11/07/2007

For everyone who has been avoiding the Sun to protect their skin: Sorry following our advice means that you will die sooner

This Supreme Court Case Could Really Cost the Economy A Lot

This could really create a lot of jobs for lawyers.

A seemingly divided Supreme Court on Wednesday debated whether the judiciary should play a role in arbitration cases, the process used by businesses to sort out tens of thousands of disputes as an alternative to going to court. . . .

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested expanded judicial review is appropriate in this instance, pointing to the fact that the two sides negotiated a contract with court review as one of its provisions. Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia suggested Mattel might be seeking more latitude than the law allows for parties to negotiate expanded judicial review in arbitration cases. The American Arbitration Association says a cornerstone principle of federal law is that arbitrators' awards are final and binding. If parties to a dispute are allowed to engage in expanded judicial review, arbitration will become a prelude to lawsuits instead of a substitute, the association said in court papers. . . . .


But this takes the cake:

The wireless industry says that in the absence of court review, parties may decide they are unwilling to "bet the company" on arbitration. The result would be a decline in the number of disputes sent to arbitration and an added workload for already-overburdened courts. . . .


As Roberts points out, if the companies wanted the option to go to court, they can put that in the arbitrarion agreement. You would need to have some explanation for why companies can't figure out what is in there interest (supposedly though this wouldn't then apply to the wireless industry). Even opening up this question up will raise the risks of using arbitration agreements.

Labels:

Concealed Handgun Permit holders Stop Armed Robbers in Orlando, Florida

Fred Thompson Answers Questions on Guns for Field and Stream

Thompson has a long list of answers. Here is one on the BATFE:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives should have as its priority its efforts to combat violent crime, violent criminal gangs, and to interdict and disrupt the gun traffickers who supply violent gang members with firearms. While one way to curb illicit gun trafficking is to ensure that legitimate dealers maintain their paperwork in good order, these paperwork violations should in no way be BATFE’s focus. I would also consider giving BATFE a wider range of sanctions so that dealers’ simple paperwork violations do not result in license revocations. Finally, having a politically accountable BATFE Director, who is now subject to Senate confirmation, instead of a career bureaucrat should also help change BATFE’s priorities and make the agency more responsive. . . .

Labels: , ,

US Troops Cheating on Medical Tests to Remain Fighting in Iraq

Yes, you read that headline correctly. Our troops are so motivated by the war in Iraq and think that it is so important that they are willing to risk permanent brain injury to stay in the field. These guys are really motivated.

Reports of cheating began surfacing in Iraq during the summer, says Col. Brian Eastridge, a trauma surgeon who supervises medical care in Iraq and Afghanistan from his office in Baghdad.

Troops had obtained copies of an older version of the test and memorized key words used to gauge short-term memory, Jaffee says. Those who fail areas of the test undergo more sophisticated exams for diagnosing brain injury.

If symptoms persist, soldiers are sent home. If symptoms get better in days or a few weeks, patients can be sent back into combat, doctors say. . . . .

Labels:

Another Multiple Victim Public Shooting in Another Country

Obesity 'fuels cancer in women': Wrongly Scaring People

"Fuels cancer" sounds pretty bad. Surely the claim that just being "overweight" increases the risk of cancer is pretty scary. Back in graduate school one of the many points that I learned from Ed Leamer was there is an important difference between something that is statistically significant and something that is economically significant. The BBC claims that:

About 6,000 middle-aged or older women in the UK develop cancer each year because they are obese or overweight, a Cancer Research UK-funded study says. . . . .


Ironically, there is another study that just came out that claims simply being "overweight" lowers one's chance of getting cancer:

Being 25 pounds overweight doesn’t appear to raise your risk of dying from cancer or heart disease, says a new government study that seems to vindicate Grandma’s claim that a few extra pounds won’t kill you. . . . .


Well, let's just assume for a minute that the first scary claim is correct and also that the cancer is not the result of something that is also causing the women to be fat (e.g., depression may cause both obesity and cancer). According to the BBC article 4.5 million women are between 50 and 64 in the UK and 57 percent of those are obese or overweight. That comes to 2,565,000. Of those women, if we believe these claims, 6,000 will get cancer or any type each year (it would have been nice to know how many of them died from it, but that is another issue). Anyway, that means that 0.23 percent of these overweight or obese women get cancer each year because of their weight. I wouldn't want to be that less than quarter of one percent, but this doesn't sound like something to panic over. While there is no breakdown for the cancers "caused" by overweight, about one-third of cancers generally are said to result in death so that if true for these cancers, it means that .078 percent die. That is less than one tenth of one percent die from cancer.

