Call It A Comeback
If you are a rich guy thinking of running for relativley high office, hire a private investigator along with someone who does opposition research and see what they dig up and make sure you have answers to all of it before you run. Otherwise, please don’t waste the voters’ time.
Or better yet, run for lower office and work your way up as Peter Fitzgerald did.
This might seem funny outside of academia, but within academia it’s friggen hysterical. The mild criticisms Levitt levels at Lott wouldn’t even count for interesting tiff at a professional meeting where borish behavior and concescending denouncements of others are the norm. To sue over such mild statements is bizarre and demonstrates just how thin skinned and bizarre John Lott is.
According to Levitt’s book: “When other scholars have tried to replicate [Lott’s] results, they found that right-to-carry laws simply don’t bring down crime.”
But according to Lott’s lawsuit: “In fact, every time that an economist or other researcher has replicated Lott’s research, he or she has confirmed Lott’s conclusion.”
By suggesting that Lott’s results could not be replicated, Levitt is “alleging that Lott falsified his results,” the lawsuit says.
Lott is seeking a court order to block further sales of “Freakonomics” until the offending statements are retracted and changed. He is also seeking unspecified money damages.
Lott acknowledged in the suit that some scholars have disagreed with his conclusions. But he said those researchers used “different data or methods to analyze the relationship between gun-control laws and crime” and made no attempt to “replicate” Lott’s work.
Replicating the results means using different methods, you dumbass. The point of replicability in the scientific method is that one should be able to conduct the research gathering new data and using different, but appropriate methodology to test the same hypotheses.
What’s most disturbing about this is that if Lott were successful, and he won’t be, it would have a chilling effect on peer review and the ability of academics to criticize one another’s work.
Kevin Drum also addresses how Lott is lying again (and sue me John, I double dog dare you)
Lott could actually make a decent saving face argument that while his research was flawed he found an important point that conceal carry doesn’t significantly increase crime which was heavily in dispute when he first did his research. Now there is some discussion over whether there are minor crime increases correlated with conceal carry, but that is far different than dire predictions of years agod.
But no, Lott makes a bigger ass of himself. I’m sure Tim will be having fun with this over at Deltoid–btw, Lott recently left AEI.
Don’t expect Jan Schakowsk in IL-8. Kos has more
This is extraordinarily stupid. Mind-boggling so. It’s rare for one seat to really matter in the House? Sure, but we’re 15 seats away and we’ll be making gains this November. Enough to take back the House? I’m still skeptical, but regardless, it’ll be extraordinarily close. If that one seat costs us the majority and the subpoena power to investigate the Bush Administration’s myriad abuses, will it have been worth it?
The unions don’t have to support Bean. She hasn’t earned that support. But to work to defeat her makes no political sense. Not if the unions want control of the House by the party of the people, rather than the ideologues currently running the country into the ground.
I’ve always said there are several votes Bean has made I don’t like. However, is it a party of Boehner and Blunt or a party of Pelosi and Hoyer that we want in control? Bean has excellent environmental credentials and is pro-choice (something Scheurer is not). I don’t expect the unions to jump up and down for her, but working to defeat her won’t get them anything they want.
The ICFST goes to work with Roeser attacking Judy for being low rent.
Roeser fires back claiming Judy is bad because she brings up flatulence.
My question being whether spewing your verbal flatulence is worse than talking about actual flatulence?
Damn….as I so often like to report the most violent protests in Bloomington/Normal to my memory are the 1984 Cubs winning the Division “celebration” and the fights after new rules on college parties were put into place. But who wants to be that a bunch of people will get their panties in a bunch over peaceful demonstrations that simply call for sanity in our immigration policy?
The reality is that Americans live off the cheap labor of undocumented workers. If you want to put a quick stop to that, punish the people paying them. No? I thought so. Think about it while standing in line after a night of drinking at La Bamba (the only place I’m aware of in Bloomington to ever be cited for hiring undocumented workers)
Then it’s time to think about how to allow them to earn citizenship and attempt to move more of the underground workers above ground and legitimate for their protection and ours. The debate is horribly skewed ignoring basic issues such as how to allow families to stay together when some are working in the United States and dealing with very basic human issues and instead concentrating upon the paranoid fantasies about the brown hordes over at the Eagle Forum.
