Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Michael Crichton's "small penis/child rapist Revenge Against Critic of his Politics

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Michael Crichton's "small penis/child rapist Revenge Against Critic of his Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/111537-michael-crichtons-small-penis-child-rapist-revenge-against-critic-his-politics.html)

Michael Crichton's "small penis/child rapist Revenge Against Critic of his Politics

Back in march, TNR columnist wrote this article:

Quote:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20060320&s=crowley032006
MICHAEL CRICHTON'S SCARIEST CREATION.
Jurassic President
by Michael Crowley 1 | 2
Post date 03.09.06 | Issue date 03.20.06

She took a sip of red wine, then set the glass down on the bedside table. Unceremoniously, she pulled her top over her head and dropped her skirt. She was wearing nothing beneath.

Still in her high heels, she walked toward him. ... She was so passionate she seemed almost angry, and her beauty, the physical perfection of her dark body, intimidated him, but not for long.

--State of Fear by Michael Crichton 

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. But Michael Crichton, on the phone from Los Angeles, does not sound daunted. "If you just look at the science, I, at least, am underwhelmed," he says in a slightly jaded monotone that belies his breathless potboiler prose. "This may or may not be a problem, but it is far from the most serious problem. If you want to do something, [limiting emissions] is not what to do. We don't at this moment have good technology to do this, if, in fact, it's necessary to do it."

Then, before I can stop him, the superstar creator of Jurassic Park and more than a dozen other best-selling novels, as well as several box-office movie smashes and television's blockbuster "ER," is off and running through his favorite new area of expertise. Effortlessly, Crichton touches on the anti-windmill movement in England, references a 2001 article in the journal Science on global energy needs, notes interesting developments regarding the Kyoto treaty, and poses a question about the latest round of nation-by-nation emissions data. "How many people know that we did better on a percentage basis than Canada?" Crichton asks. He certainly does.

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--is the topic of State of Fear, Crichton's latest best-seller. So Crichton's ravings on the subject might be excusable as just a bad case of authorial self-promotion--were it not for the fact that he can now count among his millions of readers the president of the United States. As reported in Rebel-in-Chief, a new book on George W. Bush by Weekly Standard Editor Fred Barnes, soon after State of Fear's December 2004 publication, Crichton was contacted by Karl Rove with word that Bush had read his novel and wanted to meet him. In January 2005, Crichton spent an hour with Bush. The session, Barnes writes, found the men "in near-total agreement."

Crichton, who hasn't previously spoken on the record about his meeting with Bush, bridles when I mention it. It's superficial, he says, beside the point, and soon he has slipped back into the more comfortable topic of U.N. documents on atmospheric temperature. What little he will offer about Bush isn't exactly a ringing endorsement. "In terms of meeting with Bush, I would say that, if the president of the United States asks to meet you, you go. Period," he says.

Crichton has obvious commercial reasons to downplay any hint that he might be a Bush partisan (Democrats buy books, too, after all). But the pulp novelist's influence on the president is even greater than Crichton's harshest critics imagine. During his career, Crichton has relentlessly propagandized on behalf of one big idea: that experts--scientists, intellectuals, reporters, and bureaucrats--are spectacularly corrupt and spectacularly wrong. (Not a terribly surprising response from a writer consistently patronized by critics.) Crichton's oeuvre has promoted, for an audience of millions, a damning critique of expertise. And the Bush administration has put this critique into action, trampling the opinions of government scientists, exorcising trained economists, muzzling the press, and stifling State Department wonks. Crichton, in other words, primed America for the Bush era......

in his new novel, "Next", Chrichton paid Crowley back....with the perverted, sophomoric attack described here....banking on the premise that a man accused of being endowed with a small penis, will remain silent when that description of him is included in an attack:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/14/bo...html?ref=books
December 14, 2006
Columnist Accuses Crichton of ‘Literary Hit-and-Run’
By FELICIA R. LEE

“Next,” Michael Crichton’s new novel about the perils of biotechnology, has not proved as polarizing as his previous thriller, “State of Fear,” which dismisses global warming. But one of the new book’s minor characters — Mick Crowley, a Washington political columnist who rapes a baby — may be a literary dagger aimed at Michael Crowley, a Washington political reporter who wrote an unflattering article about Mr. Crichton this year.

Certainly Mr. Crowley thinks so.