Labels: ,

11/06/2007

Lemuel Calhoon's Review of Freedomnomics

Email on the Death Penalty

I received this email earlier today. While I normally receive a lot of these and I don't usually paste these types of emails (I like to stick to factual arguments), this one particularly got to me.

I just read your article about whether the death penalty is a deterent.
I just want to comment that , to me, it doesn't matter if it's a deterent or not.
The death penalty IS justice ( rightful. fair and deserved punishment ) to the murderer for what was done to the victim (s) and their family. Simple_ as_ that. But.. it also needs to be
implemented, not ignored or postponed.
Our 12 year old daughter was murdered by a man in 1981, who has been on Death Row (Cal.) for 25 years with no execution date in sight. He has free meals, Cable T.V. and better medical care than we do.
Justice, for us, has failed.

Labels:

University of North Dakota might be forced to remove "Fighting Sioux" Logo

Fate of University of North Dakota 'Fighting Sioux' Logo Threatens Hockey Arena

I would think that the Sioux indians would be proud to have a team referred to as the "Fighting Sioux." Will their be an objection to the Army helicopters having indian names? What is the difference? Why does the NCAA find this objectionable?

Labels:

Hubris and Carbon Taxes

Greg Mankiw at Harvard takes great pleasure in the fact that surveys around the world show strong support for higher taxes to reduce carbon emissions inorder to control global warming. In some theoretical sense there is justification for this satisfaction, but the real world is a long way from what might work in theory. The basic problem is one of hubris (see my book Freedomnomics for a more complete discussion).

1) It is hard enough to get the direction of effects correct. There is a debate right now over global warming and what share might be attributable to man. Only a tiny fraction of greenhouse gases (may be a percentage point or so) is due to mankind. Of course, there are other causes such as energy output from the sun that we don't control at all. Even if we agree on manmade global warming being significant, there is still the next question of whether there is a net cost from it. Sea levels might possibly go up by a foot or so over the next hundred years, but human disease will decline and there will be more food. Probably even in the worst case scenario, a small effect on global warming has a small effect on net costs.

2) Even if we get the point estimate of the size of the externality correct, there is the problem of assuming that the government will impose the right tax. Having too high of a tax is just as bad as having too small of a tax. Why do we believe that the government will actually pass legislation that has the right tax?

3) We already have high gasoline taxes. How do we know that the level of taxes are not already too high? Possibly we should be lowering the gas tax, not raising it. Taxes on gasoline are very high as it is.

4) What is the cost of getting this wrong? The cost is that we will be poorer, and there are lots of coststo being poorer, included a lower life expectancy.

Mankiw is an advisor to Romney, which makes me worry about him some. Today is a reminder about the Democrats in the Washington Post today.

Labels: ,

Russell Roberts Unable to Respond to the Answer that I gave him?

In a previous post Russell Roberts asked for a single example of a useful instrument in empirical work.

So again, my question to my better-read colleagues in the profession--give me an example of a statistical analysis that relies on instrumental variables, for example, that is done well enough, that is so iron-clad, that it can reverse the prior beliefs of a skeptic. . . . .


I wrote him back:

1) I don't put a huge amount of weight often on instrumental variables, but let me give one example from my own work on giving women the right to vote. The instrument there is whether states voluntarily or were forced to give women the right to vote. We found that both types of states experienced a similar increase in government growth after women were given the right to vote. If it was simply increased liberalism by men that caused both suffrage for women and government growth, you should see that in states that reached a critical mass to voluntarily give women the right to vote, but not in others where states were forced to given them a vote.


After several responses back and forth I wrote Russell that: "The best that I can see in you response to what I wrote is 'So let me try again. Very few econometric analyses persuade skeptics.' You have a similar response on your blog. It does not appear to me that this is a helpful response nor is it very direct. Explain why my responses, particularly the instrument regarding women's voting, doesn't meet your concerns. You asked for an example and I gave you one that used an instrument. I have yet to see one paper challenge the instrument that we used on women's voting, and you provide no logical objection."

(Cut)

Russell asks that I not print his reply.

Labels: ,

11/05/2007

A few defensive gun use stories from this week

TV News Report of Armed Self Defense

John Edwards Ad Effectively Smashes Hillary Over Inconsistencies.

Hillary Clinton is shown to be all over the map here.

Labels: ,

Texas Tech Students help push for ending gun free zones on campus

This is a surprise at Texas Tech? Hardly, but it is nice to see even more attention for Students for Concealed Carry. I have lost count how many stories that I have linked to on all this, but it is nice to see them getting as much attention as they did.

