The Joy of Hate (25 page)

The ideas are the same: we are talking about behaviors in excess—eating too much and screwing too much. Both lead to bad places that present a cost to society, if not your own soul, if you have one (I do, I keep it in my sock drawer). Whether it’s eating or banging, the flaw lies with self-control, in discipline—and how much we’ve devalued it since we lost the power to shame. However, one vice can be tolerated while another cannot. Why is that?

Well, it’s not about sex or fatness, but about how America sucks. And fat people represent America, while sexual liberation represents the more tolerant, sophisticated Europe. Desperately, our media, academics, and politicians seek approval from those so
far up that evolved food chain that we cannot risk looking prehistoric when it comes to sexuality. Saying yes to sex but no to food satisfies that insecurity: yes, we know we are fat, but we’re not prudes.

Look, I know being fat isn’t healthy. I was fat for a while, and it’s no fun. I crowded every elevator (even when alone). My wife couldn’t stand me. Mirrors reminded me that I gave up, every single day.

But on the list of things that shouldn’t be tolerated, a chubby kid shouldn’t even show up. A kid who, with other kids, crowds a store and pummels the clerk for kicks—or a kid who thinks getting pregnant is the only way to be somebody (or at least on MTV)—ranks far higher than a tyke who gains momentary pleasure from an innocent Twinkie. Or who, genetically, simply has that body type.

And let’s not forget that when a successful actor or model is interviewed and their childhood is brought up, nearly all of them mention they were once fat. One could argue that nearly every husky kid inevitably grows up to be slim, fabulous, and famous. It’s an argument that is not backed up by research, but that will not stop me from making its case.

In sum, I’d rather have a fat kid than a promiscuous kid. At least we can bake together.

IF THERE’S ANYTHING THAT CAN KILL A PARTY
, it’s global warming. God, I hate the topic, only because I know
too
much about it. I wish I could take a toilet scrubber to my brain and clear out all that wasteful crap I’ve stuck in there simply because I felt I
had
to read about it. Actually, I had to read
up
on it. Because I just didn’t buy the crap I was hearing on the news, and I had to find out why.

When I was cutting my gorgeous teeth writing health pieces for
Prevention
magazine, my life consisted of reading dozens of medical journals every month. It was boring, kinda like hanging out with Bill Nye the Science Guy. But I got the hang of the terminology, and figured out what were real results and what was conjecture. Or hype.

From this constant reading I knew the real results were to be found in a study’s conclusion—not in a phony press release, exaggerated to get a headline, which would lead to more grants and more press.

That means when I got a press release that said, “clam smoothies doubled results of placebo,” I knew to go straight to the numbers—who and how many people were used in the study—and then examine all the charts and graphs showing the results. How many
got better? How many turned blue? How many, after treatment, were convinced they were wallabies?

And sure enough, that line about clam smoothies doubling results of placebo started to look less and less important. Apparently, from the actual study, it meant that instead of just one guy getting relief, now there were two—out of 1,000 patients.

Hence the “doubled” results. This crap happens all the time in health studies, and magazines love it because they can play along to sell copies. I mean, if you claim your crappy pill works, that makes a great cover line for the magazine, who will then sell copies based on your flimsy claim. “Double your weight loss!” sells copies, not “clam smoothies lead to positive results in two people instead of one, out of a thousand.” Also, if you add a shot of my astounding abs, which are actually a henna tattoo, it helps.

Health is different from climate science, but the jargon and hysteria that follow are often the same. I learned early on that jargon is used to confuse and overwhelm you, so you’re more likely to agree with whoever is spewing the nonsense just to shut them up. Jargon is also great for hiding incompetence and corruption: You’re less likely to question motives or skill if you’re reeling from all those multisyllabic Latinate words. Especially when they’re
italicized
.

