A review of my son's performance in a play in Los Angeles that he was in

Roger had the role of Frankenstein in "Young Frankenstein: The Musical."

Roger Lott did a fine job of portraying the Monster; making the most of the abnormal brain he was given. Looming high above his cast members, he made his massive presence on stage just the right combination of comedy and menace. . . .

My third son Roger has set up a website

Roger is trying his hand at acting.  You can see his website here.

Roger's latest column in The Dartmouth

My son Roger has his latest column in his college newspaper. The piece starts this way:

It has been nearly three months since Occupy Dartmouth set up camp in front of the Collis Center. Despite bitter cold and some harassment, members of Occupy remain determined to stimulate discussion about political and economic inequities. While student protesters can be commended for making the world’s troubles their own, they are mistaken in pointing blame at corporate greed and free market capitalism.
Corporate greed is not in itself the problem. Greed will always be with us so long as people are pursuing their own separate interests. The beauty of the free market is that it tends to harness greed for the benefit of society. In order to earn money, corporations must provide goods or services that others value. Although there are legitimate concerns about misleading advertising and environmentally destructive practices, self-interested corporations do make amazing contributions to society.
The main problem is that government intervention often keeps the market economy from working. Contrary to popular belief, the recent subprime mortgage crisis was not so much a product of corporate greed as dangerous government policies. More than 70 percent of weak or subprime mortgages were held or guaranteed by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other government-controlled institutions. The government’s intervention helped poor people achieve the American dream of owning a home, but it also contributed to reckless lending to unreliable borrowers. . . .

Read the rest available here.

Roger's Newest piece in The Dartmouth: "Learning to Live Together"

Roger's latest piece is on the preferential treatment given to LGBT students in being admitted to Dartmouth. The piece is available here.

Roger Lott's latest piece in The Dartmouth student newspaper

Roger's latest piece starts this way and is available here:

This Tuesday, I attended a panel discussion called “What I Wish I Knew As A Freshman Girl.” The female upperclassmen speakers talked very frankly about their mistakes as freshmen and offered their warm support to the assembled first-year women. The event seemed highly valuable, and I was left wondering why no similar opportunity existed specifically for first-year men.

Female Dartmouth students have access to more support than their male peers. Female advocacy groups at Dartmouth include Women in Business, the Society of Women’s Engineers, Women in Leadership and the Women in Science Program, which provides faculty mentors and paid internships to freshmen women. Link Up pairs first-year women with senior mentors. It’s unfair that men do not have similar opportunities for mentoring or support. . . .

New Roger Lott column: "An Alarming Shade of Green"

My son Roger has a new column in the Dartmouth school newspaper. The piece starts this way:

“Fire and brimstone,” “real collapse” and “biblical concern” are the kinds of phrases many of us have come to associate with global warming. Economist Eban Goodstein did not disappoint in his lecture at Dartmouth this April, using these terms and many others as he called on his audience to save the planet by redesigning “every city on Earth” and becoming superheroes like characters from “The Lord of the Rings.” Before trying to build a new world order, however, it’s worth taking all the hysteria about climate change with a grain of salt.

There’s certainly been a lot of unfounded alarmism in recent decades. In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt said, “If present trends continue, the world will be … 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.” In 2000, University of East Anglia senior research scientist David Viner predicted that within a few years, “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.” It’s time to stop taking people with academic credentials so seriously when they engage in such nonsensical speculation. . . .

My son Roger tries to explain some basic economics to Dartmouth students

Roger's latest piece for the Dartmouth school paper is available here. To me the points seem obvious: 1) the large aid programs impact incentives to save and 2) the subsidies are going to the future well to do (even if students come from currently poor families). It starts this way:

Thanks to Dartmouth’s outstanding financial aid program, my family and I pay only a small fraction of the College’s sticker price. While I’m grateful to have been handed the world’s finest undergraduate opportunities at so little personal cost, it’s unsettling to realize that in one year I’m sponging tens of thousands of dollars of other people’s money. As much as I like Dartmouth, I can’t say I value being here enough to justify the massive burden the College is bearing on my behalf. It may be time to make selfish free-riders like myself assume more financial responsibility for their educations.

Dramatic increases in grant-based financial aid have led to widening disparity in the prices students pay to attend Dartmouth. The growth in spending on need-based undergraduate scholarships from about $30 million in 2000-2001 to a projected $80 million in 2011-2012 has led to greater assistance for some, but has presumably contributed to the simultaneous rise in cost of attendance from $33,210 to $55,365. As noble as it is to want to help those with less, the College wouldn’t need to charge students from wealthier backgrounds so exorbitantly if others had to carry more of their own weight.

Those who pay full price have valid reason for resentment. . . .

"Silencing Conservatism": Column by my son Roger in the Dartmouth newspaper

As usual, Roger's column (available here) is at the top of the most read list. His column starts this way:

Having grown up in a college town that cast more votes for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader than for George Bush in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, I’m used to being something of a laughingstock for my conservative-leaning views. Nevertheless, it’s been an eye-opener to see my columns for The Dartmouth garner accusations of racism, calls for censorship and even the occasional personal attack such as, “Mr. Lott, I pity your future wife or husband.”

