2003

Lotta Lateness

Ugh–the cold is almost over and I’m back to regular schedule. That being said, Mark Kleiman has the definitive post on the most recent Lott shenanigans.

Mark makes an important point that I’ve tried to keep in front of the discussion, but it gets lost in Lott’s evasions and bizarre claims. I originally was very wary of concealed carry laws because of concerns with potential increases in violence. Being a cyclist, I have enjoyed a fair share of road rage incidents and thinking of those morons as armed (even though many probably are already) is scary. After reviewing the literature on this issue, it seems to me that concealed carry laws are not likely to increase or decrease crime and I have become primarily agnostic on the question. And the chances of dealing with any armed idiot probably isn’t that much different with or without permits. In fact, the training might increase the number of idiots who think before they act given they know their legal responsibilities.

Ayres and Donohue argue there is a small increase, but I find it hard to believe that is from increasing legal concealed carry permit holders. I may well be wrong, but I think any judgement on this issue should await further research. They point out some decent theoretical reasons why that might be so, but to eliminate multicollinearity problems in such data sets is nearly impossible.

Go read Tim Lambert for the full updates including a bit on weighting that really calls into question Lott’s truthfullness, well again.

More interesting is the response of others to some of the most recent allegations. Reynolds has a very funny reaction:

By way of full disclosure, I went to law school with Ayres and Donohue, and regard them both as honest, straight-up guys notwithstanding that they have a political position that in many cases would be different from mine. Unlike some of Lott’s other critics, these guys are real scholars, writing in the Stanford Law Review, which gives their criticism considerable weight. I am, however, entirely incompetent to judge the underlying dispute on its merits, and hope that people who have the relevant expertise will weigh in.

Reynolds doesn’t have the ability to evaluate the work on the merits and so he continues to argue it by way of political positions. As I said before, " They assume everyone is a hack and so the point of a panel like this is that hacks from both sides should be included."

Reynolds argues by reputation and not evidence which completely misses the point of social science–though this cluelessness isn’t reserved to him as Kieran Healy points out. The arguments Kieran is addressing are especially disturbing given that much of McArdle’s argument could have been made by a creationist.

Note To Bill Bennett

When they say the slots are loose–they are fibbing. As has been pointed out at just about every site, Bennett didn’t come close to even if he is playing slots and video poker. Both games pay out poorly because, well, that’s how they are designed. Go figure–casinos are in the business of making money.

David Hogberg makes a good point about whether Bennett has a problem:

It reminds of the shock that some people expressed when it was revealed that Michael Jordan lost $10,000 gambling on one hole in golf. As Mike Royko pointed out, that was pocket change for Jordan. If you make ten times what you gamble every time you sneeze, it doesn?t matter how much you gamble.

I don’t know if the guy has a problem or not. But his inability to connect this to other forms of entertainment that he screams about is amazingly hypocritical. I’m not a big fan of strip clubs or pot–indeed, I find a good game of baccarat more fun than either of those, that is an individual choice or should be. My choice of games should be interesting to those of you who know gaming. My goal is to lose a little so that the free/cheap drinks pretty much make the evening a wash with what I’d normally spend. I could play blackjack, but frankly, my card counting skills go to hell when I’m drinking.

Chick: Don’t Worry, Be Happy

Jack Chick continues his paranoid rantings in cartoon form with this gem that pretty much attacks everything except his particular brand of premillennial dispensationalism. Of course, he sells it as a positive message:

The Checklist
United Nations–check
Catholics and Idol Worship AKA The Whore of Babylon and the Pope in particular–Check
Main Stream Protestantism–Check
Bible Colleges–Check
Masonry–Check
Sodomy–Check
Islam–Check
Billy Graham–Check
Evolution didn’t make the cut this time.
By most accounts, Chick’s Heaven is going to be mighty small.

The Bloviator feeds my Chick amusement with an article from LA Magazine.

One terrifying fact:

With more than 500 million copies of his 142 books in print, including translations in more than 100 languages, Chick is the world’s most published living author.

Welcome to the face of America!

Just how paranoid is the man:

In 1979, Chick and Carter embarked on a series of Crusaders comics about the life of Alberto Rivera. According to the comics, Rivera was a former Jesuit priest who had left the Catholic Church in 1967 after discovering the Vatican’s plans for world domination (as well as its involvement in the Holocaust, the Jonestown massacre, and the rise of communism). Christian bookstores refused to stock them, and Catholic organizations claimed that Rivera had never been a Jesuit priest. In 1981, Chick quit the Christian Booksellers Association, stating that the Catholic Church had infiltrated the organization.

During this period, Chick became involved with a number of questionable characters. In 1984, he publicly supported the ministry of Tony Alamo, an L.A.-based cult leader who has been accused over the years of tax evasion, felony child abuse, and the theft of his late wife’s corpse. In 1978, he based his antiwitchcraft comic Spellbound on the allegations of "former Grand Druid" Johnny Todd, who claimed that Satanists throughout the United States were routinely engaging in human sacrifice. Todd was later exposed as a fraud. Meanwhile, pastors and churches continued to denounce Chick and his tracts. "The churches thought he was just another crackpot," says Richard Lee, a former minister and longtime friend of Chick. "I think that hurt his feelings a lot."