In a “Washington Diarist” feature that was to be posted last night on The New Republic’s Web site, tnr.com, and published in the magazine’s Dec. 25 issue, Mr. Crowley says he is the victim of “a literary hit-and-run” because of a 3,700-word article in The New Republic in March.

In that article he accused Mr. Crichton of being “a menacing figure” because he uses his “potboiler prose” to advance causes now dear to Republicans. Mr. Crowley is a senior editor at The New Republic and writes primarily about politics.

“In lieu of a letter to the editor, Crichton had fictionalized me as a child rapist,” Mr. Crowley writes.

Mr. Crichton could not be reached yesterday for comment, and a publicist at his publisher, HarperCollins, did not return calls.

The March article that Mr. Crowley referred to concluded: “And now, like a mighty t-rex that has escaped from Jurassic Park, Crichton stomps across the public policy landscape, finally claiming the influence that 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.”

Mr. Crowley, 34, reached by telephone yesterday before the article was posted on the Web site, declined to expand on what he wrote. “I want to let the piece speak for itself,” he said.

The character that Mr. Crowley says he believes is modeled on him mostly appears on two pages in Mr. Crichton’s 431-page novel.

On Page 227 Mr. Crichton writes: “Alex Burnet was in the middle of the most difficult trial of her career, a rape case involving the sexual assault of a two-year-old boy in Malibu. The defendant, thirty-year-old Mick Crowley, was a Washington-based political columnist who was visiting his sister-in-law when he experienced an overwhelming urge to have anal sex with her young son, still in diapers.”

Mick Crowley is described as a “wealthy, spoiled Yale graduate” with a small penis that nonetheless “caused significant tears to the toddler’s rectum.”

Mr. Crowley writes that Mr. Crichton’s Mick Crowley not only has a similar name but is also a graduate of Yale and a Washington political journalist. Mr. Crowley contends that Mr. Crichton has tried to escape public censure for his literary attack by hiding behind what has become known as “the small penis rule.”

The rule, Mr. Crowley writes, is described in a 1998 article in The New York Times in which the libel lawyer Leon Friedman said it is a trick used by authors who have defamed someone to discourage lawsuits. “No male is going to come forward and say, ‘That character with a very small penis — that’s me!’ ” Mr. Friedman explained.

Although he writes that no one seems to have drawn the connection between Mick Crowley and Michael Crowley, Mr. Crowley concludes that he is “strangely flattered” by his 15 minutes of fame in Mr. Crichton’s novel.

“To explain why, let me propose a corollary to the small penis rule,” he writes. “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.”

from Sen. James Inhofe's senate website:

Quote:

http://inhofe.senate.gov/pressreleas...mateupdate.htm
Climate Change Update
Senate Floor Statement by
U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe(R-Okla)

January 4, 2005

......In addition, last month, popular author Dr. Michael Crichton, who has questioned the wisdom of those who trumpet a "scientific consensus," released a new book called "State of Fear," which is premised on the global warming debate. I'm happy to report that Dr. Crichton's new book reached #3 on the New York Times bestseller list.

I highly recommend the book to all of my colleagues. Dr. Crichton, a medical doctor and scientist, very cleverly weaves a compelling presentation of the scientific facts of climate change-with ample footnotes and documentation throughout-into a gripping plot. From what I can gather, Dr. Crichton's book is designed to bring some sanity to the global warming debate. In the "Author's Message" at the end of the book, he refreshingly states what scientists have suspected for years: "We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a 400 year cold spell known as the Little Ice Age." Dr. Crichton states that, "Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon," and, "Nobody knows how much of the present trend might be man-made." And for those who see impending disaster in the coming century, Dr. Crichton urges calm: "I suspect that people of 2100 will be much richer than we are, consume more energy, have a smaller global population, and enjoy more wilderness than we have today. I don't think we have to worry about them."

For those who do worry, or induce such worry in others, "State of Fear" has a very simple message: stop worrying and stop spreading fear. Throughout the book, "fictional" environmental organizations are more focused on raising money, principally by scaring potential contributors with bogus scientific claims and predictions of a global apocalypse, than with "saving the environment." Here we have, as the saying goes, art imitating life.

As my colleagues will remember from a floor speech I gave last year, this is part and parcel of what these organizations peddle to the general public. Their fear mongering knows no bounds. Just consider the debate over mercury emissions. President Bush proposed the first-ever cap to reduce mercury emissions from power plants by 70 percent. True to form, these groups said he was allowing more mercury into the air. Go figure........