The upside of being a vocal conservative at Dartmouth is that being on the receiving end of intensive scrutiny inevitably improves your argumentation skills. The attacks made on my column criticizing the Orozco Murals (“Points in Perspective,” Nov. 10) caused me to recognize that I had been too overtly provocative, and the experience proved valuable in teaching me the importance of objectivity and dispassion. Many of my critics, however, would also benefit from learning to refrain from hostile, emotional arguments that detract from intellectual discourse.

Out of my columns, “Truly Color Blind” (March 7), received perhaps the most disturbing reactions. . . .

Roger Lott: Truly Color Blind

My son Roger has a new piece in The Dartmouth. It starts this way:

All the recent alarm about the resignations of three minority faculty members (See: “A Troubling Trifecta,” Feb. 18) has inevitably led to calls for special efforts to make certain racial groups feel welcome at Dartmouth. If the College really wants to foster a color-blind environment, however, it would be well advised not to treat minorities as though they need extra attention.

Unfortunately, minorities at Dartmouth are often encouraged to define themselves according to a special, “colored” status. Recent Martin Luther King, Jr. celebrations included a showing of the film “For Colored Girls” and an “Alliance for Children of Color Playdate” whose accompanying picture on Dartmouth’s website shows an all-black group of parents and youngsters. Events like these hardly lead to the kind of positive interracial interactions the College talks about so much. . . .

Roger Lott: On Concealed Carry on Campus

I think that people will appreciate this. Roger's newest piece starts this way:

A few hundred yards from where I’m writing this column, just across the river in Vermont, 16-year-olds are allowed to purchase and carry a loaded handgun without needing anyone’s permission. Here in New Hampshire, an 18-year-old can openly carry a pistol without a concealed carry permit. Dartmouth’s campus, with its strict ban on privately-owned handguns, stands out amidst these “wild” lands of gun-toting teenagers.

Before you start worrying about your next trip into downtown Hanover, however, consider that in 2009 there was just one handgun murder in New Hampshire and zero in Vermont. New Hampshire, which last year was named the safest state by the Congressional Quarterly for the third year running, has had great success with permissive firearms policies. When concealed carry is allowed even in such places as the New Hampshire Capitol building, it’s worth considering whether there’s really a legitimate reason for Dartmouth to have more stringent restrictions than state law. Already, 71 college campuses in the United States allow concealed carry. Texas is poised to add to that list 38 public universities attended by more than 500,000 students.

If letting people pack heat makes you nervous, adding handguns to the already volatile stew of drugs, alcohol and hormones on college campuses probably sounds extremely unwise. . . .

Roger Lott: On the lost traditions at an Ivy League School

My son Roger discusses the impact of political correctness on traditions at Dartmouth College. His piece starts this way:

While listening to a ’62 reminisce over Christmas dinner about the spirited traditions and rustic lifestyle he had known at Dartmouth, I couldn’t help but share in some of his nostalgia. It was saddening to appreciate that while Dartmouth has made great strides, it has also thrown away much of what made it special.

In 1993, Dartmouth ended a more than century-old tradition in which graduating seniors would smash long clay pipes on the stump of the old pine tree in the BEMA. The custom, based on the smokers’ habit of breaking off part of the pipe’s stem after it had become befouled through use, symbolized students’ “clean break” from the College. However, Native American students complained that the tradition was disrespectful of Native American rituals involving sacred pipes, and in ’93 mugs were substituted, only to later be done away with after seniors incurred minor injuries from clay shards.

The demise of the pipe-breaking tradition is a reflection of a broader over-vigilance for anything potentially offensive to Native Americans, and the undebatable nature of Dartmouth’s Indian mascot propagates a false notion that all indigenous peoples are offended by it and similar symbols. In fact, nothing is further from the truth. . . .

New Roger Lott Op-ed in the Dartmouth College Paper

Roger's new piece asking why George Washington's birthday doesn't get any discussion while Martin Luther King is given an entire month of events is available here. I am sure that it will get some attention at his school.

My son Roger has another op-ed on liberalism on Campus

Roger's newest piece can be seen here.

An Op-ed by my Son Roger at Dartmouth

Roger's piece can be seen here and is on the indoctrination over sex that occurs at Dartmouth. I promise that it is a good read and gives people an idea of what college life is like these days.

Here is a response in the Dartmouth newspaper to Roger's piece. This is one supportive piece, but it describes the attacks on Roger.

When I read the recent column by Roger Lott ’14, a reasonable call for modesty and respect in conversations about sex (“Explicit Signals,” Oct. 28), I did not expect the campus to agree with him. Having written on this subject before, I am all too well aware of people’s inability to see past their passionate preferences for over-sexualized campus culture. Attempts like those made by Lott to invite the campus to reflect a bit on its evangelical sexuality will inevitably fall on deaf ears.

