P.I.G.

Posted By on August 27, 2006

Or
“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Factually Incorrect Guides”

.: Regnery publishing has a line of Politically Incorrect Guides to any particular issue that happens to cross them the wrong way. From the two I have read, I feel safe in declaring the whole series a waste of everybody’s time, especially the poor people at The Panda’s Thumb who have to critique every execrable sentence in the latest installment.

.: Fortunately, thanks to an insider, I have a sneak peek of the next three four installments of P.I.G.:


Click here for a larger version.


Click here for a larger version.


Click here for a larger version.


Click here for a larger version.

.: If you happen to know anything about upcoming P.I.G. releases, do please let me know.

UPDATE: More fun Politically Incorrect Guide information can be found here.

About The Author

Comments

58 Responses to “P.I.G.”

  1. Otay says:

    How about the Politically Incorrect Guide to Heliocentrism? Or the P.I.G. to Science (It Doesn’t Claim Absolute Truth, so it’s lies, all lies I tell you).

  2. Peter Z. says:

    Otay, unfortunately there is a PIG guide to science and it IS as bad you’d expect…

  3. The P.I.G. to SPACE EXPLORATION
    by Bill Kaysing

    -The Moon landings were a hoax
    -Pictures of astronauts orbiting the Earth are fake
    -NASA murdered astronauts who were about to blow the whistle

  4. John Wilkins says:

    Otay, you’re too late:

    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science

    by Tom Bethell

    Regnery Publishing, Inc.; ISBN: 089526031X

    Paperback – 256 pages (November 2005)

    Science is neutral, right?

    Of course it’s reliable, based on fact, unprejudiced, and trustworthy, isn’t it? Well, guess again. A lot of what passes for science these days is pseudo-science, and a lot of scientific fact is hidden from public view because it’s not politically correct.

    Science has been politicized—not by the Right, but by the Left, which sees global warming, Darwinism, stem cell research, and innumerable other issues as tools to advance its agenda (and in many cases expand the reach of government).

    When liberals trot out scientists with white coats, debate is supposed to be silenced. But many of the high priests of science have something to hide—from blind intolerance of religion to jealous guarding of their federally financed research budgets.

    Luckily, science journalist Tom Bethell is here with the necessary and bracing antidote: The Politically Incorrect Guideâ„¢ to Science.

    Here’s a handy one-volume guide to some of the most contentious issues of our day, including:

    * Why fears of nuclear power aren’t science, but unscientific scaremongering
    * Why species are increasing, not disappearing
    * Why global warming (and other temperature changes) are not caused by humans (remember the Ice Age?)
    * Why embryonic stem cell research is snake oil medicine (which is why it needs government subsidies)
    * Why Darwinism is crumbling
    * Why the story line of the brave scientist Galileo versus an ignorant Church is wrong
    * And much, much more

    The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Science busts myths, reveals hidden agendas, and lets you in on some of the little-known secrets about what’s really going on in science. If you’re tired of being hoodwinked by liberals who use science to justify all sorts of misbehavior, you need The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Science.

  5. dorkafork says:

    If the PIG to Math was really written by Dembski, shouldn’t there be a chapter called Normalized Schnormalized?

  6. Elphin says:

    “Liberals have hijacked history for too long. Now it’s our turn”? To what, hijack history yourselves? Perhaps more admission then you meant.

  7. Cody says:

    Elphin, that comes from their original tagline for the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science: “Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. Now it’s our turn!”

    The stunning admission was soon replaced with “Liberals have hijacked science for long enough. It’s time to set the record straight.”

  8. ekzept says:

    this is utterly angering.

    so, now, parents can turn to this and argue with their kid’s high school math teacher, “Why are you being so hard on Johnny? All that proof stuff doesn’t matter any”.

    wonderful.

    and, while the bottom of the distribution drops away, there remain a bunch of kids, 15% at last count, who get 800 on the AP exams for math, chem, and physics. they aren’t subject to these distortions. but the public schools are supposed to help the rest have a chance at that.

    damn.

    what kind of a mathematician is Dembski anyway? what is he trying to be, the Michael Savage of secondary education?

  9. Kayla says:

    Re: John Wilkins

    The blurb makes one wonder: if “Darwinism” isn’t correct (and hence all species were specially created at the dawn of time), how can the number of species be increasing?

  10. Kayla says:

    Also: I’m my great-uncle would’ve had something to say about the third book. Dachau was pretty damn real to him. Grrr.

  11. Dr. Strangelove says:

    It seems some people here are missing the joke… I don’t think we’ll see these three books on any local B&N shelves anytime soon :)

    Then again, don’t give these guys any ideas.

  12. Ed Darrell says:

    Tom Bethell on science? Isn’t that a little like Ronald Reagan on Marx?

    Wilkins, I hope that’s a joke.