My last thread deals with the idea that overeaction to perceived liberal bias in news reporting, and to the "terrorist threat" against the US, has resulted in the creation of a "parallel" news reporting universe that is extremely partisan, and disturbingly, influences too many to accept the fear mongering that is the GWOT, even as it trots out petty "shills", like Crichton, to back the anti-science, industry funded message that global warming is "fear mongering". Meanwhile, the results of the greatest institutionally authored fear mongering OP in our time, the GWOT, rages on.....

....the health of Sen. Tim Johnson could determine whether Inhofe and Crichton get to continue their bullshit....further setting back the day that the US commits to reductions in fossil fuel emissions, don't these guys have much of what we should be doing, upside down? No to global warming, yes to GWOT?

Speaking to Bush reading the book: We're talking about a president that may very well believe that Tom Hanks discovered the truth behind the Holy Grail. The POTUS is stupid to the point of absurdity, and I suspect that if you were to put a book in his hands, he wouldn't be able to finish the first chapter without wanting to have a short recess (the type of recess consisting of playing kick ball or climbing on a jungle-gym). While it's possible that Cheney might read Crichton's little book of propoganda to W as he goes to sleep every night, I suspect that it can hardly do more damage than the pure untainted imcompetence that continues to flow from the oval office. It's like throwing a gallon of gas on a 400 acre wildfire: it's not going to help, but it's really the least of our problems. Bush refused Kyoto before Crichton decided to pretend that we can breathe carbon monoxide* emissions without getting sick.

To the response to the article: perverted and sophmoric are two very appropriate words to describe the book. Shouldn't Crichton be liable for slander? If he wrote something like that about me, I'd ironically rape one of his children. In another irony, Crichton appears to have really small balls using the small penis rule.

To the endoresment from U.S. Sen. James M. Inhofe (a Republican suggesting that global warming is fake? Well I never!!): Riding the coat tails of Crichton's pedantic nonesense is hardly surprising. In this late hour, as the next Democratic president draws closer and closer, and as the House and Senate are turning over control....it's hail mary time. Anything and everything will be done in these last two years to do as much damage as possible.

*

Quote:

Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless, deadly gas. It reduces the flow of oxygen in the bloodstream and can impair mental functions and visual perception. In urban areas, motor vehicles are responsible for as much as 90 percent of carbon monoxide in the air.

Motor vehicles also emit large amounts of carbon dioxide, which has potential to trap the Earth's heat and cause global warning

...from the National Safety Council's website

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Every time you try to make a point, you blow your credibility straight to hell when you resort to juvenile insults like this. Grow up. We get it, you hate the president and this administration as much as humanly possible. Give it a rest already.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodyhammer86

I don't hate them at all. Why would you suggest that? I think that George W. Bush does not have the intellectual capacity to lead the nation and I make that clear while trying to keep the reader interested by suggesting that Bush is equatable to Peter Griffen of Family Guy or Homer Simpson ont the Simpsons.

Are we better off ignoring the fact that Bush is unable to change direction at the cost of billions of tax payer dollars, thousands of our military officer's lives, and hundreds of thousands of Iraq lives?

Grow up, indeed. It's long since time that George W. Bush grows up and starts acting like a responsible adult instead of a spoiled child trying desperately to out-president his father who left a daunting legacy (at least from George W. Bush's perspective).

I've never read a Chrichton book, but I think attacking him for his subject matter is just plain goofy, at least if you're going to hold him accountable for politicians taking his fiction seriously. How can you possibly hold him accountable for that? He's an author, for Christ's sake. He writes fiction. People believe what they want to believe, and that is not, nor has it ever been, a fiction writer's responsibility. Their only responsibility is to their publisher and agent, so long as the "fiction" tag is printed on the spine of their book.

It sounds to me like you guys (well, Host, at least) are implying he shouldn't be able to write what he chooses to write (the slander bit notwithstanding).

Well the slander bit is blatent, but the Crichton is citing evidence and such, suggesting that while the storyline is fiction, global warming isn't real. That moves from innocent fiction into political power plays and effecting the perception of reality for many readers. While we all know that there are no dinosaurs being recreated, we do understand that genetic engineering can lead to amazing things. Yes, fiction is fiction, but as I elluded to in my first post, many people took the Da Vinci Code seriously. We live in a world where public perception can hinge on fiction instead of reality, and where the line between the two is blurred.

yawn. and there was wonder why people stopped coming around so often. maybe I'll come back in a few months. maybe not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

yawn. and there was wonder why people stopped coming around so often. maybe I'll come back in a few months. maybe not.

