hard to miss. And should certainly resonate with many environmentalists.

---

The First Church of Global Warming

This is also a story that gets full treatment in Crichton’s novel, State of Fear. So this might be a good place to look at how all the scientific data and logical, rhetorical arguments made in State of Fear are refuted. For example, David Roberts reviews State of Fear in Grist is an excellent example of how critics respond to Crichton’s logical (and I mean logical as a description of the form of argument, rather than as an assessment of quality; logical arguments can also be specious and entirely incorrect, or predicated on bad data) and presentation and analysis of data.

While Kenner reels off statistics and cites scientific journals, his interlocutor's job is to say things like, "But of course Antarctica is melting! Trust me." Kenner references a paper, and a dippy enviro makes the opposing argument in the most naive, flat-footed, dim-witted way possible -- with no recourse to scientific citation. Rinse. Repeat.

A relevant criticism, and an excellent point for a more substantial argument, citing papers and data—even selectively—that would argue against Crichton’s statistics and citations. But, no. And why not? Because they don’t exist? Of course they do. There are a lot of scientific papers and data analysis that, at least on the surface, support the idea of man-made Global Warming quite nicely. Their conclusions may be arguable, but that material is certainly out there. So why don’t folks like Crowley and Roberts address Crichton’s obsessive use of reports and statistical data with equal-but-opposite reports and analyses?

It could be because believers in Global Warming are True Believers; it is a matter of faith, and to argue about the specifics of geological evidence for a flood or evidence of the exodus from Egypt is entirely beside the point. I believe in God, and Christian apologetics hold no charm for me—arguing about physical evidence of Noah’s ark or the Ark of the Covenant is entirely besides the point, for me, and for many people in regards to their religious beliefs. For many in the First Church of Climate Change, arguing data and statistics is besides the point.

It could also be because they don’t want to argue on the data anymore. Arguments on statistics often end up problematical. Things change. Temperature trends or ice flows or hurricane frequency can be cited as evidence for Global Warming, and then, when the trends move in a different direction, what once was used to prove man-made climate change is now used to disprove it. The fact is, when trying to make specific causal conclusions and predictions regarding huge organic systems with hundreds of thousands (or perhaps millions, or billions) of inputs, outputs, interactions, and randomizing factors, it very hard to be accurate in terms of causation or prediction. The same reason the meteorologists can be, and often are, radically wrong about the weather three days from now is the same reason specific predictions and statistical data are not the friends of the Global Warming faithful. The presumption that a certain set of data indicates man-made global warming is a leap of faith; there is simply no way to be sure that that data will remain consistent over time, that it will remain correlative with other factors, or that an expanded analysis of the data won’t indicate the exact reverse of what Global Warming advocates believe it actually proves. As such, even the most dramatic and impressive data—the fabled Hockey Stick Graph, for example—could easily end up working against Global Warming advocates, even if man-made Global Warming turns out to be the hard fact so many seem to think it is. So it’s better to avoid the specifics.

I tend to suspect it is some of both. Accompanied by the fact that human nature would make defending the obviously true seem a pointless task. If Global Warming is such an obvious thing, what’s the point of doing all the work and statistical analysis and complicated scientific refutations just to prove that the sky is blue? But I think it is primarily because modern day environmentalism is largely religious in nature, the motivations and rewards almost entirely emotional and even spiritual, and thus data analysis and logical arguments are irrelevant compared to emotional rewards, peer pressure, social proof, environmental fellowship, and “consensus”.

Which is why that is the most common defense of Global Warming mounted. As David Roberts writes in his Grist review of

A broad and robust scientific consensus exists on the subject of anthropogenic climate change, embodied by thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed studies. How is it that Crichton thinks so many scientists are so wrong, so willing to go along with the baseless hysteria?

I don’t recall if Crichton addresses that in the novel, but in the speech referenced above, he gives several reasons why people—and scientists are, at the end of the day, fallible human beings like the rest of us—go along with the hysteria. Additionally, Crichton never suggests that the Global Warming alarmism is baseless, or unprecedented—just wrong, and potentially more negative in its consequences than Global Warming, if real, would be.

Naomi Oreskes reviewed State of Fear in the San Francisco Chronicle, with a typical title: “Fear-Mongering Crichton Wrong on Science”.

Yet, there’s lots of hyperbole, confident assurances he’s wrong and mistaken, and a return to the touchstone of the Global Warming religion, consensus. But no specific refutation. Indeed, she sets up a straw man, saying that Crichton has, in public speeches, said that because scientists were wrong about eugenics, then they must be wrong about global warming. Which is not Crichton’s argument: rather, it’s that history indicates science can be flawed, and that policy based on flawed science can be destructive force, and that social policy predicated on fad science is usually bad. His point is also that history can teach us much about the current First Church of Climate Change, as eugenics was also embraced by scientists, academics, politicians, celebrities, and businessmen with the same sort of vigor and inevitable correctness that man-made climate change enjoys now.

And she proceeds to argue that Crichton was arguing against genes or genetic research, all the time not quoting a single thing Crichton has said on the issue, in State of Fear or elsewhere.

Oreskes writes: “Crichton has got his science, his history and his politics wrong.” But offers no specific refutations, instead saying:

Climate scientists have been in agreement for some time that global climate change is real and happening now. We know that humans have changed the chemistry of Earth's atmosphere, most measurably through the addition of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossils fuels. We also know that these changes are having a detectable effect on Earth's climate. These are not speculations, guesses or predictions, but observations over which there is no significant scientific argument.

Like so much in regards in the Church of Climate Change, this is not entirely true. We do know that global Climate Change is real. It always has been, and always will be. We know that humans do effect the environment, at least on the micro level, and it is reasonable to assume, but impossible to prove conclusively, that we also effect the earth on the macro level—though the idea that we might affect the earth more than, say, the temperature and activity of the sun does seem, to some, ill-considered. We know that we have been adding to the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere via the burning of fossil fuels, in such a matter that it may not all be processed in the same manner as it has been historically, and this may or may not effect climate to some degree. But to say that it is all hard science is to stretch the truth. There are some indications that even the scientific consensus on global warming is neither scientific, nor a consensus—but more on that later.

Oreskes continues to argue thusly:

Moreover, given that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and the theory of greenhouse gases is well established, it is nearly certain that a continued rise in carbon dioxide will lead to more changes: increased average temperatures, melting of polar ice (and a subsequent rise in sea levels), and, perhaps, an increase in floods, droughts and hurricanes. Finally, we know that the predicted changes could occur rapidly, giving both humans and nonhumans little time to adapt. Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong.

Note the language—like consensus, you will hear certain things again and again from the Global Warming faithful. “No significant scientific argument against it”,”climate change is real and happening now”,”it is well established”,”it is nearly certain”,”Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong.”

That is a powerful argument. Anyone who denies this has simply got the science wrong. So satellite data, emissions data, long term temperature trends, scientific and political history, environmental management failures of the past, statistical data from past and present-day environmental disasters, and so on—all easily ignored, because, we are assured, anyone who denies that disaster is imminent, thanks to the free market, capitalism, and the ownership of the SUV, has “simply got the science wrong”.

Oh, and Oserkes ends with a common refrain in regards to Global Warming skeptics. That is, if you don’t agree with me, then shut up.

Crichton is a novelist, and he knows how to write fiction. But he should leave the scientific facts to scientists, the historical facts to historians and the politics to all of us to debate.

Presumably, Crichton is supposed to debate the politics of it, with everybody, without bring up history or science!