Making it a felony to be in the country without the proper documents raises all sorts of issues related to the gross incompetence of the immigration services–which many a student and professor have been technically undocumented for a time. Are we ready to make admissions and foreign student office employees felons as well? Are we ready to make Catholic Charities employees felons because they help a family in need?
This is what we are seriously talking about doing. We need labor and they need jobs, let’s create a system that matches the two together and increases our security.
Of course, driving through the Hill here in St. Louis I thought I’d driven into a protest by Latinos the other day, then I realized I just had my colors switched. Those bastards were flying Italian flags. How dare they? Why won’t they just assimilate?
Why did it take the Trib two years to write this:
Last week, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald filed a brief that says Libby also leaked secret information from a CIA report on Iraq. According to this account, Libby says the vice president instructed him to tell a reporter that a key finding of a 2002 intelligence assessment was that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium from Africa. The brief also says Libby was told by Cheney that President Bush had personally authorized the disclosure of this classified material.
The White House has not denied that allegation. In fact, it turns out that the president had ordered the intelligence estimate to be declassified. But whether the facts support what Libby reportedly says–or what Cheney purportedly told him–is yet to be established. A senior administration official told The New York Times that though Bush declassified the report, he did not tell anyone to discuss it with journalists.
So someone is lying. It could be that Libby acted on his own in leaking the information. It could be that Cheney told him to do so without the president’s approval. Or it could be that Bush was behind the leak. Those are questions that the Cheney ought to step forward and answer, along with questions about the unmasking of Plame.
One of the Appeals Court Judges pointed out this plot in his opinion in 2004. Some are applauding the Trib’s editorial today, but in Bob Dole vernacular, where was the outrage during the election?
True, the high comedy of the piece in suggesting Dick Cheney submit himself to the press corps does indicate some cheekiness, but why is Lawrence O’Donnel the guy who keeps getting these stories right while the regular press minus Murray Waas keeps taking the hand fed crap from this administration? Perhaps I’m biting the Editorial Boards’ hands as it finally gets it right, but the utter lack of pressure on this administration to come clean on these issues is astounding.
Let’s start off with the full and clear admission that behind held to 41% below a challenger is a very bad position to start from in a general election. Yet, despite this, there isn’t the smell of death you’d often anticipate for such a situation.
A couple breakdowns really stood out at me. Democrats don’t have to win outstate, but the certainly need to keep their margins ups. In Southern Illinois, a relatively small percentage of the population, Blagojevich is up significantly with 48% of voters compared to Judy’s 34%. That’s surprising. West/Northwest is nearly tied with 35/36–and that is odd given two statewide electeds are producing this many undecideds.
The Governor is getting killed in Central Illinois which fits the primary results, but given the screaming about downstate and how much he’s disliked, the effect seems largely contained with Central Illinois.
Cook County is also strange in that he’s losing it 48 to 31 which is surprising given the increasing Dem tilt, but then again Judy is from the southland area where Dems have made the biggest inroads. The collar counties produce a negative 10 right now which isn’t very surprising. Blagojevich’s Chicago numbers are holding up–he’s at 63% and I’d bet he’ll solidify that as long as Meeks doesn’t get in.
The numbers on women are close, which isn’t what I’d expect given a moderate woman for the GOP side.
In other races, while I think Rutherford is a good guy, I’ll support Jesse any day and 59% of respondents agree. Pretty much everwhere, but Central Illinois Jesse is ahead and over 50% everywhere but Central Illinois and Collar Counties.
Jesse won’t win 102 counties this time, but I bet he wins by as much as 20%.
The Radogno numbers are interesting in that a newcomer is beating her–it’s still very early, but those results are not good for the Republicans. Worse, it doesn’t appear G-Rod really has any negative coattails.