To which post was your yawn refering? Also, are you sure it isn't posts that don't lend anything to dicsussion but throw insults from the back of the class that cause people to skip politics and go straight to general discussion or members playground?

Come on guys, there's a potential discussion here, yet it of course instantly denigrates to a Bush-bashing and baby-raping (ha) thread.

So, in the hopes of having a conversation:

It's an interesting point regarding the Da Vinci Code. Many people do take the "history" explained in that book to be fact. So imagine if the subject of the book was something more topical and current instead of Da Vinci or the Illuminati. Say, a political party, or global warming. A phony history was made up, using real-life prominent figures and historical events as starting points. If the book becomes popular to the mainstream culture, what's fact and what's fiction could easily become blurred.

I think some people are going to say that Crichton's novel is just along the same lines as An Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11... but I'd disagree with that. Crichton has no obligation to back up his claims in a novel, while Moore/Gore are genuinely trying to convince us of what they believe to be true. Crichton's work is more subliminal, and therefore less respectful, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moskie

Come on guys, there's a potential discussion here, yet it of course instantly denigrates to a Bush-bashing and baby-raping (ha) thread.

Just stirring things up...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moskie

So, in the hopes of having a conversation:

It's an interesting point regarding the Da Vinci Code. Many people *do* take the "history* explained in that book to be fact. So imagine if the subject of the book was something more topical and current instead of Da Vinci or the Illuminati. Say, a political party, or global warming. A phony history was made up, using real-life prominent figures and historical events as starting points.

I think some people are going to say that Crichton's novel is just along the same lines as An Inconvenient Truth and Fahrenheit 9/11... but I'd disagree with that. Crichton has no obligation to back up his claims in a novel, while Moore/Gore are genuinely trying to convince us of what they believe to be true. Crichton's work is more subliminal, and therefore less respectful, as far as I'm concerned.

I guess the real question should be: should authors of fiction be heald responsible for the ignorance of their readers? In some cases, I'd have to say maybe. While this book is fiction, it stand strongly on what Crichton is painting as reality. That's dangerous. It's like writing a historical fiction about WWII while suggesting the holocaust didn't happen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

I've never read a Chrichton book, but I think attacking him for his subject matter is just plain goofy

Agreed. How about attacking him because he has NO IDEA how to end a story.

"Hey, let's just nuke the island!"
"Oh, I know, let's just forget about the sphere!"
"That superbug mutated. Now it eats plastic! Yay!"

Oh... /spoiler. As if anyone who hasn't read those by now still cares.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ratbastid

"Oh, I know, let's just forget about the sphere!"

hey, i liked that ending. :) I thought it was creative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

docbungle, the author Chricton, became the "man of science".... the scientific researcher who

Quote:

.....[But he] never figured that he would be offering lawmakers an opinion on how they should legislate.

....but he is reported to have done exactly that....testifying before a senate committee on the environment, as a "scientist"....an "expert" witness.

This isn't about a writer of fiction...it's about an unqualified, thin skinned writer of fiction, gladly being used....for his "credentials", by politicians who cannot be discerned from the fossil fuel industry lobbyists who "own" them. Politicians who see no "Fear mongering" when it comes to their demonization of the news media as "liberal", or the pre-emptive military attacks against foreign nations, because of their own perceived threats of "terror", or the elevation of an incompetent president to judge, jury, and executioner, free to "render" whomever he chooses.....because we..."are at war"!

Politicians who resort to shilling Crichton's celebrity to conceal the shallowness of their own anti-global warming crisis argument, in the face of the vast majority of the world's scientists, because of "the consequences" of possible over reacting to the potential threat, even as they dismiss the possibility that over reacting to the "terror threat", and the "liberal media bias", is of any far reaching consequence.

Hell....we have folks on this forum who post the belief that the US military has been the "victim" of main stream press reporting about it's performance in Iraq, people who believe that the NY Times and CNN are "so liberal", that folks must seek more "accurate" news accounts from Newsbusters.org or from frontpagemag.com or from tcsdaily.com ....

.....would these partisan propaganda sites have any credibility if not for the demonization of traditional news gathering outlets by the CNP and it's shill, Bozell....and from endorsement's of foxnew's Dick Cheney?