Reiterating my addena far above: In my research, I have found someone actually addressing Crichton on the data, and he does a good job, and comes to the conclusion that Crichton's data is actually pretty good, but incomplete, and tends to be selective, often ignoring the fact that the papers he cites comes up with entirely different conclusions than he does. It's Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion. Gavin, the poster, does a evenhanded job of addressing potential issues of Crichton’s science, and offers—ala Crichton himself—copious links and footnotes. Like much of Crichton’s skepticism, I have to say, I think this is the level at which the debate should be happening. Personal attacks, discrediting contrarians because of their personal associations, careers, friends, or childhoods is not only insubstantial, but actually a contraindication when it comes to accepting the assertions of Global Warming supporters. I would certainly be more swayed by Gavin, the poster of this article, than any of the people who, ostensibly supporting and praising him, comment on the article—and, again, attacking “the deniers”.

Ah, well. There’s just not enough time in the day. More in a few days. In the interim, make sure you check out The Hockey Stick Graph. And review the article on The Temperature Record for the past 1000 Years on Wikipedia. If you drink the Kool-Aid and think, because it’s science, this stuff is more than a good guess based on widely variable data, perhaps even established, incontrovertible fact, go right ahead. I remain skeptical. And will resist Chicken-Little political policy based on the sky-is-falling alarmism of The First Church of Climate Change.

Next Time . . . More Crichton, Critics, Red Flags, and Alarmism

Debunking Global Warming, Part I: Red Flags, Crichton, Crowley and the Tedium of Factual Debate

I've been putting this off for a long time--an indepth discussion of global warming--because I knew just how big it was going to be, and how much of my time it was going to take. To make it a little easier, I'm breaking it down into bite size chunks, and this one is the first . . .

One red flag that should give anyone pause, when something is under dispute, is if the argument encompasses too many other things beyond the data specifically under dispute: who is paying for what, who knows whom, who benefits from this, and so on. Anything that is not about the data, such as it is, but is instead information (or disinformation) meant to either discredit opponents or benefit supporters, is a clear indicator that the dispute is about more than what it appears to be about on the surface.

That is not to say these things are irrelevant. Many in the petroleum industry are going to be biased in their viewpoint by what they do, and from where they get their money (and also sometimes their personal identities, and, indeed, their joie de vivre. Just as many in politics, in the environmental movement, and in various research institutes and academic centers, will have equally biased viewpoints in the opposing direction, based, again, on from where they receive funding, what they have to do to get grants, what raises their donations, and what informs their personal opinions of themselves and feeds their egos.

But if you are arguing about the temperature on Mars and Pluto, or the history of agriculture in Greenland, or the actual level of carbon output and the relative volume of water vapor in comparison to carbon dioxide and their relative properties as greenhouse gases, and the pro-Global Warming crowd starts talking about how the scientist gets funding from an oil company or this researcher once worked for a petroleum lobby, this is an indication that their argument is inconclusive at best, flawed or even intentionally disingenuous at worst.

---

The Devil and Michael Crichton

One person who raises a lot of salient points in regards to Global Warming is Michael Crichton, whose tough questions and razor-sharp arguments have mostly been answered by personal attacks dismissing him as a hack science-fiction writer with delusions of grandeur, accusations of being in bed with big oil or big fossil fuel, and insinuations that he is motivated entirely by ego and a very, very thin skin (a tactic most recently exhibited by Michael Crowley, regarding his belief Crichton was attacking him via a character named Mick Crowley in his most recent novel). Thus, none of his arguments have to be addressed. Lucky them! Because is arguments, grounded deeply in science and history, raise a lot of powerful points.

Indeed, Michael Crichton might have been indulging in an immature bit of critic-bashing with his inclusion of the slightly endowed child molester, Mick Crowley, in his latest novel, but—while purporting to address Crichton’s arguments against Global Warming specifically and the fantastical religion of Environmentalism generally—Michael Crowley spends the entire article that he feels inspired Crichton’s grade-school wrath by maligning Crichton in a similar, if much more direct, manner.

He starts the article by quoting a sex scene from State of Fear--because such tawdriness should immediately discredit anything he has to say about anything else, of course. Crowley writes, disingenuously as he must know many leading scientists largely agree with Crichton, and Crichton sources many of them in his speeches and even in State of Fear, "It may be hard to fathom that someone capable of writing the above passage is also capable of discovering the hidden truth about global warming that has eluded the world's leading scientists." Even if he did not know that many climatologists, meteorologists, geologists and general scientists are skeptical of, or completely reject, the theory of man-made Global Warming, it would still point to the fact that he’s starting his argument by trying to minimize and dismiss Crichton, rather than addressing any of his arguments.

Later, when recounting his phone interview with Crichton, Crowley does mention that Crichton sinisterly does not want to discuss his meeting with president Bush, and instead, for some crazy reason, wants to keep talking about satellite data, the Kyoto protocol, nation-by-nation emissions data, the anti-windmill movement in England, the greenhouse properties of water vapor, the infamous Hockey Stick graph ,etc. Does Crowley quote any of that? Respond to any of that? Refute any of that? Hardly! Here are a few quotes from his article that, I think, pretty much demonstrate Crowley’s substantive refutation of Crichton:

. . . he says in a slightly jaded monotone that belies his breathless potboiler prose.

Global warming--or, specifically, the massive hoax by scientists and environmentalists that it allegedly represents and the resulting sexual conquests of nubile women that inevitably flow from the uncovering of this conspiracy . . .

So Crichton's ravings on the subject might be excusable as just a bad case of authorial self-promotion . . .

Crichton has relentlessly propagandized . . .

Crichton has helped create an anti-intellectual ethos where the country's most powerful political leaders can embrace a science-fiction writer as a great authority. . .

Through the 1970s up to the early '90s, Crichton offered few serious ideas . . .

Crichton's device was not an innovation: These were mere versions of the Frankenstein story . . .

Though his books are pulp for the coach-class set . . .

… almost as if aping the reported social commentary of, say, Tom Wolfe.

Crichton has never been known for nuanced character development

But, since then, Crichton has delighted in bashing a wide class of media and intellectual elites here at home.

. . . And that worldview has reached its bitter, frothing apex with State of Fear.

And it's no wonder: State of Fear is by far Crichton's most aggressive polemic.

. . . and we are meant to follow along with the help of graphs, copious footnotes referencing scientific studies, and long, pedantic exchanges between the characters.

. . . And now, like a mighty t-rex that has escaped from Jurassic Park, Crichton stomps across the public policy landscape, finally claiming the influence he has always sought. In this sense, he himself is like an experiment gone wrong--a creation of the publishing industry and Hollywood who has unexpectedly mutated into a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms, and even the Oval Office.

He does not address any of Crichton’s arguments, any of his points, or any of his data—he doesn’t ever respond to a single argument, in regards to the environment, or the dismal history of environmental policy, that Crichton makes, in State of Fear or elsewhere. He explains that Crichton, longing for stature and importance, is insinuating himself into the Global Warming debate, and he’s a shitty writer, to boot. Indeed, Crichton is so tedious that Crowley complains about how Crichton kept wanting to talk about environmental data and graphs and satellite imagery and the science of greenhouse gases, when the real issue is that Karl Rove set up a meeting between Crichton and Bush, and that Crichton doesn’t kiss the boots of smart media elites. Like, I dunno, Crowley.

While one could reasonably argue that it was not Crowley’s intent to debunk Crichton’s "faulty science" or address Crichton’s points on Global Warming, all you need to do is search on Crichton and Crowley on Google, and you will see that Crichton’s personal attack on Crichton and his writing—and his sinister meeting with President Bush, initiated by the even-more-sinister Karl Rove—is referred to by 3rd parties as proof that Crichton was "making up science to debunk global warming"., as an article "hitting blockbuster novelist Michael Crichton's very public denials that global warming was a proved phenomenon" and so on—although some correctly identify it as a critique of Crichton.

Of all the references to the Crichton/Crowley flap I reviews, only The New York Times, registration required, actually touch on the fundamental content of Michael Crowley’s original piece—a 3,700 word article dismissing Crichton as an egotistical, anti-intellectual hack. The New York Times being even-handed. Go figure.