Some Texas Tech University students who believe concealed hand guns should be allowed on campus with proper certification are wearing empty holsters this week to protest gun-control policies.

Hoping to raise awareness about the issues surrounding the prohibition of licensed firearm possession on college campuses, students attending approximately 110 college institutions nationwide organized a protest at their respective campuses.

An estimated 6,000 members of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, the national organization of discontented gun owners, will symbolize their plight all week by donning empty holsters.

The group, however, is not advocating just any possession of weapons, he said. It designed the protests specifically to promote licensed and responsible carrying of handguns throughout all parts of campuses. . . . .

Labels: ,

11/04/2007

Fred Thompson on Gun-Free Zones

Generally, I thought that Senator Fred Thompson gave a very good interview on Meet the Press this morning, though I was somewhat disappointed with his answer on gun free zones. I get the impression that Thompson believes that individual property owners have the right to decide to use their own property, but I would have liked to see Thompson asked to differentiate public and private universities. I understand and support his desire that people should have the choice what rules to adopt when they own the property, but I would have been nice if he had clearly reiterated what was stated in the quote that Russert read. Possibly Thompson thought the quote was enough, but I would have appreciated something more supportive in this interview.

MR. RUSSERT: And we are back. Senator Fred Thompson is our guest.

Virginia Tech, last April 32 killed, terrible tragedy. You had a radio report back at that time, and I’d like to share it with you and our viewers. “Virginia Tech,” the “administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon,” on the “campus. Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. Whenever I’ve seen one of those ‘Gun-free zone’ signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I’ve always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at.”

My sense in reading that is that you would be in favor of licensed citizens of Virginia, students, including students, to carry concealed weapons on a college campus.

MR. THOMPSON: It would have to be consistent with campus rules. I don’t think that all students need to be carrying weapons on the school campus. What I would, I would feel more comfortable with, if a child of mine was on campus, when I read about these people, 30 people or so being lined up and systematically killed without anybody apparently around to do anything about it, I think some, some thought really needs to be given as to who should be properly qualified and permitted and, and armed on campuses and other places where large people gather. But...

MR. RUSSERT: But you would, you would allow a campus to bar their students from carrying concealed weapons?

MR. THOMPSON: Yeah, it, it would have to be consistent with state law and, and, and school rules. And different schools would have, you know, the, the freedom to, to have their own rules as, as, as they see fit. . . . .


The take at the National Review Online was pretty positive:

Having just watched it on the DVR, I thought it was a very, very solid performance. Ground rule double.

Labels: ,

Democrats in Pennsylvania in Trouble?

It looks as if Pennsylvania state politicians used state money to pay legislative aides to work on campaigns. Apparently, both parties are involved, but everything that I read indicates that it is much more of a problem for the Democrats. While the media has shown very little interest in this so far, this scandal may be the one thing that keeps the Democrats from taking complete control of the Pennsylvania state government.

The Patriot-News of Harrisburg obtained a letter from House Majority Leader Bill DeWeese, a Democrat from western Pennsylvania, telling recipients to keep quiet about the "extraordinary" bonuses because not everyone got one.

"I have seen in our internal investigations no evidence that behavior was illegal," DeWeese told The Associated Press. "But that's not for me to decide. That's for the attorney general and his team."

The investigation seems to have everyone in Pennsylvania's State Capitol holding their breath as witnesses are being dragged before the grand jury and both parties in the House have been hit with subpoenas.

In August, investigators seized 20 boxes of records from the House Democratic research office, touching off a separation-of-powers legal battle. On Thursday, a petition by the House Democrats seeking to block access to the records was denied by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. . . . .

Labels:

Students for Concealed Carry Versus Gun Control Groups on Campus

Still, more of the highly symbolic demonstrations have taken place in towns or cities than on college campuses, and that’s partially an indication of who’s doing the organizing. The protest at UNC, for example, was co-sponsored by the local Million Mom March chapter and North Carolinians Against Gun Violence (NCGV) but no student groups.

At the University of Virginia, though, students organized a lie-in on Oct. 16 that coincided with the six-month anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings. Spangler has also tapped Facebook to try to recruit more organizers in college; her group currently has 218 members, not an insignificant number but far less than that of many advocacy organizations on the site — including Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, which has 7,542 members. . . . .


Well, 218 to 7,542 is progress, though I suspect that we have a ways to go still.

Labels: ,

Stage 2 of Roger's Eagle Project

Today's task was building a path, cleaning up some graffiti, and putting up a sign for the park. The work wasn't anywhere near as physically demanding as last week, but it was fun. There were probably 8 young scouts. They were at it from 9 AM to 3 PM.