Don't like the "news reporting"? Just make up your own bullshit....repeat it over and over....shill it via a Chrichton, rely on the lobbyists (from Exxon) who "own" you to pay a PR firm to create a "news" site like tcsdaily.comor pay Lincoln Group to pay "journalists" to do it for you.....install a fake reporter in the white house press corps, and call on him in a televised press conference to divert attention away from a serious question by a "real" reporter....

...Sen. James Inhofe maintains that scientific opinion on the global warming threat is "fear mongering", but the GWOT caused affronts to our future economic wellbeing, to our soldiers physical and mental helath, and to Iraq and Afghanistan, the upset of the former power balance against Iran, by it's contiguous neighbors, ......to our constitutional protections against our government's malfeasance, and to the standing of the US in the international community, are of no particular consequence.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/29/bo...rssnyt&emc=rss
Michael Crichton, Novelist, Becomes Senate Witness

By MICHAEL K. JANOFSKY
Published: September 29, 2005

......For all his previous works as a writer (13 novels, 4 nonfiction books, numerous screenplays) and his prominent career in Hollywood as a writer, producer or director of 13 films and as the creator of the popular television series "ER," little has yanked Mr. Crichton so deeply into political controversy as "State of Fear," an environmental thriller that casts doubt on the widely held notion that human activities contribute to global warming.

It has become a hugely divisive policy issue in recent years, gaining a new urgency, perhaps, by the recent hurricanes that slammed into the Gulf Coast. Many prominent scientists, no friends of Mr. Crichton, to be sure, believe that man-made greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm and are urging lawmakers to pass new regulations that govern carbon dioxide emissions.

But after considerable study of his own, leading to "State of Fear," Mr. Crichton has concluded that the science is mixed at best, and that lawmakers should take that into consideration when they decide what they might do about it.

His is an unpopular and contrary stance when measured against the judgment of groups like the National Academy of Sciences. But it was not those organizations that asked Mr. Crichton to Washington to counsel Congress on how to consider diverse scientific opinion when making policy. It was the committee chairman, Senator James M. Inhofe, a plainspoken Oklahoma Republican who has unabashedly pronounced global warming "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people."

In Mr. Crichton, a Harvard medical school graduate who never practiced medicine, he had found a kindred spirit - and a star witness for his committee.

"I'm excited about this hearing," Mr. Inhofe said, nodding toward Mr. Crichton as the proceedings began. "I think I've read most of his books; I think I've read them all. I enjoyed most 'State of Fear' and made it required reading for this committee."

Over the next two hours, Mr. Crichton and four other witnesses offered their thoughts, Mr. Crichton hewing to his firm belief that lawmakers should examine more closely "whether the methodology of climate science is sufficiently rigorous to yield a reliable result.".....

.....Still, he retains enough of his scientific background to thrust himself into the debate, insisting that the environmental movement "did a fabulous job in the first 10 years, a pretty good job in the second 10 years and a lousy job in the last 10 years."

As a result, he said, its influence on policy needs to be reined in, at least until alternative views are given equal airing and fair consideration by independent reviewers. Only then, he said, can policy makers make informed decisions.

But he never figured that he would be offering lawmakers an opinion on how they should legislate. His years of writing have taken on a pattern, he said. Research. Write. Move on.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I don't hate them at all. Why would you suggest that?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I'll take a que from your avatar to illustrate my feelings. Have you ever had a puppy? A new dog with big paws and big eyes that rolls around and whimpers? Most dogs take a little time to become house broken. They will piddle on the carpet or on a bed before they know any better. Well some dogs don't take to house training very well. Some will still have accedents long after they should ahve probably known better. The thing is: you don't hate the dog. After all it's hardly the dog's fault.

I see Bush in a similar light. Yes, he probably should know better, and I am constantly dissapointed by him, but I don't hate him. In reality, as the populace is collectively responsible for his being in and remaining in power, we the owners are responsible for his behavior. You can't hate a dog for pissing on the carpet and you can't hate Bush for botching a war based on faulty, and possibly manufactured, information. You can blame them and yourself, and you can try to fix the situation, but hating is really useless.

I'm sorry, I'm threadjacking.

//end threadjack.

Host, I hear what you're saying, but I still don't think blaming Chrichton for this type of thing makes any sense. He does what he does for a living. He did not design this strange contraption that the media has become today.

He appears to be a shameless self-promoter, but who isn't, really, in the world of pop culture entertainment?

And I'm not standing up for Chrichton, but rather against the idea of censoring or applying rules and regulations to his writing.

