5/24/2006
- Name: John Lott
- Location: Virginia, United States
About Me
My commentary on a broad array of economics and crime related issues.
Most of my posts are now at the Crime Prevention Research Center. Our work is very important and you will find the latest information available there. Please click here or go to crimeresearch.org to get that information.
E-mail: johnrlott@crimeresearch.org
Academic Papers
- Terms of Use
Copyright 2005 by John R. Lott, Jr. All rights reserved
My Op-eds
More Books of Mine
Dumbing Down the Courts: How Politics Keeps the Smartest Judges Off the Bench
Straight Shooting: Firearms, Economics and Public Policy
Are Predatory Commitments Credible? Who Should the Courts Believe?
Reviews of Freedomnomics
Other Web sites
Previous Posts
- 15-year-old shots intruder who broke into family's...
- Competitive Enterprise Institute Dinner
- Will William Jefferson's case get as much news cov...
- One solution to the alligator attacks in Florida
- Some facts to keep in mind when you talk to friend...
- Iraq: Some very interesting measures of how well t...
- The FTC's bizarre definition of price gouging
- Senator Barack Obama makes life difficult for Mexi...
- Americans support National Guard at Border
- A couple of interesting points on some Ethanol
Book Reviews
- For a list of book reviews on The Bias Against Guns, click here.
Interesting Past Topics
-Research finding a drop in violent crime rates from Right-to-carry laws
-Ranking Economists
-Interview with the Washington Post
-Debate on "Guns Reduce Crime"
-Appalachian law school attack
-Sources for Defensive Gun Uses
-The Merced Pitchfork Killings
-Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me
-Steve Levitt's Correction Letter
-Ian Ayres and John Donohue
-Other issues regarding Steve Levitt
-National Academies of Science Panel on Firearms
-Baghdad murder rate
-Arming Pilots
-General discussion of my 1997 and 2002 surveys as well as related surveys
-Problems with Wikipedia
-Errata for Gun Books
-US Supreme Court Wire
-Futures for Financial Markets
-judgepedia
Links
Economist and Law Professor David D. Friedman's Blog
Larry Elder's The Elder Statement
Economist Robert G. Hansen's Blog
Firearmstruth.com -- a media-watchdog website
A debate that I had with George Mason University's Robert Ehrlich on guns
Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide
An interview concerning More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws
The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott
Art DeVany's website, one of the more innovative economists in the last few decades
St. Cloud State University Scholars
Bryan Caplan at George Mason University
Alphecca -- weekly review on the media's coverage of guns
Xrlq -- Some interesting coverage of the law.
Career Police Officer
Gun Law News
Georgia Right-to-Carry
Darnell's The Independent Conservative Blog
Robert Stacy McCain's Blog
Clayton Cramer's Blog
My hidden mathematical ability (a math professor with the same name)
geekwitha45
My Old AEI Web Page
Wrightwing's blog
Al Lowe's blog
St. Maximos' Hut
Dad29
Elizabeth Blackney's blog
Eric Rasmusen
Your "Economics" Portal to the World by Larry Low
William Sjostrom
Dr. T's EconLinks.com
Interview with National Review Online
Blog at Newsmax.com
Pieces I have written at BigGovernment.com
Data
- Johnlott.org
(description of book, downloadable data sets, and discussions of previous controversies)
Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack
Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election
Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set
"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper
3 Comments:
Bush never lied about WMD. He mentioned multiple reasons to go to war, and was criticized for giving multiple reasons, but he never lied about any of them. Can you give one single example where he lied? Bob Woodward was in the meeting when Bush asked Tenet about the strength of the evidence about WMD and Tenet assured Bush that the evidence was as strong as it could possibly be. Every intellgence service in the world through that Sadam had WMD. Did Bush get the French to doctor evidence to support the claim? I am sorry if I am really angry when people claim that Bush lied, because people who make that claim either do not know what the word lie means or they are lying.
It is besides the point, but after the war a lot of evidence has come out about things like 20 tons of enriched uranium that was found in Iraq as well as different types of gases. If you have any questions, you can look at the books by Rich Miniter or the statements by some of Sadam's generals who have recently come forward.
John said:
"I am sorry if I am really angry when people claim that Bush lied, because people who make that claim either do not know what the word lie means or they are lying."
I agree completely. As John put it: "Every intellgence service in the world through that Sadam had WMD. Did Bush get the French to doctor evidence to support the claim?"
That's the killer point, all the more so when you consider that the Russians, Chinese and French, especially, stood to benefit financially to the tune of billions of dollars if they could keep the US from invading. Given how opposed these countries were to the invasion, why would they keep quiet about "the truth," viz. that Iraq had no WMD, and thereby work against their own interests?
Indeed, the UN discussion before the invasion was: "What are we going to do with Saddam Hussein and his WMD? More sanctions? Or Invasion?"
The UN discussion was not: "Does Saddam Hussein have WMD?" (That issue was settled in the affirmative: every intelligence agency out there, possibly even Iraq's, thought Saddam had 'em.)
Beyond this, there is the appalling logic of those who assert that Bush lied. It runs like this:
1) If Bush lied, we'd find no WMD.
2) We found no WMD.
3) Therefore, Bush lied.
If that logic doesn't make you cringe, it should. It's roughly the same reasoning as this:
1) Ford builds cars.
2) I see a car.
3) Therefore, I see a Ford.
The point is this: there is a fundamental difference between data that are consistent with an assertion, even a false one, and data which demonstrate an assertion to be true.
In the case of automobiles, the fact that I see a car on the street doesn't necessarily mean it's a Ford: it could be a Chevrolet or a Toyota.
Bush may have lied, but the absence of WMD (if absent they were, which is highly questionable) does not prove that he did.
The absence of WMD could be due to a massive intelligence failure, in which case Bush was a consumer of poor intelligence rather than the creator of lies; or, the absence of WMD might be a function of Saddam Hussein having removed WMD to, for example, Syria, before Iraq fell.
Before one claims that "Bush lied" about WMD one needs to revisit her logic and then account for the highly implausible notion that nations would work so hard against their own interests.
Brian
"More important than all of that would be this: if Iraq had WMD's then why didn't they use them to stop the US invasion into Iraq ??"
"I'll answer that for you: because militarily Iraq is a third world country. Third world countries don't have WMD's, they don't even have an advanced military."
Please stop ranting. Do some research instead. It is documented that Iraq killed the Kurds with WMD. Hence, how can a comment be made that Iraq is a third world country and therefore does not have WMD.
Take the time and lookup up some documentation about Clinton and Iraq and you will realize that is possition was same as Bush's.
http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
It's all politics. When Clinton bombed Iraq, the Republicans were busing says that it was done to divert from the Monica Lewinsky trial, and insisted that Clinton was a liar. Now the Democrates are returning the favor. It is just politics. Sadly people can't remember far enough back. Even sadder the polititions try to destroy each other at the expense of the country.
More importantly that there is no proof that Sadam and Al-qaida's are links does not mean that they are not linked.
I more important fact is that all the anti US countries, whether Communist or Islamic Extremest or leftist communicate and support with each other, because of there common goal. The means and reasons for being anti US might be different but there goal is the same.
Post a Comment
<< Home