Despite the criticism, Chick kept up his anti-Catholic rants. According to Fuller Theological Seminary evangelism professor Chapman Clark, as mainstream Evangelicals in the 1950s moved away from fire-and-brimstone tactics to a softer approach to soul gathering, Chick’s message became stuck in time. "The tracts really reflect the church’s separatist, we/they mentality of the ’50s," says Clark. "I don’t think that [the tracts] have evolved with a sensitivity to where the culture has gone." While Chick managed to skewer just about all of the world’s major religions over the years, he saved his most hate-filled language for the Vatican, a reflection of the fundamentalist movement’s long-standing animosity toward the Catholic Church. For many of Chick’s ilk, the Inquisition is recent history, the existence of the Illuminati indisputable fact.

To add to it, he thinks the Jesuits are out to get him:

Everyone who has met Chick has his own theories about his reclusive nature. "He really is a shy person," says Lee. Kuersteiner feels that Chick genuinely fears for his life: "He has stated in the past that the Jesuits would gladly see him dead if they could arrange it."

The JESUITS!

But there lies the contradiction–if the ‘Whore of Babylon’ really was that powerful, they could have done away with him some time ago.

What Would He Think Of His City?

Twenty years ago today, Harold Washington became Mayor of the Great City of Chicago. He forever changed the politics of Chicago by fighting and winning against the Machine. An imperfect, but gifted man, Washington set the stage for Chicago’s resurgence. He broke the iron grip of the machine and even with Daley’s operation, it will never be able to silence voices as it once did. To be sure, Daley’s operation sweeps too many problems under the rug and has too much power, but the sheer futility of fighting the Machine before Washington is no comparison.

Strangely, an unknown Republican gadfly running a racist campaign against Washington was Washington’s best commercial. Epton’s campaign theme was "Before it is too late." That campaign slogan sent the message home to black and latino voters that there was hope and Chicago was electric with anticipation.

John Kass recently asked what Washington would think of Chicago today?


Black politics is controlled, the clergy appeased, given vacant lots for a dollar and other development deals. Hispanics are hammered into line with City Hall’s Hispanic Democratic Organization. Whites seek admission for their children into special magnet schools in a two-tiered school system. Business owners are terrified of angering City Hall.

Yes, it is efficient. Yes, it is neat.

It is expensive. It is silent.

I wonder what Harold would say.

First, he’d smile and he’d tell the truth. Then he’d tell the Jacksons to kiss his ass.

Exactly 14 years after Washington’s inauguration Mike Royko passed away. Before Washington ever took office, Royko wrote the best summary of Washington’s tenure as Mayor:

Give Washington a break

Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 24,1983

So I told Uncle Chester: Don’t worry, Harold Washington doesn’t want to marry your sister.

That might seem like a strange thing to have to tell somebody about the man who will be the next mayor of Chicago. I never had to tell Uncle Chester that Mayor Daley or Mayor Bilandic wouldn’t marry his sister.

On the other hand, no other mayor, in the long and wild-eyed history of Chicago, has had one attribute of Washington.

He’s black. It appears to be a waste of space to bother pointing that out, since every Chicagoan knows it.

But you can’t write about Harold Washington’s victory without taking note of his skin color.

Yes, he is black. And that fact is going to create a deep psychological depression in many of the white, ethnic, neighborhood people who read this paper in the morning.

Eeek! The next mayor of Chicago is going to be a black man!

Let’s all quiver and quake.

Oh, come on. Let’s all act like sensible, adult human beings.

Let us take note of a few facts about Harold Washington.

First, Washington was born in an era when they still lynched people in some parts of the United States. By “lynched,” I mean they took a black man out of his home, put a rope around his neck and murdered him by hanging. Then they went home to bed knowing they were untouchable because the sheriff helped pull the rope.

Washington suffered through it. God knows how he did that. I think that most of us–white, privileged, the success road wide open to us–might have turned into haters.

Washington didn’t turn into a hater. Instead, he developed a capacity for living with his tormenters and understanding that in the flow of history there are deep valleys and heady peaks.

He fought in World War II. Yes, blacks did that, although you don’t see them in many John Wayne movies. He went to college and got a degree. Then he went to Northwestern University’s law school, at a time when blacks were as common as alligators there.

Had Washington been white, he would have tied in with a good law firm, sat behind his desk, made a good buck and today would be playing golf at a private country club.

But for a black man, even one as bright as Washington, an NU law degree meant that he was just about smart enough to handle divorce cases for impoverished blacks.

Being no dummy, he gravitated toward politics. And the Democratic Party. It may have been pseudo-liberal, but the Democratic Party did offer a black lawyer a chance, meager and piddling as it might be.

And he went somewhere. Come on, admit that, at least, even while you brood about a black man becoming your next mayor.

He became a state legislator. Then a United States congressman.

I’m still enough of an idealist to think that most people who become members of Congress are at least a cut or two above the rest of us.

And even his critics say that as a state legislator and as a U.S. congressman, he was pretty good.