He is not responsible for people's perceptions on reality.

My objection to Chrichton is not in his novel and how he treats the science of global warming within a fictional story. My objection stems from his public appearances in which he purports to be some sort of expert and provides impressive arguments to influence his audience. That he has carefully cherry-picked the evidence he presents in his pseudo role of expert makes him a political creature worthy of scrutiny and criticism.

His childish revenge to criticism speaks volumes about the man, imo. Or as Will said, "In another irony, Crichton appears to have really small balls using the small penis rule." :D

Personally, I think Host is merely trying to draw ustwo out of hiding.

conservativeland does have its flinstone affirmation side, and the dick size theme is not unrelated to the notions of manliness, resoluteness and so forth that have been trotted out ad infinitum to characterize the Dear Leader.

so i think host is right in that this use of and abuse by crichton---whose books i find unreadable, btw, though i liked the andromeda strain when i was a teenager and tried to read other things afterward only to find that i apparently had passed out of crichton's optimal demogaphic of geeky teenage boys---is of a piece with many other routinized aspects of the inner world as organized effort-free by the media apparatus that keeps the rides spinning and the lines moving at that great american amusement park that is conservativeland.

say what you want about old school reactionary politics--you know, those shared by folk who thought the french revolution the scourge of satan loosed upon the earth--but at least the writers associated with them had some style. edmund burke was at least fun to read and smart to boot; joseph de maistre more than a little wacky but smart as hell and another great stylist.

contemporary american conservatism has no time for such trifles as style.
in the manly world of one-dimensional men, style is effeminate, unnecessary. this is a world of declarative sentences.
simple thoughts.
executive summaries.
power point.
obvious if arbitrary hierarchies.
writing for people too busy to read, too important to think.
straight lines.
resolute action.
simple ideas.
manly slogans.
lots of repetition.
enormous houses, enormous cars, enormous debt, enormous conceit.
a size queen aesthetic featuring penises---lots of penises----but deployed in a powerful way, not inviting of undue attention.
a good summary is that great conservative adventure novel called "the war in iraq": a potboiler plotline, cursory attention to structure, lots of blood and guts, no idea how to end the story.

I think that maybe crichton and orson scott card have been replaced by the same agenda driven cyborg. Man, that would make a great scifi book.

I'm taking a hint from a few posts in recent threads: this response is me trying to write solely as a member. This isn't modness, and it isn't policy at all.

I'm not really sure which political persuasion I subscribe to, but I'm going to be really, really honest here. Crichton's characterization of his critic is a low and juvenile blow. That's obvious. But who would want to discuss anything with the authors of the first couple of posts in this thread?? Guys, I know your feelings are genuine, but it really looks like you're starting threads and attempting to mark your territory by pissing all over them. Honestly, how could presentation like that invite serious or rational discussion with anyone who didn't already agree with you?

I read Crichton's latest book. As a work of fiction, it's crap. As a work of science, it's also crap. However the whole thing is just a vehicle for making a couple of points about the absurd state of patent law and genetics. He's completely open about this, and even has a prologue where he drops the guise of fiction-writer. State of Fear was certainly a lopsided work, but I'm not really entirely sure which party or philosophy Next supports. Maybe (in addition to being extraordinarily thin-skinned and juvenile) the guy is using what scientific credibility he has in conjunction with his enormous popular appeal to a) make a tall stack of cash, and b) stimulate some public awareness of issues that are strikingly one-sided in the "intellectual" world. That's what it looks like to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Our artists shape the world.

Now, Crichton took a topical subject that we have been discussing for the past 30 years and used it as a vehicle not just to write entertainment, but to make metaphorical child anal-rapists out of the entire political and scientific global warming movement.

He made the entire movement a conspiracy to knowingly misinform the public on the subject and go to such terroristic bounds as to artificially produce horrendous natural disasters just to get their way. Their way, btw, is to get further funding. They want to be rich.

It's not just a book. Michael is a hitman.

I just want to make sure it is clear that the global warming book was State of Fear and the child-rapist book is Next. I don't think that changes much, but I wanted to make sure that we're all on the same page. By the way, it would be nice if all the people up in arms about this had read the book. It's always better to be attacking based on one's own opinion... Just pointing out, not defending.

I read Andromeda Strain once and liked it, I read Jurasic Park before it was a movie and liked it, though the charactes seemed somehow familiar. Then I don't even remember what the book I read after that was, it was basically all the same characters doing differnet stuff with some Haiku thrown in for good measure, found it boring and never read any more Crichton. I have not read these books. I don't want to read these books.