Numerous message board references to the flap are similar to this one posted at The Official Michael Crichton Message Board:

I understand that Crowley printed an evaluation of the poor science of Crichton's previous book and, rather than refute the actual claims that the journalist made, Crichton created a character in his book "Next" identical to Crowley in almost every way -but also made that character a child rapist with a small penis.

I wonder why Crichton responded in this way instead of refuting the claims if he is so sure of the science of his position.

As I noted, there wasn’t a single shred of "evaluation" in Mick Crowley’s story, something that has been very common with most of the criticism of Crichton’s assertions: they attack the man, rather than his data and his arguments and, when they occasionally do actually address the hard data, they produce the most minor technical arguments that simply do not address the substance of what he says. Still, the "meme" regarding the Crowley flap has largely (and, to some extent, I think intentionally) been spread that Crowley wrote a reasoned and detailed argument scientifically refuting Crichton’s arguments, and Crichton responded by saying Crowley had a small penis. When Crowley never made one single fact-based refutation of anything Crichton has ever said—in fact, was apparently too bored to pay attention to all the tedious science and data Crichton kept on about when Crichton was gracious enough to grant him an interview and earnestly try to address and explain this issues he raises in State of Fear with hard data and real history.

As an aside, I find it ironic and the few sentences Crichton devotes to the child molesting political pundit, Mick Crowley, in his latest novel, Next, inspired this retort from Crowley:

Crichton launched his noxious attack from behind the shield of the small penis rule because, I'm sure, he's embarrassed by what he has done. In researching my article, I found a man who has long yearned for intellectual stature beyond the realm of killer dinosaurs and talking monkeys. And Crichton must know that turning a critic into a poorly endowed child rapist won't exactly aid his cause. Ultimately, then, I find myself strangely flattered. To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule. Call it the small man rule: If someone offers substantive criticism of an author, and the author responds by hitting below the belt, as it were, then he's conceding that the critic has won.

As for "substantive criticism", Crowley was mostly accusing Crichton of being anti-science, anti-intellectual, overly-ambitious, polemical, and bitter. Oh, and Crichton’s novels are formulaic. He doesn’t directly address any of Crichton’s points—indeed, he regards the anti-science, anti-intellectual Crichton’s obsession with factual data, reports, correlative factors, history, and policy-specifics as tedious and besides the point (or "ravings", as he also refers to them)—the point is that Crichton is anti-intellectual and ego-maniacal and should be dismissed and disregarded, rather that feted and rewarded with tremendous books sales. According to Crowley, Crichton is "an experiment gone wrong", "a menacing figure haunting think tanks, policy forums, hearing rooms", of aping Tom Wolfe, of re-writing the Frankenstein story with every book, of never offering serious ideas, of is worldview having "reached its bitter, frothing apex", his books are all for "the coach class set", Crichton "relentlessly propagandizes".

Perhaps calling Crowley, by proxy, a pharmaceutical profiteer and a child molester with a small penis is a worse, and less substantive, thing to do. But not by much. Also, I think that kind of obsessive, highly-personalized reaction was actually what Crichton was looking for and, far from being embarrassed, thinks the author has won and the critic got punk’d, sucker. Given that Crowley is almost certainly not a child molester, pharmaceutical trust-fund baby, or so shabbily endowed, that he launched into such an impressive diatribe in response indicates that his ending, asserting that Crichton is conceding that the critic has won, is entirely backwards. Crowley’s response indicates that Crichton has won. Indeed, in his retort, Michael Crowley writes, "It is impossible not to be grossed out on some level--particularly by the creepy image of the smoldering Crichton, alone in his darkened study, imagining in pornographic detail the rape of a small child." That’s better than Crichton including a toss-off character named Mick Crowley who, other than being a Yale graduate and a political pundit, doesn’t actually have anything in common with Michael Crowley? And still, for all the ink spilt, not one single refutation of Crichton’s data, his thesis, or his skepticism regarding Global Warming.

Hmm. Maybe the critic has won, after all. Instead of talking about Global Warming, the scientific data, and the consequences of public policy predicated upon junk science, it’s all about Michael Crichton being thin-skinned and Michael Crowley actually not having a small penis at all!

Next, more red flags, and more Michael Crichton . . .

Shut Up and Sing!

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

Since the Dixie Chicks were blacklisted and we have no freedom of speech in King George BusHitler's America, how come they are still mouthing off, bad mouthing their former fans and most of the rest of America, starring in a new documentary, getting articles written about them, having videos in number one rotation on VH1 for weeks, and on the cover of magazines? And how come they are still way richer than me?

Being blacklisted and having no freedom of speech must mean something very different from what I always thought it meant.

Obviously, as a conservative, I'm going to tend to think that more people on the right just "get it" about more things than folks on the left.

That's part and parcel of aligning yourself ideologically with other people. You aren't going to align yourself with people you consider amoral morons, and you aren't going to align yourself in opposition to people you consider smart, thoughtful, moral folks.

But, no matter what side of the political spectrum you fall on, some things just seem so obvious and so "common-sensical" that you believe that acceptance of these ideas should simply transcend political boundaries.

Whether or not you are my sworn enemy in almost every area, we should be able to agree on, say, the general color of the sky, the current temperature, the existence of gravity, or our mutual need for oxygen.

Yet, on political issues that would seem to the partisan idealogue to be such transcendent, "common sense" matters, there are fundamental disagreements. On the left, such an issue might be global warming. Many on the left consider global warming a rigorously proven fact, and the "fact" that man is the cause of it so obvious as to be beyond questioning or review. Yet many on the right consider global warming to be unproven, that man's impact on the environment could cause such change extremely questionable, and the advocates of global warming remarkably similar to all doomsayers of all previous ages. Whose predictions of incipient destruction also failed to materialize.

Another more contemporary issue might be the one of "torture". To many on the left, anything remotely harsh in dealing with prisoners should be considered, common-sensically, to be torture. Additionally, it's simply self-evident to many of those folks that torture is immoral, and should never be used under any circumstances, no matter who was being tortured and how many lives might be saved by the revelation of valuable information. Another self-evident truth in that mix is that "torture doesn't work", because people will say anything to make the torture stop.

The conservative might argue that this would logically include disclosing any actual information they might have that would save lives, because if they would say anything, that would include verifiable data that would stop the current torture and carry with it promises of future protection--and a future resumption of "torture", should his information turn out to be false. Additionally, the conservative might argue that rough and psychologically manipulative techniques are not torture in the same way that cutting off fingers or wiring up car batteries to nipples are torture, and to equate them is both irrational and irresponsible. But these arguments don't make a great deal of headway against the wide-eyed disbelief that these extra-chromosome right-wing simians are actually defending torture! My God, they're worse than we thought!

Which brings me to the main subject of the article, which is the Dixie Chicks. As a conservative, it is just common sense to most of us that freedom of speech does not guarantee you freedom from criticism for what you say. It just "makes sense" that if you make public statements about controversial subjects, some folks might decide not to do business with you for that reason, and they have every right to decide to do business with (or buy the albums of) whoever they choose. Businesses, including radio stations, have the right to play whatever music they want to. If you say things in public that make those businesses uncomfortable about doing business with you, don't be surprised if that business dries up.

Do I really care what the Dixie Chicks think about anything? No. Why should I? It's clear they have zero influence in changing the political views of their fans and former fans. Do I think they should have been boycotted or--for pete's sake--had their albums burned? No. All I have to say to people who burn anything as a form of political statement, whether it's record albums or flags or conservative college newspapers is: grow up. Have something intelligent to say about the issue you are so inflamed about, and communicate it. Join some grass-roots organization to effect change. Any moron can set something on fire (or run over it with a bulldozer) and, when it comes to political statements, people who burn things to make a point are, in my mind, uniformly morons.

