Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (22278)	6/26/2006 4:08:48 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543798

It's hard to work my way back into issues we typed with one another sometime back, or even to summon up enough interest to do so. But on Lott, a couple of points. I first ran across his name on Bill's PfP thread, did a bit of research on him, and found his methodological skills left something to be desired. From what I could read, the only place his arguments are taken seriously is among his ideological buddies. That's the kiss of death for serious research. The latest comment I read on him was from Kevin Drum's Washington Monthly bit a couple of months ago. Here it is. --- May 31, 2006 JOHN LOTT UPDATE....Today, the Los Angeles Times atones — partly — for having continued to publish op-eds by John Lott well after Lott's extreme hackitude had become obvious to anyone with a pulse. They do so by providing space for UC Irvine historian Jon Wiener to explain exactly why Lott is a hack and shouldn't be taken seriously. Good for them. My favorite part of Wiener's piece is something I didn't know before. Here is Lott's response to Steven Levitt's statement that other researchers have been unable to replicate Lott's thesis that right-to-carry laws reduce crime: Lott and his supporters disagree. They say it's not true that other researchers have been unable to validate his results. They point to a 2001 issue of the Journal of Law and Economics that contains several articles by scholars who agree with Lott. But it turns out that all the papers in that issue were originally presented at a conference organized by Lott, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. The Chronicle reported that Lott not only "arranged for the papers to be published in a special edition" of the journal, which is not unusual, but he also paid for the printing and postage. It's sock puppetry on steroids! washingtonmonthly.com