The media is always going to be biased one way or the other. You will never get accurate news of 'just what happened' all you can hope for is 'my interpretation of what happened' and enough integrity to try to filter out the biases and prejudices that shape that oppinion. That is the absolute most you can hope for when you watch the news.

There are several studies out there that 'prove' global warming is a scam. Its December in Oklahoma and 75 degrees for the second year in a row. I don't need a lot of convincing. Crichton believing biased reports, and inaccurate results, and stupid people, does not make him a horrible person. It makes him stupid. I knew that way back when I read the book with the Haikus.

My oppinion: Life influences art, which affects society, which changes life, which changes art. Its a circle not a flow chart.

I read the book. It was released when I was in the middle of preparing for a GW debate for grad school. I thought it would be a good source for anti-Global Warming arguments, but it turned out to be what I already said. It's an incredibly childish attempt. I can respect actual anti-scientists. But he just parroted talking points and distortions.

I was a big fan of Crichton up unti that point. As far as I know, I have every book he published up to State of Fear.
But that's always been his schtick. Take an aspect of the sciences, demonize it, find the worst application possible and run screaming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

contemporary american conservatism has no time for such trifles as style.

Me - prefer substance - is true.

John Wayne had style, perhaps contemporary american liberalism doesn't accept John Wayne kind of style.

Quote:

in the manly world of one-dimensional men, style is effeminate, unnecessary.

A dude with a shotgun rack in the back window of his pick-up truck is pretty darn stylish. When he driving to his manicurist, thats somthing else.

Quote:

this is a world of declarative sentences.
simple thoughts.

The greatest leaders in history are remembered best for their simplest and clearest thoughts. Thoughts - communicated using declaritive sentences. Example: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Quote:

executive summaries.

There are those who do stuff and there are those who read about what others have done. Executive summaries are for those who do stuff.

Quote:

power point.

We like the pictures, bullet points and creative screen transitions. If you want to keep our attention during a presentation, you have to know power point.

Quote:

obvious if arbitrary hierarchies.

Arbitrary? Arbitrary? You have to be kidding, right? Hierarchies are based on clearly defined rules in the art of power aquisition.

Quote:

writing for people too busy to read, too important to think.

I don't understand that one. Perhaps I need to give it to Coulter so she can give it some thought and explain it in her next interview about one of her books..

Quote:

straight lines.

I like my lines straight and my women curved.

Quote:

resolute action.

Much better than resolute in-action, don't you agree?

Quote:

simple ideas.

True.

Quote:

manly slogans.

Are there any other kind?

Quote:

lots of repetition.

True.

Quote:

enormous houses, enormous cars, enormous debt, enormous conceit.

All in the persuit of the opposit sex.

Correction: The cars don't have to be big, but if they are small they have to have at least 350 hp. (Article 9, subchapter IIIA-R, Universal Man Code)

Quote:

a size queen aesthetic featuring penises---lots of penises----but deployed in a powerful way, not inviting of undue attention.

A real man either has a big penis or he compensates for it, not both. A real man who has a big penis or is able to compensate for a small one doesn't care about "penises", only his. Perhaps the observations here about Crichton is correct.

Quote:

a good summary is that great conservative adventure novel called "the war in iraq": a potboiler plotline, cursory attention to structure, lots of blood and guts, no idea how to end the story.

It will end in victory.:thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Bingbingbingbing!!! That's it exactly.

My problem isn't with Chrichton per se - you can't fault a guy for being self-important and trying to maximize his exposure and fame. That's small-minded but understandable.

The real problem here is the fact that most Americans are scientifically illiterate. We're talking about a population about half of whom still believe that God created humans in their present form (and scattered a bunch of "scientific evidence" for evolution to test our faith). In general, we don't know how to judge good vs. bad science, don't know the difference between correlation and causation, have no idea what statistical significance is, and are poor judges of scientific credentials and credibility.

The media are certainly complicit in this, as they make unwarranted, sensationalist conclusions from scienctific research, but you gotta blame the education system that churns out people who think that just because a guy is a "doctor" means he can speak with any kind of authority about climate research.

Scientists themselves are also to blame for refusing to speak to the public in a way that is understandable, makes reasonable hypothetical conclusions from the evidence at hand, and doesn't qualify statements six ways from Sunday. When the credible voices in research are silent for fear of being misunderstood or misapplied, you get the quacks who have no such compunction and are attention whores gobbling up the public's attention and spouting whatever nonsense they think is true or will get them funding.