    (Don’t get me going on Regnery, the publishing house. Just let it suffice to say, if one is nominated to head the division of juvenile justice at the U.S. Department of Justice, it’s a bad idea to have a “Have you slugged your kid today?” bumper sticker on your car as you pull up to the Senate office building for the hearing.)

  13. John Pieret says:

    Wilkins, I hope that’s a joke.

    Unfortunately, it isn’t.

  14. John Pieret says:

    Opps, that wasn’t the Amazon page that had the material from the inside flap that Wilkins quoted.

  15. Ian says:

    Can I play too?

    How about

    “The Politically Incorrect guide to using the phrase, ‘Politically Incorrect.'”

    Did you know that up is really down, black is really white, George Bush is the smartest man in America? Go ahead…say it, then call it ‘Politically Incorrect’ and watch your thesis magically transform from idoitic to outside-the-box, from moronic to dangerously accurate.

    Do you think women belong in the kitchen, homosexuality should be a crime and school prayer should be mandatory? Call yourself ‘Politically Incorrect’ and marvel at how suddenly you’re the victem!

  16. Marina says:

    (here from http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/)

    …I was given the PIG to American History for Christmas by my Dad who felt I should have something to counter balance my liberal arts education.

    This was a few years ago, but I remember that it lacked citations – which is a cardnal sin for historians – and I gave up on it once my BS meter hit the red.

    I still have it, somewhere.

  17. Gerry L says:

    How about “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Christianity”?

    – Jesus was a warrior, not the effete girly-man the drooling liberals make him out to be.
    – What you need to do to make sure the rapture happens in your lifetime.

    (The author of this volume has not yet been “revealed.”)

  18. Henry Holland says:

    Hi, a visitor from PZ Myers’ site, great Photoshop work there, esp. the LOTR one. I mean, it’s written by Wormtongue, it just *has* to be true, it just *has* to! :-)

  19. Adam says:

    “How about the Politically Incorrect Guide to Heliocentrism?”
    Too late:

    Galileo was Wrong.

    A tome of 1000 pages no less. You can’t make this stuff up!

  20. Jake says:

    The Politically Incorrect Guide to Slavery

    Did you know:

    -that hard work is good for the African soul?

    -slave owners didn’t mistreat their slaves? Would you want to damage YOUR investments?

    -the civil war was really instigated by the Yankees to subjugate the white southern race?

    -slavery is sanctioned by the Bible?

  21. J Peeples says:

    Here’s a damn thing I thought was interesting, that I only found out just today. The Top Rated Amazon.com review for the P.I.G. Guide to Science is written by Thomas Woods. A Thomas Woods also wrote the very First P.I.G. book, the Guide to American History. Coincidence? Interjecting myself into the story here, but is it also a coincidence that after writing a negative review of the P.I.G. Guide to Why Women Should Do What They’re Damn Well Told that Thomas Woods sent me an angry email reply?
    I just gave a long, negative review to Science, curious to see if he takes the bait.

  22. Mumon says:

    Here’s something you can’t make up: Fundamentalist Joe Carter brings us the politically incorrect guide to quantum physics!:

    John Schroeder asks, “So, wave/particle duality is the “weirdest” physics theory? Now, here is my question of that ages: “Why can completely rational physicists the world over use that theory without comment on that fact on a daily basis, and at the same time decry religious notions like the Trinity and Christ’s dual nature as hocum?” Just wondering.”

    See? Fourier Transforms are just like the Trinity…

  23. Tony Whitson says:

    [Phylis Schlafly’s] Eagle Forum: Tom Bethell, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science” on BookTV Sunday 10/15 at 5:15 ET. See http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2006/10/12/pig-science-booktv/

  24. Gavin says:

    I’m sorry as slanted as these books are… They have a more comprehensive reference section than any book on Global Warming i’ve ever read. there is some basis (however little it may be). Don’t dismiss something you don’t agree with as lie’s just think of them as the other side.

  25. Erik says:

    It’s unfortunate the level of stupidity of some of the comments you have posted!

    As a scientist, I am sick of the politically correct intimidating other scientists into disseminating absolute crap to the public! Consensus science is what they rely upon to push their politically driven agendas despite the statistical data proving otherwise.

    With that said, I recommend everyone reading the PIG to Science and Global Warming for a FACTUAL, concise, and “hard-science” driven analysis to some of the most controversial theories the junk-scientists have the audacity to claim as the gospel!

  26. George says:

    Dear John Wilkins;

    You’re a Twonk, for lack of a better description. I Quote the book of Genesis, when God said so aptly “Go forth, be fruitful and multiply!!”

    This idea that science has been politicized by the left, is about as sound as any other right wing idea that has been uttered by the ignorant.

    I assume Pinko’s, Queers, Lefty commies like my self seem to have Science on our side merely because we tend to be more open to Fact.