And if I found out a company I did business with was burning a bunch of Dixie Chick's albums, and I could get what they supplied somewhere else, I'd go somewhere else. Because that's my right, and the First Amendment does not prevent me from deciding not to do business with, or buy the product of, people who demonstrate to me in a public manner that they are, in fact, twits.

So why do so many on the left consider the guarantee of free speech to be a guarantee of a captive audience? Why do they believe that freedom of speech should prevent negative reaction to and criticism of that speech? Another question might be why most folks on the left applauded McCain-Fiengold, which was actually the government passing laws to regulate political speech, which is an actual abridgement of our First Amendment rights by the entity--the government--that the First Amendment was specifically designed to protect our free speech rights from. It can't be because it was a strictly Democrat initiative--John McCain authored it with Democrat Russ Fiengold, and the evil George Dubya Bush signed that piece of crap into law. But that digresses into another "common sense" issue that really isn't (that abridgement of political speech by any individual or group, for any reason, no matter how noble, is unconstitutional and, in the long run, a negative). And I should probably just stick to the main issue. And that's mouthy southern women.

So. Let's play a game. Can you guess what the editorial slant of Shut up and Sing, which cribs its name from a superior book by Laura Ingraham of the same name, a movie tracing the history of the Dixie Chick controversy, from singing the national anthem of the fallout from Natalie Maines' comments about president Bush? Liberal or conservative? Left or right? Come on. Guess. It'll be fun.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen the trailer for the movie. And from the silly tagline on the poster ("Freedom of speech is fine, as long as you don't do it in public.") to implication that the nutjobs sending death threats to the Dixie Chick's are somehow typically conservative (or, let's be honest, typically American) or are unique to any one side of the political spectrum (try and find a prominent conservative who has not received death threats specifically for what they believe and what they speak publically about), I think the editorial slant is pretty clear.

In the trailer, there is a quote from Bush on the Dixieflap that is exactly right: "They shouldn't have their feelings hurt because some people don't want to buy their records." Natalie Maines was offended and indignant, but Bush was dead on. The anti-Bush comment was one of many Natalie Maines has directed at the many folks in redstate America that she clearly has such distaste for, and when you offend your primary audience, and clearly don't care if you offend your primary audience ("Not Ready to Make Nice"), and then move on to become even more offensive, don't be surprised that people don't buy (or sometimes even stock) your albums, and don't be surprised that the radio doesn't want to play you. And don't expect a lot of sympathy. There are thousands of talented country acts out there, and most of them don't get airplay and most of them can't get stocked at Wal-Mart, and most of them have never had the kind of money that Natalie Maines used to have to spend on her shoes.

Of course, most of those acts never said some other things either. Like:

I don't want to be played on those [Country radio] stations. And when I watched people smashing our CDs I just thought, Good. Smash 'em. Please don't listen to me. I had no idea you thought I was one of you, because I'm not.

Which is not only calculated to offend her main audience, but is clearly an endorsement of exactly what they were doing. She didn't want the dumb redstate hicks that had been making her rich to buy her music. She only wants smart liberals and urban elites to buy her music, or she doesn't want anybody to buy it. She's getting exactly what she wants. Really, it couldn't have turned out better for her.

Wait, though. She's not done.

And I don't want to go to any [country music] award shows. And if we did win, what would I get up there and say? I have nothing to say to these people.

And by "these people", she means the people who used to buy her music, before they found out she hated them and thought they were idiots.

And, while she wouldn't take back what she said about Bush, or the hicks that bought her music against her will, she would take back her already back-handed apology:

It was all mine--nobody made me apologize and nobody wrote it for me--but when I look back and read it, I don't stand behind what I said. That will make people extra-mad, because some were like, "Well, at least she apologized."

Martie Maguire, one of the other Chicks, said:

We don't feel a part of the country scene any longer, it can't be our home anymore.

Maguire also had this excellent thing to say with her free speech:

I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do.

Again, making the point that they don't want any of the folks who were buying their music to have bought it in the first place, and that they are now in a much better situation since they have freed themselves from the redneck menace. Good for them.

In June 2006 Emily Robison made this comment to the Telegraph in the UK about country music videos that showed soldiers and American flags (eww!):

A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism.

In same interview, Natalie Maines said:

The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism. Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country ... I don't see why people care about patriotism.

In 2003, the American Red Cross refused a million dollar "donation" from the Dixie Chicks, something that is apparently made issue of in the movie, because it's in the trailer. And it's implied that refusal was because there were Bush administration people on the board, and that it was a string-free donation. The reality is a little more complicatecd.

According to National Red Cross spokesperson Julie Thermond Whitmer, the band would make the donation "only if the American Red Cross would embrace the band's summer tour". That summer tour being the one where Natalie Maines had recently revealed her penchant for controversial political statements. Julie Thermond Whitmer explained:

The Dixie Chicks controversy made it impossible for the American Red Cross to associate itself with the band because such association would have violated two of the founding principles of the organization: impartiality and neutrality... Should the Dixie Chicks like to make an unconditional financial donation to the American Red Cross, we will gladly accept it.

Interestingly, not only do the Dixie Chicks, despite being so terribly oppressed (although they like that better because it was actually more oppressive when all those backwards rednecks were buying their records), still have a wide audience, are still richer than you or me, still get to say whatever they want to all sorts of people, and still get their words (many of them critical not just of Bush but of redstate America and America generally) in national and international publications.

But apparently, if you piss people off with what you say--even if you also say that you wanted to piss those kinds of people off and didn't want them listening to you in the first place--your free speech rights have been abridged or taken away from you. I think that's one of those things where I'm going to have to say, from my point of view, most of the folks on the left just don't "get it".

And they aren't going to. Just last month, an ad for Shut up and Sing was turned down by NBC (part of a publically held media company that has always reserved the right to turn down in advertising they deemed inappropriate). The smaller CW--which needs money--also rejected the ads. Oppression! Discrimination! But, local affiliate stations of all five major broadcasters, including NBC and the CW, ran ads for the film in Los Angeles and New York, the only two cities the film actually opened in on the day of the ads. Nevertheless, Harvey Weinstein complained in a press release:

It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America.

Wow. The Dixie Chicks get on the cover of Entertainment Weekly and Time, get interviewed by The Telegraph and Dier Speigel and a dozen other national and international magazines, get their latest video on the top spot on VH1 for two weeks, are still selling plenty if not going platinum and having more trouble with the tours, but are still richer than any of us are ever likely to be while getting to freely insult the people (and their beliefs and lifestyles) that helped make them so rich in the first place . . . well, hell's bells, I want to be blacklisted like that, too!

You want to talk blacklisted? Talk to M.C. Hammer. Talk to Vanilla Ice. Talk to C&C Music Factory. Talk to Donny Osmond. That list goes on and on and on. And I don't see them on the cover of time, or with a million in pocket change to bribe the Red Cross with.

Politicizing 9/11

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

Bush makes a speech that is about the War on Terror, and he's accused of politicizing 9/11. And the Democrats proceed with a organized, talking-points filled campaign to gain political advantage from Bush's speech.

But it's not going to work. I'm sure, for the true believers, this is what they want to hear. Or maybe not even angry and whacky enough.

But what fence-sitter out there is going to say, "Well, I was going to vote for Republicans come November until Bush mentioned the war in Iraq and the War on Terror in regards to 9/11, which Bush has always said he sees as being all part of the same thing. Now I'm definitely voting for Democrats only. Definitely Democrats.

What voter unsure about the Republicans is going to be moved by the hissy fit Democrats are throwing about Bush asking for unity and support in regards to the War on Terror, and the war in Iraq on 9/11, when he's clearly seen them as being all part of the same thing?

And he does. Mentioning the War in Iraq and the War on Terror in a speech about 9/11 isn't a cynical political move, insofar as Bush has always seen them (as having many conservatives) as being all part of the same battle. Bush might be wrong about that, certainly Democrats and liberals man disagree with his belief, but the accusation of politicization--and the coordinated, talking-pointed manner in which it is being protested--seems to be the real politicization, to me.