Ah, the old "people are too stupid to understand" excuse. Blaming Chrichton for other's stupidity is just, well, stupid. And blaming scientists for being too smart for the general population to understand seems to underline the general public's laziness, imo, and not the scientist's lack of baby-talking abilities.

Semms to imply the science community should dumb itself down so normal people can understand them a bit more. I say the normal person should smarten up, and stop blaming their ignorance on whatever new scapegoat happens to come through town.

Michael Chrichton? Give me a break.

If he is the new Evil, I really don't think we have too much to worry about.

Nice little jab at Christians there, though. Nice and subtle. Religious beliefs imply scientific illiteracy? Pray tell.

If the shoe fits, Mr. Bungle.
linky dinky

Quote:

...according to a new National Geographic-Roper Public Affairs 2006 Geographic Literacy Study....

(...)

One-third of those surveyed could not find Louisiana on a U.S. map, and almost half (48 percent) could not locate the state of Mississippi. On a more practical level, given a map of a hypothetical place and told they could escape an approaching hurricane by evacuating to the northwest, one-third would travel in the wrong direction....

(...)

"Geographic illiteracy impacts our economic well-being, our relationships with other nations and the environment, and isolates us from our world," said John Fahey, National Geographic Society president and CEO. "Geography is what helps us make sense of our world by showing the connections between people and places. Without geography, our young people are not ready to face the challenges of the increasingly interconnected and competitive world of the 21st century."

(...)

According to the survey, conducted in December 2005/January 2006, young Americans are alarmingly ignorant of the relationships between places that give context to world events. Seventy-four percent believe English is the primary language spoken by the most people in the world; it is Mandarin Chinese. Seventy-one percent don't know that the United States is the largest exporter of goods and services; nearly half (48 percent) think it is China. And while China's population is actually four times the size of the U.S. population, 45 percent of young Americans think it's only twice as large. Though outsourcing of jobs to India has been a major business news story, almost half the respondents (47 percent) were not able to find that country on a map of Asia.

Respondents also demonstrated poor understanding of global hotspots. Seventy-five percent couldn't locate Israel on a map of the Middle East, despite the fact that the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has been ongoing throughout these young people's lives. Seven in 10 couldn't find North Korea on a map of Asia, and six in 10 did not know its border with South Korea is the most heavily fortified in the world. Thirty percent thought the most heavily fortified was the U.S.-Mexican border.

(...)

We absolutely are that stupid.
And people aren't going to get that smart over night. And it won't turn around anytime soon, when we model our educational system on a bottom half state like Texas.

This is a subject that can't wait for Americans to smarten up either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbungle

Ah, the old "people are too stupid to understand" excuse. Blaming Chrichton for other's stupidity is just, well, stupid.

I'm not blaming Chrichton - if you'll read carefully, you'll see that I exempt Chrichton from blame for anything other than being a self-important ass. I blame people for being stupid.

Quote:

And blaming scientists for being too smart for the general population to understand seems to underline the general public's laziness, imo, and not the scientist's lack of baby-talking abilities.

I'm not blaming scientists for being too smart for the general population, I'm blaming them for refusing to speak to the general population. I work with well-respected, credible researchers for a living, and they're terrified of talking to the public because they're afraid their work will be misconstrued. They need to be proactive in communicating and controlling how their work is likely to be interpreted and provide interpretations that are warranted, rather than just being silent.

Quote:

Semms to imply the science community should dumb itself down so normal people can understand them a bit more. I say the normal person should smarten up, and stop blaming their ignorance on whatever new scapegoat happens to come through town.

Um...that's kind of exactly what I said. People are dumb, but scientists don't help the situation by ensuring that the only voices out there are the quacks.

Quote:

Nice little jab at Christians there, though. Nice and subtle. Religious beliefs imply scientific illiteracy? Pray tell.

Not what I said. Religious beliefs are not inherently at odds with science. However, there is a substantial proportion of people (45%) who believe, and I quote, that "God created humans in present form" http://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/cu.../evol-poll.htm, meaning that humans are not the product of evolution but of divine creation. Despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. So no, religious beliefs do not imply scientific illiteracy. Religous beliefs that ignore all scientific evidence that contradicts their literal interpretation of biblical mythos DOES, imho.

Nice try at starting a fight, though.