No, it was not the rejection of Lott’s ideas that I found surprising. It was instead the complete and total disregard for his dignity as an individual and the cruel ad hominem attacks made against him merely for having the temerity to express a view contrary to the campus zeitgeist.

Comments on Lott’s article include, “Clearly, Roger Lott needs to get some,” and “Mr. Lott, I pity your future wife or husband.” These, furthermore, are representative only of comments posted on The Dartmouth’s website; I had several friends in Greek organizations tell me that people were blitzing even worse comments to their houses about Lott. . . .

Another Op-ed by my Son Roger at Dartmouth

Roger's piece can be seen here and is on the indoctrination over sex that occurs at Dartmouth. Apparently it has garnered some attention at his school.

It is number one on the list of most read articles in the school newspaper.

Another book review of my son Roger

Roger's newest book review in the Washington Times starts this way:

In "The Right to Earn a Living," Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer and adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, argues that the government has no business infringing on economic activities unless it has compelling health or safety reasons for doing so. Mr. Sandefur shows that when the government does have to explain its anti-competitive regulations in court, the justifications it provides tend to be nothing short of absurd. . . .

Roger Lott's: Review of 'How an Economy Grows and Why It Crashes' Peter D. Schiff and Andrew J. Schiff

Roger's latest book review in the Washington Times is available here.

Best-selling author and 2010 U.S. Senate candidate Peter D. Schiff and his brother Andrew J. Schiff, communications director of Euro Pacific Capital, convey the often intuitive ideas of economics through an engaging, fictitious story richly illustrated with amusing cartoons.

The current economic path of the United States, some argue, is unsustainable. Americans understand this, yet many have been misled into believing that economics is hopelessly complex and the country would be at sea without a paddle if the government weren't around to sort through the mess.

The Schiffs seek to provide readers with a "basic tool kit for cutting through the economic clutter" by sharing a revised and updated version of "The Fish Story" that their father, Irwin A. Schiff, presented in the well-known illustrated book "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't." . . .

American Military History through Stamps & Postal History (1775-1913)

My third son, Roger, is interning with the Smithsonian this summer and he put this collection together for their website.

New Book Review in the Washington Times by Roger Lott: Miron's "LIBERTARIANISM FROM A TO Z"

Roger's review can be found here.

In "Libertarianism From A to Z," Harvard economist Jeffrey A. Miron wastes no time. In roughly 200 short pages, he explains and advocates libertarian points of view on more than 100 issues, from agricultural subsidies to organ sales and government funding of zoos. The encyclopedic organization combined with Mr. Miron's concise and straightforward writing style make for a condensed yet highly accessible read.

Mr. Miron calls himself a "consequentialist libertarian," distinguishing himself from "philosophical libertarians." He considers the costs and benefits of individual government policies rather than simply making broad arguments against them on the basis of natural rights. However, the inclusion of some statistics would help give precision to his assertions.

Each topic is begun with a layout of the major arguments for government involvement, which are, for the most part, not watered down. Mr. Miron's fair presentation of reasons for opposing viewpoints ultimately makes his case for libertarianism more convincing.

According to Mr. Miron, many of these arguments are based on the belief that government should subsidize activities that generate positive externalities (indirect benefits) for society, such as education, and tax those that create negative ones, such as pollution. Government subsidizes recycling, for instance, on the basis that it decreases water contamination, reduces pollution, prevents exhaustion of natural resources and preserves space for landfills. . . .

Book Review by Roger Lott on "GOOD VALUE: REFLECTIONS ON MONEY, MORALITY AND AN UNCERTAIN WORLD"

While he doesn't appear to have liked the book very much, my son Roger's book review starts this way:

Stephen Green, an ordained priest in the Church of England and chairman of the British Bankers' Association, seeks in "Good Value" to use a history-based understanding of globalization to come to terms with the recent financial meltdown. The author ultimately describes the need for a "new world order" in which businesses "must consider value from the perspective not just of investors, but of customers, employees, suppliers, communities and - increasingly - the environment too."

Mr. Green describes a need for a new sort of "capitalism" more compatible with the realities of an economic system in which "all sorts of institutions, large and not so large, can be too interconnected to be allowed simply to fail." He cites Lawrence Summers, chief economic adviser to President Obama, as a "strong defender of free markets" who admits that the belief that the market is inherently self-stabilizing has been "dealt a fatal blow." Mr. Green doesn't understand that the belief that institutions are "too-big-to-fail" is fundamentally incompatible with capitalism, which weeds out weak businesses in a manner akin to natural selection.

Mr. Green seems to think of the modern global economy as consisting of chains whose weakest links must be preserved to prevent the whole thing from coming apart. What he forgets is that bailing out these weak links encourages the creation of more such risky "chains" of questionable strength. The worse it gets, the more bailing out the government would have to do, leading to a vicious cycle until people stop blaming the banks for failing and start blaming the government that's encouraging them to fail despite noble intentions to the contrary. The free market does have a self-regulating mechanism. It's just that the government isn't letting it work. . . .