Judy has raised the ire of the Conservative Blogosphere for daring to criticize Dear Leader. I find it rather endearing when she makes a gaffe as defined my Michael Kinsley as accidentally telling the truth.
Does the candidate and staff imagine that no one reads Will’s columns in the White House? Or are they counting on the president’s very thick skin to absorb the slight, and Laura as well to put it down to inexperience with the national press?
When I see candidates wanting to have the president’s friends and their money but not without an obligatory shot to satisfy critics, I know that I am observing a real rookie.
Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell are also running for governor in crucial swing states. They have managed to do so thus far without playing to the anti-Bush MSM. What pro-Bush donor is going to skip over them to dig deep for Topinka?
Illinois hasn’t done much for the GOP in recent years, and if it joins California and New York as a deep blue safety zone for Democrats in presidential years, the answer is not to prop up occasional governors, but to match up a third big state to go with Florida and Texas in the deep red category. I know that Illinois isn’t going to go from blue to even light red with a governor who starts her campaign by blasting Bush.
Apparently Judy wasn’t assimilated into the Collective and so must be cast out for even mild criticism. On one hand I want to see a good competitive race that holds everyone’s feet to the fire–on the other, I love watching the Illinois GOP meltdown over arguments about ideological purity.
It gets better at a lessor blog that sounds like the GOP has turned into Office Space: Ill. GOP Gov. Candidate–NOT a Team Player?
What in the heck is this woman doing? She has told all Bush voters that she doesn’t want their support as WELL as telling the president — a president whose own political director urged her to run — that she doesn’t want his help, just his cash! So, even if Rove was willing to help her, why would he do so now that she has basically told him she doesn’t want the president’s help?
I’m imagining Ron Livingston sitting at the table with Mehlman and Racicot talking about how he doesn’t actually do anything…
Calling Gary Cole.
Normally, I’m not on the crusade many bloggers are when it comes to criticizing the traditional media, but the details being left out of the corruption stories are really problematic.
The other day I criticized coverage of Peter Roskam, but let’s look at coverage of Durbin and Schakowksy from last month.
In January, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), a leading spokesman for Democrats on ethics reform, adopted an office policy banning any privately paid travel. The same month, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) adopted the Democratic Party’s proposal as an office policy, limiting trips to those paid for by tax-exempt charities.
Democrats need to do better and the reason should be obvious. I’m assuming 501 (c) 3’s are the charities that can pay for travel under the proposal, but the problem with this is that at the center of the DeLay scandal. DeLay’s trip to Scotland to go golfing was paid for by a tax-exempt 501 (c) 3, The National Center for Public Policy Research. Scroll down to the bottom where you find
The National Center, which officially opened on February 2, 1982, is a 501(c)(3) organization under the Internal Revenue Code. Its tax ID number is 52-1226614. Donations to The National Center and its projects are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.
Now, I’m the first to say that the Aspen Institute is a great organization that does interesting events, but by allowing such organizations to continue to sponsor lawmaker trips, we leave the problem in place. Unfortunately the story doesn’t explain why this is so problematic so the exemption seems exceptionally reasonable even though using such an organization is exactly how Abramoff, DeLay and Ney exploited the system.
Democrats need to play cleaner (and yes the Creamer sentencing highlights this as well–same excuse as DeLay–no one personally gained….) for both the ethical reasons and the political strategy.
There was a Municipal election here in Saint Louis and I was on the Citizen Audit Panel for the new machines and process–still catching up on sleep and getting things done.
On the negative side, the school board majority in Saint Louis lost probably meaning Creg Williams will soon be a free agent again. Those looking for a dynamic superintendent should get in line. After working on Saint Louis Public School issues for 8 years, it’s more than a bit depressing to see the keys turned over to people who pretty much want to return to policies that nearly bankrupted the damn district.
If you have some sense of my attitude to get over it in tough election losses, it’s because I’ve seen them all too often.
ArchPundit