---

BTW, I know I haven't blogged a lot recently. Just busy. Have some books I want to review, and can't seem to get finished with them! And always working on other projects. So, time gets consumed. But I haven't abandoned the blog.

Have a great day!

Israel, Mel Gibson, and a Subtle Oak Flavor

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

Israel is under attack with rockets by a group of terrorists whose avowed agenda is the complete anhilation of the Jewish race and the media is pointing out the vile anti-Semitism of . . . Mel Gibson?

A friend of mine blogs here, at Subtle Oak Flavor; Pleasing Finish. Her August 1st, 2006 post is on Mel Gibson's recent mea culpa for his anti-Jewish comments. Which of course led to comments about the current conflict in the Middle East and, in the comments, Walker notes that she is not as pro-Israel as most conservatives. Which inspired the following comments (expanded for my blog) on being pro-Israel. As I am a conservative, generally vote Republican, and am pretty firmly in the pro-Israel camp.

Though I am pro-Israel, I am not, frankly, pro-putting-Israel-in-the-Middle-East. Of course, Israel was intitially a left-wing experiment in introducing socialism to the Middle East, not the war-mongering, pro-democracy capitalist state they ended up being. But either way, putting the Jewish homeland where they did, no matter what historical claim the Jews had, was probably not the best way to nurture regional peace.

Anyone who has ever watched the process of corporations getting states to bid for the new headquarters or plant, or cities to bid for movies to be made in their town, could see how the Jewish state should have been handled. They should have done a big slide show with all the projected tax revenue that being the location of the Jewish State would bring the parent country (or state--Israel would fit in Texas about three-hundred times over) based on the Jewish People's previous earnings capacity.

On the other hand, other than a general sympathy for humanity (I don't want anybody getting blown up, period), I have no real sympathy for any middle-eastern dictatorships or, these days, even the Islamofascist democracies (although, the long run potential with even a theocratic democracy is much better than a strict totalitarian society).

More to the point, I agree with the sometimes brilliant, sometimes insane and/or willfully ignorant New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, who recently said on NPR that, essentially, Israel is inventing new microchips and curing diseases while the folks trying to wipe them out can't manufacture a light bulb or build a hospital that isn't on top of a rocket launcher or missile silo. I'm paraphrasing, but the innovation and invention that comes from that postage stamp of desert that is Israel is truly remarkable, especially considering that fifty times the people with a hundred times the natural resources around them contribute nothing to humanity but explosions, hate and death.

I could go on. Frankly, I'm neither a military man (and neither are most politicians or media pundits, as Thomas Sowell points out here) or an expert on the middle east, so I don't know if the Israeli strategy regarding the current conflict will work (or, for that matter, if Iraq will turn out well or not). But I think it's obvious that previous diplomacy and cease fires have failed, and, come on, conservative and pro-Israel punditry does have a point when it complains that you can't have a truce or a negotiated settlement with a group whose sole, sworn objective is the obliteration of you and everybody like you. I just hope for the best outcome, in the long run. I expect the only real option is for Israel to keep going, and keep turning on the heat. They've withdrawn, given up land, traded both land and hostages for "peace", and the results have been more attacks and terrorism against Israel. I can certainly see why Israel sees going on offense as their only option.

Then there's the Mel Gibson controversy. I find it interesting that the often Christian-hating (and, let's be fair, Orthodox Jew hating, too) Bill Maher is actually on Israel's side. But then he goes on to say Mel's problem is not alcoholism, but religion, so Mahr still hates religious folks. So I'm comforted.

As far as the media tarring and feathering Mel, and using him as a "wedge" against conservatives--they've already done it, they'd do it anyway, they won't get any mileage out of it because they already drove that car 'til the wheels fell off about ten years ago. Just like Pat Robertson's heretical nonsense is cited by the media (and, in the case of my link, Positive Atheism) as evidence of the intolerance and messianic insanity of all Christians, the attempt to equate Mel to all Catholics, Christians, or Conservatives has zero political or ideological value to them. Although they think it has plenty. Hey, let 'em spin their wheels.

It may help maintain the lefties with the red meat they need to keep their hatin' muscles good and strong, but the implied "you don't want to be like Mel Gibson or Pat Robertson or Ann Coulter so be a lefty" argument is way past it's prime.

Belief in God is Bad for Society

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

And they can prove it, using the magic of statistical analysis. And I do mean magic. I review Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies, and find it lacking.

Last May, I wrote in regards to an email I received about an earlier article (You Christians are Stupid and We Hate You), in which the assertion was made by the writer that in addition to being anti-scientific and backwards, Christianity and religiosity caused all manner of social ills. For evidence, the writer cited the following:

In response to certain claims that you make in your article, I submit the following study, which finds correlations between religiosity and various types of social dysfunction, such as child mortality, homicide, abortions, STDs, low life expectancy, etc. All of the aforementioned social ills seem to increase as the percentage of the population that believes in God increases:

http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2005/2005-11.html

Which, in my humble opinion, began inauspiciously by with an immediate attempt to create false academic legitimacy, and perhaps obfuscate the agenda, with its title: Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies. A more direct and honest title might have been: Religion Bad, Secularism Good.

As I noted earlier, my immediate problem, and the most intractable, is that the attempt to demonstrate a correlation between religiosity and social ills casts such a statistically broad net as to be of no objective value, at least in terms of providing meaningful data about a demonstrable relationship. A satistical demonstration that two or more factors can be related on a graph is almost certain to be a demonstration of coincidence, if not selective data mining. And this can be done, and has been, on every issue from crime in the African American community (although certainly most legitimate statisticians would not argue that skin color or ethnicity itself causes crime) to arrests during full moons. Paul Broca is famous for his statistical proofs that brain size was indicative of brain power, and that white, European males all had the biggest brains, and women and non-Europeans were inherently mentally inferior and were always going to be. While his method of gather statistics and analyzing them has now been fully debunked, most of that happened in the harsh light of history. Despite all of Broca's statistical analysis, very little he maintained was true: white European males do not consistently have larger brains, physically, than other races. Women generally have smaller brains due to their smaller size physically, but numerous different tests of scholastic aptitude have shown that this does not make men any smarter than women. Indeed, modern indications (if we viewed them in a vacuum) would be that women are smarter than men.

So one should always regard any statistical analysis that assigns moral and intellectual superiority to one group or another, based on any over-riding characteristic of that group, with deep skepticism. Replace the examples of religiosity correlating with social ills in the study with examples of ethnicity correlating with social ills, or gender correlating with social ills, and see how it sounds. Or political affiliation, and put your personal political affiliation in just to get an idea of how problematic such "analysis" really is.

Interestingly, early on the authors essentially say that their study, which implies a causal relationship between religiosity and social ills, cannot demonstrate it, so they don't try (yet). This is also their explanation for not performing regression analyses, which might well contradict the fundamental implication of the study: that lots of people believing in God is bad for society.

Regression analyses were not executed because of the high variability of degree of correlation, because potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions.

While I think some of the conclusions are generally accurate, for example:

Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative (Figure 1). The least religious nation, Japan, exhibits the highest agreement with the scientific theory, the lowest level of acceptance is found in the most religious developed democracy, the U.S.

... I don't think they tell the whole story. By popular acceptance of evolution, do they mean that in regards to where or not evolution occurs at all, or speciation via evolution, or that man evolved from lower life-forms? Those are all, believe it or not, different things, and many Christians accept that evolution happens, but they don't accept that man evolved from lower animals, although the evolve sufficiently for race variation and homogenization, increases or decreases in height and size, etc. And some accept that evolution happens, that man evolved from lower life forms, but believe that God's hand guided the process from beginning to end. And this is also just one example where the language bugs me, and ought to bug anyone looking for an objective scientific analysis: "Correlations between popular acceptance of human evolution and belief in and worship of a creator and Bible literalism are negative" . . . belief in a creator is not the same as worship of a creator, and neither is the same as Bible literalism and, indeed, Bible literalism means that they aren't talking about belief in or worship of a creator, or even Old Testament-consistent belief systems like Judaism or Islam, but of Christianity specifically. Although it's not entirely clear that's what they mean.