I learned to get around this crap by asking doctors (in my many, many awkward interviews) very simple questions, and admitting right off the bat that I’m a moron. I would say, “Hey, I was an English major in college, so what exactly is a blood vessel?” The doctors quickly took me for an idiot (which saved time), but also found my idiotic honesty refreshing, and they walked me through the stuff that other reporters chose not to pursue. This is exactly how I cured my psoriasis. (Kidding—I don’t have psoriasis. Psoriasis isn’t purple, is it?)

Once I walked myself through the research and talked it through with its authors, I often came to a very basic conclusion: no one knows what the hell they’re talking about. I mean, even with the drugs that do work, most experts are not even sure why. And now, with so much evidence lauding the work of antidepressants, there’s a whole band of critics who say that’s baloney. And it turns out the best doctors are the ones who bend over backwards to say they don’t know crap. Every one in the medical field looks down at MDs who blow their own horn. They see them as hucksters.

And so I learned a key skill—to steer clear of anyone who can announce with any certainty that they know the future. I don’t care how smart the scientist is, they’re almost always wrong. Remember that jackass in the seventies who predicted the coming ice age? Or how about that other dope who predicted global starvation? I venture both of them are dead, so they don’t have to answer for their asinine predictions. But there were many like them—people who could predict with all certainty that the world was going to end. And get this: it’s
your fault
. This kind of crap sold books and got grants and guaranteed tenure for many people, all of whom really should have been kicked out on their keisters and forced to get a real job like everyone else.

Examples abound. You remember the radon gas scare? We were told by America’s newsweeklies (back when their circulation was greater than that of a free pamphlet on osteoarthritis) that the scourge of radon gas collecting at the base of America’s homes would lead to all sorts of horrors—most specifically, an explosion of lung cancer. Hasn’t happened. The basic premise was that radon gas, which occurs naturally, would collect at unnaturally dense levels in our homes and begin killing us systematically. A whole radon-mitigation industry germinated. Then, finally!
Cooler heads in the scientific world pushed back on the alarmists peddling this stuff for fun and profit (among them, the EPA), and the radon gas threat dissipated like … radon gas. But understand: Somebody—most likely someone with a specious PhD, a white lab coat, and a good sales pitch—enhanced his career and bank account significantly from this twaddle (thanks for that word, O’Reilly).

My point is, when someone says something dire is going to happen—whether it’s an ice age, global warming, or the death of polka music—put on goggles because you’re about to be hit in the face with a pile of crap. They’ve been predicting the death of the polka for years, and like the sun, it’s still here every day. I play it very loud, every single morning. My neighbors love it!

So because of my own experience in health journalism, I’ve always cast a skeptical eye toward exaggerated claims of global warming—or whatever you might call it these days, since that moniker has changed. We call it climate change now. In a few years, what will we call it? Weather variability? Manic meteorology? Who cares? Whatever it’s called, it will make no more sense than it does now. And my eyes will still be skeptical.

Which is why I read as much as I can on the issue, choosing papers from both sides (which, you’ll later find, is now considered heresy in the eyes of scientists who are intolerant of any skeptical point of view).

My conclusion is that, for the most part, a lot of the climate change journalism is misinformed, exaggerated, and crap. Having said that, I’ll just add: who knows—maybe something is happening. I mean, something is always happening around us that we can’t explain. I’ve got the strangest rash on my leg that looks like William F. Buckley. Is that global warming? Or the fact that I slept
in a hedge last night? This is why I keep an open mind about this sort of stuff, and you should, too.

But an open mind is not enough. Apparently. A few years back, I had a guy on my late-night show, and the topic was global warming. The chap was a friend of mine and he had e-mailed me three times to ask to come on the show. So I figured, why not? I’m tolerant like that. And considering the hosts, we set the bar for guests at a fairly, er, accommodating level.

During the segment on global warming, however, he did something that only the repressive tolerati do when faced with something that undermines their worldview. He got personal.

I asked him, and I paraphrase it, because it was a while ago and before the hypnosis treatments, “What’s wrong with hearing two sides of the debate on climate change?” He replied, and I paraphrase again, “Who would I want to believe, the hundreds of scientists who have studied this phenomenon, or some guy who hosts a show in the middle of the night?”

