Welcome! Follow me on twitter at @johnrlottjr or at https://crimeresearch.org. Please e-mail questions to johnrlott@crimeresearch.org.
posted by John Lott at 2:39 PM
My commentary on a broad array of economics and crime related issues.
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?
-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
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
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
15 Comments:
Newsweek leaves it untouched because it suits their bias, their agenda. Look at The New York Times front page. They play with pictures of the candidates that either enhance or diminish the candidates bases on the newspapers bias. Even my lowly local paper, the Des Moines Register does it. You have to wonder with declining newsstand sales, why they would antagonize readers? This may be apocryphal, but at one time Michael Jordan was asked why he doesn't endorse political candidates. His answer was that both democrats and republicans buy Nike and other products he endorses. May be some of that common sense is needed in journalism.
Does it really matter? I mean seriously, what kind of caveman would vote based on how she looked in her photo? Wow, I would hope most of the voters look at more then that.
A lot more goes on subconsciously than you may want to admit. Advertisers have known that for years and use our subconscious against us. As humans we may wish to feign rationality, but it is really a conscious filter we apply in our dealings with the world. Do yourself a favor and look at the covers of newsweek with Palin, then Obama, and then sit back and think about it. If you do not believe it is intentional, let me know. As far as cavemen go, we are just sophisticated versions of Cro-Magnon, same desires, different tools.
You're insane.
You guys need to just get some psychiatric help. You are the intellectual, moral, spiritual and psychological mirrors of the Germans of the 1920s and 30s who believed in conspiracies of Jewish bankers.
All I can say is: grow up and wake up.
Anonymous:
Since you are making the accusations, what is your evidence? It's obvious to me your argument is a priori as you have not supported your argument, and since you prefer to be anonymous, I also suspect the courage of your convictions. Then again, may be you are just a dilettante.
Yes it DOES matter! Newsweek's bias is ridiculous. This is just one of a plethora of the minor slants in the magazine that add up. Dems CW always up, Reps always down, cartoons always anti-republican and pro Obama. It's hardly a respectable source of journalism anymore...a pathetic downfall of a once fine magazine.
Forgive me if the following sounds idiotic.
It seems to me that whenever photos of Obama and McCain are used in a story Obama is always first reading from left to right; McCain's image is always the second one and it usually not a flattering photo.
It may be trivial but I'm inclined to believe not.
Actually, if you will recall during the OJ trial, there was quite a controversy because Time magazine ran his mug shots with a darkened filter, making him look more ominous.
This was only apparent because Newsweek ran the mug untouched on their cover. When the controversy erupted, Newsweek explained they thought touching up photographs, even for a cover, was unethical. Newsweek has an editorial policy against photo alterations of any kind.
Google. It's your best friend.
Check you facts before you go off half cocked.
Actually, Newsweek has a policy which restricts retouching all photos used in its magazine. Your claim that this is first time in years they haven't retouched a cover photo is completely fallacious.
Besides, speaking as someone who doesn't much care for Palin's policies, I will say that she looks rather striking in the photo.
Well John, looking at your many posts I'd have to say it's you who have a far greater "agenda" than does Newsweek. As a 63 year old woman I can honestly say that there's nothing wrong with Palin's picture. She looks pretty good for a 44 year old woman. Apparently her age is a greater problem for you on the right then for the rest of us "regular folk". So her looks are more important than her policies? Talk about making a mountain out of a mole hill. Come on John, is this the best you guys can do? Ah, the politics of shallow distractions!
"Forgive me if the following sounds idiotic.
It seems to me that whenever photos of Obama and McCain are used in a story Obama is always first reading from left to right; McCain's image is always the second one and it usually not a flattering photo.
It may be trivial but I'm inclined to believe not."
Anonymous:
Yes, you're right. Most magazines will put the Democrat on the left and the Republican on the right. It's a matter of editorial policy: candidates sometimes complain if you visually assign them the "other party's" side.
Democrats = left
Republicans = right
It has nothing to do with Obama or McCain, specifically.
Dear Anonymous at 10/09/2008 2:26 PM:
The claim in the news discussion that I link to is that the opposite is more nearly the case when it comes to retouching photos.
Dear Thedes:
I put a question mark next to the title and I put down the questions that were discussed in the debate. There is then a link to the debate so that you can make the decision for yourself. I don't have enough expertise on this, but I still thought that it was an interesting issue.
No need to get up in arms. Earlier this year, Sarah Palin told Newsweek's Karen Breslau that a woman candidate shouldn’t whine about being under a sharper microscope. This was only a camera close-up; much less powerful than a microscope.
Actually, I think it is true that you guys need to get some psychiatric help, and the proof is in the insane comments on this very page.
More information!: Vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palinstirs debate over her portrayal in the media
Post a Comment
<< Home