It doesn't take them long to go from confusing to deeply flawed:

A few hundred years ago rates of homicide were astronomical in Christian Europe and the American colonies. In all secular developed democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows.

Any attempt to equate the drop of homocides over centuries to a decrease in religiosity over the same period is simply non-scientific. How many other things happen culturally over a period of 100 years? From advances in education, social spending, prison-building, law-writing, greater enforcement, economic opportunity, etc. There are hundreds if not thousands of significant societal changes that went on, many of which one would rationally assume had a much more significant effect on the rate of violent crime, than a reduction in the levels of religiosity in a given country.

The especially low rates in the more Catholic European states are statistical noise due to yearly fluctuations incidental to this sample, and are not consistently present in other similar tabulations.

Translation: where the data disagrees with our pre-determined conclusions, we blame the data. However, where it agrees with our conclusions, the data is fine. A clear indication that the yard stick for the accuracy of the data is how neatly it agrees with the authors conclusions (that they admit they can't actually demonstrate a causal relationship for!).

Despite a significant decline from a recent peak in the 1980s, the U.S. is the only prosperous democracy that retains high homicide rates, making it a strong outlier in this regard.

Which might be affected by things like a gun-culture and hip-hop culture that have a limited relationship to religiosity (or even a negative correlation which is, no doubt, why that aspect is not explored in the study).

Something else striking in it's absence, given the first assertion about murder rates hundreds of years ago versus now, the change in the homocide rate, per capita, in America from 1800 to 2000, is not touched on. Likely, this is because, thanks to urbanization and increased law enforcement and increase prosperity, the homicide rate went down even as religiosity did not.

Mass student murders in schools are rare, and have subsided somewhat since the 1990s, but the U.S. has experienced many more (National School Safety Center) than all the secular developed democracies combined.

What the hell is that? And why doesn't it mention that, when known, some of the most notable school shootings (ala Columbine) were performed by irreligious kids in families that did not attend, or attended very little church. Are we to understand that it was the fact that lots of other kids attended church that made the Columbine students kill so many of their classmates? Oh, probably not, because, as the authors admit at the outset, they don't actually mean to say there is a causal relationship between societal dysfunction and religiosity. They just want to cherry-pick examples to sure make it feel like there is.

Other prosperous democracies do not significantly exceed the U.S. in rates of nonviolent and in non-lethal violent crime, and are often lower in this regard. The

This is another semantic issue for me again, one that you might miss if you blinked. But there is no where in the study where that kind of language is used in reverse--that is, nothing that says, in effect, "The US does not exceed other prosperous democracies in regards to societal dysfunction X, and is often lower in this regard." Yet here a statistic that would tend to indicate that even violent crime is often higher in secular democracies (ones that, presumably, might have much stricter gun laws and a much lesser gun culture, just to examine to factors that might impact lethality of violent crimes), and they pish-posh it away with "often lower in other places". What this means, translated, is that for crime, overall, there is no demonstrable relationship, causal or others, to even their limited definitions of religiosity, and that it goes up and down without respect to the religiosity of a given country.

Although the late twentieth century STD epidemic has been curtailed in all prosperous democracies, rates of adolescent gonorrhea infection remain six to three hundred times higher in the U.S. than in less theistic, pro-evolution secular developed democracies.

Which is to say, it has gone down significantly in the US, despite the increasing levels of religiosity over the same time period, just not nearly as much in Europe. There are almost certainly dozens of factors involved in the disparity, of which religiosity is just one. And there are almost certainly reasons why the religious beliefs of the socially dysfunctional groups are not reported on. The first is, no doubt, the lack of availability of data. But the second is likely that the data would show no correspondence, or negative correspondence, as religious kids in religious families do tend to have sex later, have fewer partners, and, believe are not, are often very careful in regards to contraception--as they would rather die that have their parents find out their sinning in the backseat on Saturday night.

At all ages levels are higher in the U.S., albeit by less dramatic amounts. The U.S. also suffers from uniquely high adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, which are starting to rise again as the microbe’s resistance increases. The two main curable STDs have been nearly eliminated in strongly secular Scandinavia.

So one is left to conclude that church-going, God-believing religious folks are swimming with syphyllis? Or that all these churches make secualr folks more likely to engage in unprotected sex? Or the aura of Christianity in a country makes the syphyllis microbe more robust. And while there are reasons they don't even attempt to study how many religious folks suffer these social dysfunctions in America versus the non-religious folks who do, there are also reasons they aren't breaking them down by race, income, military service and immigrant status. There are lots of other correlations, in regards to STDs, that exist. And it's not mostly white, upper-income church goers who suffer from syphyllis.

Increasing adolescent abortion rates show positive correlation with increasing belief and worship of a creator, and negative correlation with increasing non-theism and acceptance of evolution; again rates are uniquely high in the U.S.

So, if fewer Americans believed in God, presumably abortion rates would go down. A skeptic might be forgiven for asking: how, exactly, does that work? Why does believing in God make people want to have unprotected sex and get abortions? Because Christians hide info about contraception? Well, there are more gas stations that churches in America, and I can buy condoms in the the bathrooms of almost all of them. Without shame! Because religious belief makes us feel guilty and so I plan not to have sex until the last minute and then I just can't stop myself and I have to have sex and can't get to a gas station because of the Christians and . . . well, I'm just not sure there is an adequate explanation for any presumed causal correlation between such factors.

Early adolescent pregnancy and birth have dropped in the developed democracies, but rates are two to dozens of times higher in the U.S. where the decline has been more modest.

And in almost all of those populations, the overall corresponding birth rate has gone down, too. And, again, there's a reason they don't break this down by race, or by individual on public assistance: a large number of adolescent pregnancies and births happen to kids from single-parent homes, almost always single-mother homes, where the family has been on public assistance for a significant portion of the teen-mother's life. The number of teen pregancies to children attending public schools versus those attending private religious schools is significantly higher (feel free to research the data yourself) by any yardstick . . . again, that's why the analysis is limited to very broad strokes regarding very limited sets of data. Because there are much more obvious and consistent relationships to things like public assistance, public school attendance, and single-parenthood and societal dysfunction than there are to religiosity.

Broad correlations between decreasing theism and increasing pregnancy and birth are present, with Austria and especially Ireland being partial exceptions. Darroch et al. found that age of first intercourse, number of sexual partners and similar issues among teens do not exhibit wide disparity or a consistent pattern among the prosperous democracies they sampled, including the U.S.

Why, how can this be? With all the religious oppression that happens in America? Perhaps because religiosity is not a significant factor in regards to teens and sex?

Now, remember earlier in the study, with the authors said this: "...potential causal factors for rates of societal function are complex, and because it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions [emphasis added]."Now, you tell me, how do you reconcile that statement (unless it is simply there to avoid any accountability for their inflammatory assertions) with the following:

In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies ... The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developed democracies, sometimes spectacularly so, and almost always scores poorly. The view of the U.S. as a 'shining city on the hill' to the rest of the world is falsified when it comes to basic measures of societal health. Youth suicide is an exception to the general trend because there is not a significant relationship between it and religious or secular factors. No democracy is known to have combined strong religiosity and popular denial of evolution with high rates of societal health. Higher rates of non-theism and acceptance of human evolution usually correlate with lower rates of dysfunction, and the least theistic nations are usually the least dysfunctional. None of the strongly secularized, pro-evolution democracies is experiencing high levels of measurable dysfunction. In some cases the highly religious U.S. is an outlier in terms of societal dysfunction from less theistic but otherwise socially comparable secular developed democracies. In other cases, the correlations are strongly graded, sometimes outstandingly so.