Ouch. I was wounded. And all I did was ask a question, but it was a question, apparently, that should never be asked: What would be wrong with looking at both sides of a debate? He dismissed my simple question about balanced reporting by pointing out that, as a late-night talking boob with a crease in my forehead, I’m not equipped to entertain such lofty thoughts. Sensing, however, a salient point to be made, I replied, “Okay, well let me ask you this: Who would you rather listen to, a guy who hosts a show in the middle of the night or some guy who e-mailed him a million times to get on the show, you douchebag?”

I probably didn’t need to call him a douchebag, but he deserved it. He had asked me if he could be on the show, and being the tolerant lad that I am, I said yes to a well-meaning liberal. But in
a world where every good liberal says you’re supposed to tolerate both sides of a debate, global warming is exempt from that principle, as are many other topics, and if you express any uncertainty at all (which is the mark of a good scientist), you’re considered an idiot. Especially some moron who hosts a show in the middle of the night.

Quick aside on this “uncertainty” idea: When Einstein (who I’m pretty sure was a scientist) formulated his first theory of relativity, it was ultimately greeted with universal acclaim by all the eggheads. They were stunned by it—it pushed Western science ahead by several orders of magnitude, and with formulas that were, at that level of science, fairly simple and straightforward. As other scientists subjected it to the proper adversarial peer review and found it be holding up, the first theory of relativity became a scientific phenomenon. Only one person had serious doubts about it: this guy named Einstein. Who later published his second (general) theory of relativity, expanding on his first significantly and again stunning the scientific world, which proves that first, good scientists doubt, and second, that I just Googled “Albert Einstein.”

He proved a point, however: The left will tolerate any balanced approach toward the most insidious ideas, but when it comes to spending hundreds of billions of your money on hypotheticals, they’re, like, sure, why not? Because it makes them feel smart, and you look dumb. Better to throw billions at something we can’t put our finger on than build the Keystone XL oil pipeline, which actually creates jobs and delivers fuel from Canada, a country we actually get along with.

And that’s where the climate change debate, mitigated by repressive tolerance, finally rests. There is no debate, and there is no tolerance for those who consider otherwise—even if science
always reminds us nothing is absolute. Nothing. Remember when we thought dolphins couldn’t talk? Yeah, then we saw a show called
Flipper
.

So what happens if you decide to cover climate change more diligently than your peers? What if you try to present both sides of the debate because you figure it’s better than blindly saying, “Yeah, what he said”? You’d think that would be lauded as an example of supreme tolerance, right? Not so fast, you flat-earther (those are Obama’s words). According to a new study by something called the
International Journal of Press/Politics
(it’s a publication and a laundromat), providing balanced coverage means you’re actually super biased because you’re giving climate change critics a larger voice.

So let’s get this straight: Because other media outlets refuse to show both sides, you are biased when you actually try to promote balance. I’m not sure even Einstein could devise an equation that makes sense of that.

This journal looked at how Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC (the lemonade stand with more hosts than viewers) covered global warming, and concluded that while Fox News covered the issue roughly twice as much as the other networks
combined
, it was just not a good thing—because their coverage was just … too … mean!

According to the study researchers, from an article in
U.S. News & World Report
, “Although Fox discussed climate change most often, the tone of its coverage was disproportionately dismissive.” They added, “Fox broadcasts were more likely to include statements that challenged the scientific agreement on climate change, undermined the reality of climate change, and questioned its human causes.” Yikes! Fox challenged, undermined, and questioned! To the gallows!

That quote, right there, shows you that tolerance is not deemed necessary if you reformat the game board so anyone who questions the basic assumptions is disqualified from playing. In order to report on climate change, you must first already accept their version of climate change—and accept all of their assumptions about the “science.” Perhaps they will end up correct in their preformed conclusions, but to say it might be fun to debate that idea—well, that’s incorrect. That’s not science at all. It’s something else. Oh yeah. It’s asinine.