    I’m tired of hearing the word truth in place of Fact. Fact is what we should be searching for.

    Ever the attentive

    George.

    Ps. To the Editor who is likely to stop this from being posted for my use of Queer and Pinko. Its ok I just needed to vent

    Thanks for posting both Lib and Con. Opinions on your site. You are doing the world a great service.

  27. Chris Letzelter says:

    George:
    I think you misunderstand – John Wilkins is an evolutionist; he was simply quoting the jacket blurb of a PIG book to point out it’s agenda-driven stupidity. Believe me, I’ve read a lot of blog entries by John, and he’s certainly not a “right wing” “Twonk”.
    Erik – I doubt very strongly that you’re actually a professional scientist. You’re comments are straight out of the right-wing conservative talk radio/TownHall.org talking points list.

  28. Erik says:

    Professional Forester with numerous degrees … and you’re qualifications are ???? to peer-review pseudo-science? Doubt that degree in History or English paid off in the job market so you thought cleverly attempting to debunk true scientists via a blog would better suit your eco-theist opinions, perhaps?

    For some reason, anyone that dissents with “consensusists” is a right-wing conservative!? Thought science was supposed to be above the political lines. But not for the “global salvationists”!

  29. Oren says:

    ive read ‘PIG to american history’. ive looked up everything it says, thought about. its absolutely correct. rather than spending all ur time patting urselves on the back for wittiness, CRITIQUE THE BOOKS.

  30. Chris Letzelter says:

    Erik,
    read my comment in order to respond accurately. I listen to and read a lot of self-described “conservative”, “right-wing” columnists and pundits, and their talking points are exactly what you stated in your comment. Hence, my observation that “You’re (and I should have typed ‘Your’) comments are straight out of the right-wing conservative talk radio/TownHall.org talking points list.” That was why I questioned your claim of being a professional scientist; I figured a professional scientist would present data and statistics demonstrating how the PIG is correct on this or that point.
    My apologies regarding your professional status. By the way, you jumped to a heck of a lot more assumptions about me than I did about you…

  31. Erik says:

    Chris,

    If I may … I, too, would like to offer my abject apology for my assumptions; however, realize the source of my frustration comes from an unwarranted comparison between “right-wing” conservatives and dissenting scientists. I, as well as many other scientists have been the subject of extreme prejudice regarding speaking out against what has become “advocacy science” from research dollar chasing prostitutes instead of statistically valid, peer-reviewed experimental investigations. It is disgusting to watch the media exhort (along with other misguided legislators, attorneys, and environmentalists) – “the science is settled”; and any view to the contrary is from those funded by [place whatever resource/pollutant depleting/emitting big corporation] or the Republican Party!

    If you want statistics, I am laden with them; however, is this the forum for those numbers? It would go on for pages! My comment about recommending everyone reading the PIG on Science & Global Warming should have come with a footnote to perform a literature review of the citations. I have as I read both books and found them to be completely accurate in their claims. And, publicly available.

    It is YOUR (read EVERYONES) responsibility to be skeptical of claims that the “science is settled”! Theories, models, hypothesis, etc. are just that! I wanted to know more and delved into the guts and produced my own conclusion – to the chagrin of the spoon-fed public and colleagues whom are intoxicated with the public funding free-for-all!

  32. Chris Letzelter says:

    Erik,
    excellent reply – and I agree with the frustration regarding everyday mass-media presentation of science stories. I think that’s an unfortunate compromise that can be compensated by a better teaching of science in grade-school classes. For starters, scientific terminology and the simple understanding that science, by it’s very nature, is never “settled”.
    Coming from a Geology/Paleontology background, I do have strong opinions about viewpoints critical of evolutionary theory, which is why I’m often suspicious of what seem to be dissenting voices from conservatives. And no, I’m not lumping al conservatives together, just trying to use simplified terminology.
    Chris

  33. Aaron says:

    The next book in the series slated for release in November is “The P.I.G. to the Bible”. I’m sure it’s a gem.

  34. Namowal says:

    Hee hee. Loved the P.I.G. spoofs.

  35. Chris Kierst says:

    A suggestion for Marina, 8/27/06 comment: “This was a few years ago, but I remember that it lacked citations – which is a cardnal sin for historians – and I gave up on it once my BS meter hit the red.”

    You might read Thomas E. Woods’ preface to the PIG to American History. He explains what the book is designed to accomplish.
    You might also consult his “Response to My Critics”, article dated 4/12/05 in the Thomas E. Woods archive at the http://www.lewrockwell.com website. This and his other responses to critics at the same website are very informative and worth a read.

    If your “BS meter hit the red”, I suggest you and others email him to get his position. He can be contacted through the Lew Rockwell website because the columists generally post their email addresses at the end of each article they write. I have personally contacted several of the Lew Rockwell site columists (including Thomas DiLorenzo) and so far find them to be quite accessible and genuine.

