detractors, the accusations continue tornsurface in the media as if thev were irrefutablyrnproven.rnFew scholarly works have encounteredrnthe hostile scrutiny that has confrontedrnThe Bell Curve. Each sentence of everyrnchapter as well as hundreds of endnotes,rnbibliographic entries, and even acknowledgmentsrnhave been scoured for “taintedrnsources.” The bulk of this criticismrncomes from egalitarian ideologues whornrefuse to accept any evidence showingrnthat innate differences in mental abilityrncontribute to human inequalit.rnAs Michael Levin, professor of philosophyrnat City College of New York, pointsrnout, “You cannot loathe a man’s advicernbecause his motives are despicable, andrndespise his motives because his advice isrnloathsome.” Indeed, if critics of The BellrnCurve expect to be taken seriously, theyrnwill abandon the sophistry and adrnhominem assaults that are incapable ofrnrefuting the book’s principal arguments.rnKevin Lamb is an assistant librarian forrnNewsweek.rnENVIRONMENTrnDissing thernEco-Paranoidsrnby Jim Christiern” I here’s a world of misery in everyrnX mouthful of meat,” fumes thernheadline in an advertisement back in thernSeptember/October 1993 issue of E,rn”The Environmental Magazine.” Thernad continues: “The grain which fattensrnanimals for our dinner tables is oft timern’appropriated’ from the peoples of ThirdrnWorld countries; it enriches dictatorsrnwhile vast populations starve.” Meatrnproduction also “destroys the environment,rnsquanders dwindling water reserves,rnpollutes our rivers and lakes withrntoxic animal wastes, and is causing therndestruction of rain forests.” Now, aren’trnyou glad the Coalition for Non-ViolentrnFood enlightened you?rnIf you want to keep up on environmentalrnissues and can do withoutrnhectoring advertisements, skip E andrnconsider Garbage magazine, which nornlonger accepts advertising. In the springrn1994 issue, editor Patricia Poore saysrnher magazine was never pressured byrnadvertisers to toe a green line, but shernacknowledges that “the changing dchnitionrnof the ‘green’ marketplace and thernpursuit of complete independence,rn[meaning] the freedom for editorial coveragernto evolve without the pressure ofrnserving a predetermined market,” mayrnbe incompatible with eco-advertising.rnFor instance, it is probably safe to assumernthat anyone who jumps at thernsight of an E ad (in the January/Februaryrn1995 issue) built around the line, “StoprnSleeping on Beds Emitting Toxic Gases!”rnis of the “predetermined market”rnthat wants its unquestioning greenrnworldview stroked.rnFor Garbage, the issue of eco-advertisingrnwould most likely have resolved itself,rnas the magazine stands alone in therneco-press for its skepticism of many issuesrnadvanced by the environmentalrnmovement. A letter in its spring 1994rnissue is a good example of how the environmentalrnapparat regards this type ofrneditorial policy. Melanie Duchin of thernGreenpeace Ozone Campaign sarcasticallyrnwrites, “Coming soon in Garbage:rnDioxin: A Little Dab’ll Do Ya, Defensernof Clearcuts, and Nuclear Power: NornFatal Accidents Since Chernobyl.”rnGarbage sins in other ways as well.rnFor example, it steers away from bothrnright- or left-wing denunciations of sciencernand has no time for eco-mvsticism.rnAn opinion piece in its spring 1994 issuernbegins, “One of the paradoxes ofrnmodern societ’ is that technology allowsrnmany people to live in unprecedentedrncomfort despite ignorance of the physical,rnchemical, and biological processesrnthat support their lifestyles. Modernrncitizens thus have limited perspectivesrnregarding the impacts of technology onrnhuman health, and may be too easilyrnswayed by arguments founded on romanticrnmisconceptions of pre-industrial conditions.”rn(My emphasis.)rnAnd what of the blind faith the environmentalrnmovement has in governmentrnregulation? In the same issue,rnwriter Stephen Stuebner takes on thernhallowed Environmental ProtectionrnAgency for its imperial swaggering in arnsmall town. Entitled “Triumph, Idaho,rnto EPA: Don’t Tread On Me,” Steubner’srnarticle was summarized: “Localrnresidents were distraught when the EPArndesignated their town a potential Superfundrntoxic waste site. But after studyingrnthe data they’ve concluded the area isrnsafe—and it’s Superfund that needsrncleaning up.”rnNor does Garbage buy into causesrnthat most enviros would embrace. Itrnonce featured on its cover a shapelyrnmodel in a swimsuit, which promptedrnone appreciative reader to write, “Personally,rnI never have understood howrnhairy legs and Birkenstocks help save thernplanet.” Predictably, another readerrnreprimanded Garbage: “It is no longerrnacceptable in contemporary society torngratuitously expose a person’s body. Torndo so is to objectify and hence demeanrnthe value and worth of the person as arnwhole.”rnOf course, sending eco-advertising tornthe dumpster, not following the herd ofrnthe environmental press, and offendingrnthe mullahs of green-think, has its price.rnGarbage now comes out quarteriy, andrnits cover price is $9.95. Infrequent circulationrnand skyrocketing cover prices arernusually kisses of death for periodicals.rnBut the continued success of magazinesrnlike Garbage is important if peoplerndrawn to environmentalism are tornreceive information free of both greenrnmysticism and Luddite delusions. Poorernimplies what sort of environmentalistsrnwould love to see the magazine go under.rn”Despite the ravings of our morernparanoid readers,” she writes, “Garbagernis not secretly financed by any industrialrnconsortium.”rnFor paranoiac ravings, look at E.rnMixed in with its advertisements forrnwater-efficient laundry machines, recycledrnpaper goods, “socially responsible”rnmutual funds, and environmentally correctrnproducts—my favorites include thernmade-in-the-U.S.A. Deodorant stone,rnwhich was not tested on animals; “ThernGreening of Faith” video, which providesrn”nuggets of wisdom that shouldrnnourish Christians and pagans alike”;rnand the Gentle Floss made of 100 percentrnvegan wax—are ads playing on thernfearful imaginations of all too many inrnthe environmental movement. Consider,rnfor example, an ad for magnetic andrnelectric field meters. One retailer says,rn”Once you know where radiation isrncoming from, you can control your exposurernby practicing ‘prudent avoidance.'”rnPrudent avoidance? Most radiationrnoccurs naturallv. You probably get morernradiation from a day at the beach thanrn52/CHRONICLESrnrnrn