Just the fact there are no other factors considered except religiosity (not GDP, not race or ethnicity, not cultural diversity, not tax burdens or public assistance or marriage rates or public education or social spending or single-payer healthcare or anything else) is a huge flaw, in regards to attempting any kind of meanginful study, in my opinion. That so many other potential ills are left out--specific rates for rape and child abuse or abandonment, let's say, or adult suicide for those not terminally ill, rates of cancer and heart disease, longevity and so on, is telling. That potential positive correlations are also completely left out of a discussion of factors that might correspond to religiosity, such as public charities, religious hospitals, scientific innovation, the size of the middle-class, etc, also point to more agenda than science being at work in this study.

A conservative fellow like myself could certainly be forgiven for seeing more anti-religious and anti-American bias than a love for the empiric pursuit of science at work in this particular analysis.

Again, I want to remind you of when the authors said the following: "it is not the purpose of this initial study to definitively demonstrate a causal link between religion and social conditions [emphasis added]." Remember that? When their conclusion says this, it makes one wonder if they remembered writing that. Just look:

The United States’ deep social problems are all the more disturbing because the nation enjoys exceptional per capita wealth among the major western nations. Spending on health care is much higher as a portion of the GDP and per capita, by a factor of a third to two or more, than in any other developed democracy.

The U.S. is therefore the least efficient western nation in terms of converting wealth into cultural and physical health. Understanding the reasons for this failure is urgent, and doing so requires considering the degree to which cause versus effect is responsible for the observed correlations between social conditions and religiosity versus secularism.

It is therefore hoped that this initial look at a subject of pressing importance will inspire more extensive research on the subject. Pressing questions include the reasons, whether theistic or non-theistic, that the exceptionally wealthy U.S. is so inefficient that it is experiencing a much higher degree of societal distress than are less religious, less wealthy prosperous democracies.

Conversely, how do the latter achieve superior societal health while having little in the way of the religious values or institutions? There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms.

It is the responsibility of the research community to address controversial issues and provide the information that the citizens of democracies need to chart their future courses.

Got that? They apparently know that America is wealthier than any other nation in the world, but see's no correlation between that bit of American exceptionalism and religiosity--the idea doesn't even come up, which should speak volumes about the agenda of the authors.

You'll also notice that religiosity suddenly takes a back seat to the central conceit of study: that America is, one the whole, inferior to Europe and Japan in almost every respect, and that we need to get cracking and emulate Europe and Japan.

Oh, and wait, we're not done . . . the backwards rednecks of the south and mid-west (you know, Bush voters, Republicans, church-goers, and other extra-chromosome defectives) are where all the bad things and violence come from in America, as it turns out, while the superior, largely secular bastions of liberalism in the northeast approach "European norms". So, while the agenda is ostensibly anti-religious, one might also see it as a bit of anti-rural Europhilia, and certainly disdain for the red states there, too.

While the authors urge more research, presumably similarly agenda-laden, I don't think they do anybody any favors by taking the approach they have. What's the racial and ethnic makeup of the south and mid-west compared to the northeast? Heck, what are the population levels, the average age of the population, and how many people move into the state versus those moving out? What are the foreign immigrant levels? How much public assistance is doled out? What are the gun laws? What are the sentencing guidelines for judges? And so on and so forth. There are real reasons for societal dysfunction, and there is plenty of societal dysfunction everywhere, and wasting time and money attempting to enshrine religious bigotry with the trappings of legitimate science does not address them. Such studies, that don't include an analysis of race, gender, age, immigrant status, income level, levels of public assistance, and so on, are simply not serious and do absolutely nothing of value in regards to addressing the societal ills they proclaim to be so important.

It is also worth noting that the soup kitchens in this country are not staffed by academics. Charity hospitals are not run being run by researchers. There may be a First Secular Humanist Charity Hospital somewhere, but I haven't seen it. Most foodbanks are not run by dedicate atheists and the first responders, outside of the fire, police, and American military, to most natural and even man-made disasters tend to be Christian and Jewish organizations. The amount of good done by contemporary Christians could fill volumes that could then fill a library, and the record of secular humanist researches is not nearly so impressive. Although they do have an impressive ability to laud themselves and pat themselves on the back while simultaneously pointing their fingers, I'll find their arguments more credible when they start coming from the soup kitchen they've been serving homeless folks meals in for the past decade.

Other excellent commentary, supportive and critical, on the study can be found by following these links:

Evidence for the effects of religion on society (idea)

Magic Statistics: From Our Bulging How Not Do Do It File

Dogma Bites Man

Distant Correlations

IS RELIGIOSITY SOCIALLY BENEFICIAL?

Atheism or Christianity: Whose Fruit is Sweeter

To the church, he’s public enemy No. 1

Religion: Harmful for Society? New Study Says Yes, But Its Argument Shows Flaws

Experts say religion study is sound, but ...

Time to Choose: God or Country

Burn Ann Coulter (And Her Book, Too)

Read it on KevinWillis.net

---

The politically correct speech Nazis are on the March against Ann Coulter, again. Oh, hey, did I mention that these particular speech Nazis are Republicans? Oh, yeah, baby. Just more evidence that conservatives are opposed to women who speak their mind.

The criticism of Ann is interesting on several levels. On one level, it makes perfect sense. She says rude and thoughtless things. She can be smart and pithy, and often uses that ability to craft the most biting, hurtful thing she could say. Often, these particular things don’t add anything of value to the debate.

It is not a criticism of using personal tragedy to advance a cause (something common to almost all the humanity, in one way or another, as a strategy to make something good and add meaning to what otherwise might appear to be a senseless tragedy) to say that the Jersey Girls were “enjoying” their husband’s deaths.

In and of itself, it really doesn’t advance the idea that people on the left are using the personal tragedy of themselves and others in order to shield their ideas and agendas from scrutiny or criticism. There may be something to that, as many point out, but what Ann said—and, in most cases, most of the inflammatory things she says—don’t actually do anything to make the case that the folks that are 100% in her camp say that she meant. If such popular, straight-forward punditry needs translation, then she isn’t getting the job done. Unless the job is simply to inflame passions and inspire debate and thus help market herself which—along with appearing in something skimpy, but not too skimpy, and black on every book cover—is what her inflammatory rhetoric is, most likely, all about.

One could also argue about karma and how nature abhors a vacuum and how for every action there will be an equal and opposite reaction, so, naturally, for every Al Franken or Michael Moore or Bill Mahr there must be an Ann Coulter to bring balance to the force. But perhaps that’s a discussion for another day.

Another criticism made frequently about Ann also makes sense: she does tend to make blanket statements that condemn entire groups of people, without even the qualifications of "whacko" or "extreme" that most boisterous pundits use to distinguish, say, plain vanilla environmentalists from whacko environmentalists, or liberals from extreme leftists.

Godless is just another example of this, as she makes the fairly absurd assertion that liberals are inherently atheists, when liberalism is full of Christians. They may disagree on doctrine, on how to apply the gospel to their lives, on how to best walk with God, and the sort of works we’re called to, but they believe in God. Just because there are liberal politicians who clearly don’t believe in God who claim they do so they don’t seem as God-less as Coulter accuses them of being doesn’t make that true of the rank-and-file liberal, most of whom (I believe) are honest when they claim a deep and abiding faith in God and Christ. In Ann’s excellent book, Treason, she makes the blanket statement that, essentially, there were no anti-Communist liberals, and it’s just not true. There were plenty of democratic-socialist liberals in McCarthy’s day, as well as useful idiots, who were anti-Communist, and fought Communism tooth and nail, just there were many on the left who worked in league with Russia to infiltrate and corrupt the American political process.