So I ask you: If Jane Byrne is qualified to be mayor of Chicago after holding no higher office than city consumer affairs commissioner, what is the rap on Harold Washington?

And I also ask you: If Richard M. Daley is qualified to be mayor after being a state legislator and state’s attorney of Cook County, what is so unthinkable about a man holding the mayor’s office after being a state legislator and a U.S. congressman?

The fact is, Washington’s credentials for this office exceed those of Byrne, Bilandic, Richard J. Daley, Martin Kennelly, Ed Kelly, Anton Cermak and most of those who have held the office of mayor of Chicago.

Byrne was a minor bureaucrat. Bilandic’s highest office was alderman. Richard J. Daley was the county clerk. Kennelly was a moving company executive. Kelly was a Sanitary District payroller. Cermak was a barely literate but street-smart, hustler.

All became mayor. And nobody was horrified.

But this morning, the majority of Chicagoans–since this city’s majority is white–are gape-jawed at the prospect of Representative Washington becoming mayor.

Relax, please. At least for the moment. There is time to become tense and angry when he fouls up as mayor–as anybody in that miserable job inevitably will do.

Until he fouls up, though, give him a chance. The man is a United States citizen, with roots deeper than most of us have in this country. He is a 60-year-old Chicagoan who has been in politics and government most of his life.

He is a smart, witty, politically savvy old pro. He is far more understanding of the fears and fantasies of Chicago whites than we are of the frustrations of Chicago blacks.

The city isn’t going to slide into the river. The sun will come up today and tomorrow, and your real estate values won’t collapse. History shows that real estate values in a town like Chicago go up and up, over the long haul, no matter who is mayor.

He’ll fire a police superintendent, hire a new one, and the earth won’t shake under us.

He might hire some jerks. I haven’t seen a mayor who hasn’t. They don’t learn. Two days before Lady Jane was first elected, I wrote: “How she does will depend on the kind of people she surrounds herself with.”

She surrounded herself with Charlie Swibel and other bums and got what she deserved.

If Washington is smart, which I think he is, he’ll surround himself with the very best talents and minds available. And they’re available. If not, we’ll survive and we’ll throw him out.

Meanwhile, don’t get hysterical. As I wrote four years ago, if we survived Bilandic, we can survive Jane Byrne.

And if we survived Jane, we easily can survive Harold Washington.

Who knows, we might even wind up liking him.

Santorum Hasn’t Denied the Quote Has He?

An interesting tidbit from Agape Press:

Meanwhile, Fox News reports that some Republican sources are raising concerns about the Associated Press reporter who first quoted Santorum and continues to report on the conflict. Her name is Lara Jakes Jordan. Her husband is Jim Jordan, a former official with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee who now heads Democratic Senator John Kerry’s campaign for president.

I haven’t heard any denials of the quotes–did I miss something or is Fox News trying to smear the reporter? It is especially interesting given the reporters comments during the interview:

AP: I’m sorry, I didn’t think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it’s sort of freaking me out.

To me, the reporter stopped him before he went too far. Often, reporters talk about the urge to get a public official to shut up when they venture into stupid land. My sense is the reporter did exactly that above and redirected Santorum away from a huge gaffe so attacking her would be strange to say the least.

Lotta Correcting

I’m thinking we should nickname Tim Lambert ‘Tenacious T’ for his work exposing the multitude of issues surrounding John Lott and gun stats. (a modification of Ted Barlow’s joke)

Tim Lambert notes in comments below a couple issues:


First, the mission statement has not changed. Kopel and Reynolds just misrepresented it in their original article.

Groan…I try and give Reynolds the benefit of the doubt, but apparently even simple issues are too tough to get right.


Second, the committee is supposed to evaluate the existing research, so it is better if Kleck is not on the committee so that the committee can objectively examine Kleck’s work. (It is hard to be objective about your own work.) They have actually had Kleck talk to them twice.

This is a good point and really it fits well with the idea of what I wrote earlier. Given they are speaking to Kleck (twice), I think that may be the best strategy. Kleck, like most social scientists, tends to view his work in the best light.

Third, I agree that Civiletti should not be on the panel. He actually resigned from the panel without ever it would seem attending a meeting.

ROTFL–well there goes the boogeyman.

One should be skeptical of boards and the such, but the cynical view that Reynolds and Kopel are promoting fundamentally misunderstands how research should be done. I’m not naive enough to believe that the ideal always happens, but ideological balance is a silly mantra in this case. It may well be that the Board does a poor job, but there are many explanations why that might or might not happen–only one of which is ideology.

Check out today’s update over at Tim’s. He comments on Reynolds’ update concerning a gentleman who claims Lott would never be invited. Reynolds should be feeling foolish today given that Lott presented to the panel on January 16th of 2002.

The hint that this guy was a prankster or kook should have come from this comment:

(I should state that the study director was a typical liberal type – goatee, whiny voice, upset at the stolen election – much like most of the people I encountered there (except the goatee…)

And of course, everyone is still waiting for evidence that Steven Levitt is anti-gun–or that everyone besides James Q. Wilson is ‘entirely anti-gun’.