George Rebane

- Has political speech threatened violence?
- Consequential voting in democracies
- The Gospel of Peer Review
- Penn & Teller’s survey of environmentalists

All Americans get concerned when political speech threatens violence.  The current charges that the right stepped over the line with threatening phone calls, tossing bricks through windows, snipping gas lines, calling a black legislator “nigger”, and who knows what else are very disturbing and should be followed up by more than just journalistic curiosity.  And I understand that the matter has been referred to the FBI.  In the meantime is there yet any hard evidence of who and of what political coloration did what?  Nevertheless, the media – that now includes the blogosphere – is full of mounting charges from the left.  One thing is clear though, performing such acts does nothing except to hurt the conservatives’ case against Obamacare.  I presume that the FBI still knows how to spell MOM – means, opportunity, motivation.

[26mar10 update]  Our progressive friends have become very agitated by the reported crowd reactions and other alleged responses to Democrat members of Congress in response to passing Obamacare.  The left has a long history of political violence in America, and this opportunity to even the perception in the public mind is not to be missed.  But before we put these reports paid, we should look at some more recent evidence or the lack thereof.  I have made a pdf of some materials available here that were compiled and sent by an RR reader.  Please have a read. Download NwordEvidence

Sometimes it is clear that democracies vote in ways that are not in their best interest.  Bryan Caplan has explained this in an essay that summarizes research into what determines the outcome of free elections.  About two years ago I reported on his just published book, The Myth of the Rational Voter – Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, in a post titled ‘How Elections Really Work’.  Readers have shown a renewed interest in the consequence of elections, especially now that Obamacare has passed.  Caplan’s work is a recommended review for discussing this issue.

‘Climategate Was an Academic Disaster Waiting to Happen’ writes Dr Peter Berkowitz of Stanford’s Hoover Institution.  He covers thoroughly the weaknesses in the peer review process much revered by the layman not familiar with what really goes on when academics evaluate each others’ work.  The main point developed in this article is that

The notion of objective truth has been abandoned and the peer review process gives ample opportunity to reward friends and punish enemies.

Few outside the practitioners of science and leading edge technology know that about 90% of peer reviewed and published papers contain seminal errors as other workers in the field replicate the experiments and/or reanalyze the data.  This is part of the normal course of expanding human knowledge, which is always a ‘work in process’.  Driving a stake in the ground through any given paper or set of papers, and surrounding them with a non-debatable religion, has always been and continues to be dangerous.  This is especially true when these form the basis for far-reaching and/or draconian public policies.  More outsiders should become familiar with what goes on in such closed societies.

Finally, a little serious humor on the psychology of all these touchy-feely folks who will march in a moment to defend the earth and the environment.  A correspondent from soCal sent me the heads up on this video, and mused that it might say more about human nature than only environmentalists.  Nevertheless, it is that ilk that brought us Alar, the tragedy of Three-Mile-Island, the Delta Smelt, and is now busily working on the joys of California's AB32.  Please enjoy Penn & Teller telling it like it is.