But if Ann sometimes seems out-of-touch with reality, so do her critics. One common refrain I’ve read recently regarding Coulter—a this is from conservative pundits—is how terrible it is that other conservatives might defend her. More specifically, how conservatives are “circling the wagons”, as it were, to defend this indefensible harlot. Yet I’ve seen no sign of conservatives circling the wagons to defend her. Indeed, the same folks (for example, here, on RedState) note that noted conservative pundits Captain Ed, Hugh Hewitt, RedState, The Anchoress, Ace of Spades, The Strata-Sphere, and others have all attacked Coulter, not defended her. And what defenses I’ve seen have been individuals expressing their dissenting opinions, rather than “conservatives circling the wagons”.

A little more on circling the wagons: The idea that people who disagree with you--especially if there's more than one person who disagress with you--rightly or wrongly, are "circling the wagons" seems, to me, to fail a basic test of logic. That is, if I agree with you, rather than the folks who are challenging you, am I not, "circling the wagons", as well? Under scrutiny, it's little different that accusing someone who disagrees with you of daring to disagree with you.

This may be a legitimate criticism of major media when it came to, say, Rather-gate, when so many in the media (including Bill O'Reilly) rallied to Dan's defense, because it was one of their own who was under attack. But most of the defense of Ann, right or wrong, seems to come from people who genuinely agree with her, or at least are not sufficiently in disagreement with what she said, or how she said it, to be as outraged as you are. Or simply don’t like the implication that speech should be non-offensive or politically correct to be permissible.

While they may indeed be wrong, and others might be right, I don't think "circling the wagons" is a valid criticism. I think it's a cop-out. If these folks are really wrong, then their arguments can be taken apart on their own merits. It's about the same as the liberal criticism that many conservative like Ann because she's blonde and wears short skirts. In fact, that criticism may actually be more valid than the empty accusation of "circling the wagons". At least, I think there's probably more truth to it. She is, after all, actually blonde. And she does wear short skirts.

In the same post on RedState.com (titled, interestingly, Boycott Ann Coulter), the author takes 7 quotes out of context and demands to know if these quotes are “true”:

•"liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots..."
•"I think we ought to nuke North Korea right now just to give the rest of the world a warning."
•"Press passes can't be that hard to come by if the White House allows that old Arab Helen Thomas to sit within yards of the President."
•"We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."
•"My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."
•"Frankly, I'm not a big fan of the First Amendment."
•"We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens' creme brulee."

The idea being that we should all be smart and think they are obviously false. The fact is, most of them probably are true, because they are expressions of opinion or preference, presuming they weren't sarcastic and taken out of context (such as the First Amendment comment). Making exceptions for sarcasm and rhetorical devices, most of her expressions opinions would be as truthful as any other expression of opinion, assuming she's not actually lying about her opinion.

The last one, about Justice Steven’s crème brulee, was done in the context of re-stating a liberals desire that Clarence Thomas die of heart disease, asking what the reaction would be if a conservative said something like that? Well, now we know: self-professed conservatives would take it out of context and try to imply that that’s what she actually said, that we need to kill Justice Stevens!

I would argue that substituting terms in a statement to illustrate hypocrisy is a time-worn rhetorical device that is useful for informing. Taking such statements out of context as calls for murder from a raving right-wing pundit is also time worn, but perhaps less excusable. And, certainly, one would expect liberals to do it, but the number of conservatives doing it is impressive.

So, does Ann really speak truth to power? Not always. Most of Ann's untruthful statements come from blanket statements about entire groups that simply aren't, and cannot, be true, such as the suggestion that all liberals are not Christians, or are anti-Christian, and suggesting that good Christians aren't (and can't be) liberals. As with her assertion that liberals never did anything to fight communism (many did, just not the pro-Communist liberals) these are blanket statements too broad to be true, but incorrect specifically in the fact that they indict an entire group as sharing all the specific "sins" of a subgroup. Some liberals are obviously Christian, just as some are obviously anti-Christian. Saying they are all the same is just wrong.

But, assuming that Ann was factually accurate on every issue (as she does a good job of documenting and footnoting, even if she does, on occasion, seem to leave some important parts out), does that justify advocating nuclear war? Suggesting that the Jersey Girls enjoyed their husband's death?

And turning that around: does the fact that Ann is inflammatory and (presumably) self-aggrandizing and cynically manipulative of the media disqualify her research into topics like the McCarthy-era, where it would seem that liberal spin has become a form of religious canon that most conservatives were too timid to touch?

Not trying to be difficult--or, God forbid, circle the wagons, because the last thing a conservative or a Republican should ever do is defend one of their own, or even risk appearing to do so--but it seems to me that the Ann Coulter issue is a little more complicated than: "She's bad, she lies, she's not a conservative, boycott the book!"

For full disclosure, I don't have much sympathy for boycotts, be it Ann Coulter or the Dixie Chicks. Individuals should, of course, make their own decisions about such purchases, but those who agitate for the boycotting of books cast doubt on the strength of their ideas (or, at the very least, their rhetoric) by comparison. Dismissing the folks who support her, or at least want to give her rudeness the benefit of the doubt, or a plausible excuse, as "circling the wagons" also doesn't strike me as a particularly effective argument against their support. Presumably, everybody who supports somebody who says things you don't like is then "circling the wagons". While not as mean as many of Coulter's comments, such criticisms are equally empty and do nothing to convince the folks who think that Ann is the cat's pajamas that they are wrong.

There’s also a school of thought that says because Ann says outlandish and offensive things, nothing she has said can be treated seriously, or that, essentially, if you agree with her that McCarthy was rail-roaded you agree with her on everything she’s ever said, ever. One would think this sort of argument would be self-evidently wrong, but apparently not. Or that, if Ann speaks on issues and calls herself a conservative and says mean things, then it means that all conservatives are mean and wrong, unless she’s excommunicated or killed. That’s just nuts.

In keeping with that logic, should we treat Al Gore's appearance on SNL with the same seriousness we might treat An Inconvenient Truth? Or is An Inconvenient Truth actually just a silly joke, like the SNL skit of him being president in a alternative reality? How much political commentary is lightened with levity? Should we dismiss the commentary because the commentator makes a joke? Or because of the substance of the commentary?

Reductum ad absurdum: if I state nine facts and one lie, do the nine facts make the one lie true? Or does the one lie make the nine facts false?

Or have I instead presented nine facts and one lie, and the facts should be preserved and acknowledged as true while the lie should be refuted and dismissed as false?

The idea that it's "all or nothing" is foolish (although consistent with Thomas Sowell's analysis of liberalism being an ideology of categorical solutions, where trade-offs, or having to take the bad with the good, is unacceptable, thus the baby must always be thrown out with the bathwater, or one "perfect" solution is worth the sacrifice of everything else).

Disagreeing with her is perfectly legitimate. Calls to boycott her are, in my opinion, ill-considered.

Unfortunately, it seems that the conservative "big tent" can accomodate folks who are pro-drug legalization, pro-gay marriage, pro-amnesty-for-illegals and pro-nation building, but can't accomodate someone who says nasty, mean-spirited things about liberals, including these sins: "saying something that is true, or at least very plausible, about liberals, in a way that is overly-harsh and mean" and "making blanket hyperbolic statements about whole groups of people that are, in fact, only true of some of the people in that group".

While, frankly, I think Ann takes it too far, both in blanket statements and generally nastiness, the idea that she needs to be ostracized or excommunicated for that is just nuts. And it's not an issue of "turning on our own", but of turning on speech that we disagree with or we don't like (bad enough), but with the qualifier that such things are worse if said by ostensible conservatives about ostensible liberals or ostensible Islamfascists.

Sheesh. Perhaps all us conservatives should get together and draft some speech codes? So at least conservative commentators will know when speaking their mind will get them evicted from the conservative movement?

Because I'd hate for the liberals to think one conservative in a hundred might be full of piss and vinegar and occasionally talk out of his-or-her ass now and again.