    It is not a good idea to discount what these people have to say merely because you are experiencing cognitive dissonance issues. What if they are largely right. Can you handle the truth if it be such?

  36. Ryan says:

    Sooo… is anyone going to post something that is factually wrong with the PIG science book?
    I mean you can rant and rave all day about “right-wing” this or “neocon” that but until you actually debunk something soundly… well it’s just someone being mad that someone called BS on one of their stories.

  37. Eric says:

    The guide to American History has not been successfully debunked.

    the truth is that we were duped into the great wars by evil men.

    The truth is that members of the FDR administration was loyal to the Soviet Union. It’s true that FDR himself thought highly of Stalin and ignored the death and suffering he inflicted on his people.

    It’s also true that McCarthy had nothing to do witht the hollywood witch hunt and has been completely vindicated with the declassification of information.

  38. John says:

    I was actually grateful to see such a line of books… without such challenges to whatever is endorsed by whatever establishment, how could we ever hope to carry out a successful democracy? That is the hope, that we can arrive our opinions based on fact and argument, not on someone just claiming others are wrong and they are right. So I was excited to see this line of books to come out… the only ones against it, I would think, would be those who feel their opinions are backed up by the establishment: media, government-funded, or otherwise.

    And I agree with one comment above… point out facts that are wrong, not assumptions that they are. Let’s trust in the forum of scientific investigation to do its work (if it still exists, that is, because it seems to have been hijacked).

  39. John says:

    For instance, the quote above mine should invite other facts that would round out the picture. If these were the only comments put in a textbook, it obviously would not lead to kids having a true grasp of the situation.

    In the end, isn’t it about who controls our culture? In a democracy, the debate should be endless, as long as there is a hole in anyone’s argument.

  40. christina says:

    Are those really new releases of the PIG series or are you guys being sarcastic? This may seem like a stupid question, but I really want to know.

  41. snarkhunter says:

    Yesterday I read the P.I.G. Guide to English and American Literature.

    I wanted to die.

    I could spend hours debunking the assertions made in this text (and really, why is comparing The Handmaid’s Tale to the Canterbury Tales necessary in order to show that English profs have corrupted literature? Can someone explain that?), but who really has the time?

    I just…no. Just no.

    Just thought I’d share, since I see the debate is still going on here.

  42. trevor says:

    I have read these books.
    Look people, stop getting pissed off. The guy has SOME valid points. however, these books are only good to read if you read the other sides stuff as well.
    I am going to laugh, though, once the republican party decides global warming is part of its agenda, and he comes out with a book that says the rep. party planned and knew about it all along.

  43. BA says:

    How about the Politically Incorrect Guide to Liberal Logic?…wait, that would be a pamphlet not a book.

  44. John says:

    I do believe that this series is hitting a nerve…several, it would seem.

  45. V says:

    Those spoof covers are all hilarious except for the about the holocaust. Not funny at all.

  46. ANJ truth teller says:

    most of the people who oppose the politically incorrect series don’t like reading all together. they prefer to watch CNN and comedy central for their news and the majority of their education comes from a public institution which has been sued into a lifestyle of political correctness.

  47. Cody says:

    Whereas the people who support the politically incorrect series are lovers of truth, justice, and liberty. How silly of me to miss that!

  48. Danny says:

    some r funny but the holocausÂÊÖ e is just cruel

  49. Fletch says:

    yup, the spoofs are funny.
    But I have to agree with the P.I.G. books, having read a couple, much of the information corroborated by previous works I have read. Now, the point has been made that people continually attack these books without giving a single logical argument against them. Let’s take the American history one, the last I read. Give me one single instance in the book in which the information is flat out false.
    Lets go with McCarthy. I have never had a class in which a textbook or a teacher even hints at a possibility that McCarthy wasn’t a nutjob. Yet the Venona project during the 90s legitimized his claims in the 50s. Now, if you don’t agree, you can check out the declassified articles themselves. In the back of the book he gives plenty of sources, as well as plenty of primary sources within the text. The information is out there. You can check the accuracy. Yet I can gaurantee that every opposition in this blog was written by someone who hasn’t bothered to do so.

    • SWS says:

      @Fletch

      The Venona Project was an effort by British and American intelligence agencies to justify the things they did during the cold war. Citing Venona to support McCarthy is like citing studies performed by cigarette companies to show that smoking doesn’t cause lung cancer.

  50. Bob says:

    You know what I find the most amazing. Is all of the attacks have no facts to say why these books are incorrect. So are all of you just as blinded? I would be 90% correct in saying so. Typical retort though. Accuse people of being Nazi’s or Anti-Female or Anti-Gay instead of debating the facts. Which most of you seem to be lacking any connection to.

Leave a Reply