Labels:

11/03/2007

The Muslim World's Dr. Phil: The Secret of a Good Marriage, Beat Your Wife

The expert, Al-Arifi, has such useful advice as not beating the wife on places where the beating can show. Apparently, this is a widely watched expert in many countries in the Middle East.

Labels:

11/02/2007

Anonymous Reporting System for Reporting Bias at William & Mary

Political Correctness out of control:

A new system at the College that allows members of the community to anonymously report incidents of bias has come under fire, primarily from conservative news sites and blogs.

The Bias Reporting System was created several weeks ago by the College Diversity Committee and exists “to assist members of the William and Mary community who have been affected by incidents involving bias related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion or other protected conditions.”

Sam Sadler, vice president for student affairs and co-chair of the Bias Reporting Team, said that “showing a willingness to look at issues is the best way I know to let people know that the community cares. I think it’s really the ultimate statement of community.”

Critics worry that the system is open to abuse because it allows anonymous reports. A full-page ad in The Flat Hat last week, paid for by FreeAmericasAlmaMater.org, brings up the possibility that students could make up allegations to get back at professors who gave them a bad grade or significant others who had broken up with them. . . . .


My son Maxim wrote this story up.

Labels:

What is behind the push for Driver Licenses for Illegals?

John Fund makes it pretty clear what is happening:

Sen. Hillary Clinton was asked during a debate this week if she supported New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. At first she seemed to endorse the idea, then claimed, "I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it."

The next day she took a firmer stand (sort of) by offering general support for Gov. Spitzer's approach, but adding that she hadn't studied his specific plan. She should, and so should the rest of us. It stops just short of being an engraved invitation for people to commit voter fraud.

The background here is the National Voter Registration Act, commonly known as "Motor Voter," that President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1993. It required all states to offer voter registration to anyone getting a driver's license. One simply fills out a form and checks a box stating he is a citizen; he is then registered and in most states does not have to show any ID to vote. . . . .


The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has its own take on this here.

Labels:

What if Hillary's Campaign Implodes?

Hillary has had a relatively easy race so far. The other Democrats have treated her very gingerly. It has almost been as if they were afraid to anger her or possibly even running for the VP nomination. The debates have also protected her from answering tough questions, at least until this past debate. The problem that the Democrats face is that it is too late for anyone new to really enter the race with the possible exception of Al Gore. I have always felt that the Democratic field has been pretty weak. O'Bama is not a strong candidate. His talks and answers to questions are extremely wordy and not very forceful. Edwards is probably too damaged to win the nomination. So what is left after that? Not much. Will Dems rally around Hillary because she is still the best candidate in the race? Will they quickly try to push her out and get Gore to run? Hillary's negatives were already at 49 percent. Her move now to seek protection in being a woman must be a real problem for many.

Labels: ,

Another Review of Freedomnomics

That is why I salute John Lott's Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't (Regnery, 2007), a voice of reason in a swamp of interventionist megalomania that threatens to push the land of the free down the road of the late Roman Empire.

Freedomnomics, translating economics into regular English, shows that bureaucratic and judicial attempts to correct the market restore feudalism and hurt the poor. Corporate scandals that lower a firm's reputation create disincentives to cheat and thus become part of a self-correcting market mechanism. Lott also discerns the true link between legalized abortion and crime: In opposition to the best-selling book Freakonomics, he shows that easy access to abortion leads to change in attitudes to premarital sex, more out-of-wedlock children, family breakdown, and thus to more crime. . . . .

Labels: ,

New Op-ed: DEATH PENALTY'S DEADLY VACATION

THE Supreme Court on Tuesday effectively halted U.S. executions via lethal injection until it can rule on a challenge to the constitutionality of a particu lar execution "cocktail."

This is just the latest example of the whittling away of the death penalty - the courts have already cut executions by over a third since 1999. But this latest suspension of executions is likely to demonstrate yet again that the death penalty deters crime. . . . .


Some comments are coming in on this piece. See this by Art DeVany, Clayton Cramer, Free Republic, and Prairie Pundit.


I got this email from someone who read my piece.

First, I accuse Mr. Lott of no less than intellectual dishonesty with regards to some of the statistics he uses. To begin, the sentence "while African-Americans have committed 53 percent of all murders since 1980 in which the killer's race is known, they have accounted for only 38 percent of the executions." While at first glance, this seems to indicate that racial bias is non-existent in death penalty cases, one must remember that murder in itself, while necessary, is not sufficient for the death penalty to be handed down. Thus, the total number of murders is not a measure of the number of cases being considered for the death penalty. In fact, because the circumstances involved are relied upon almost exclusively (ie. the victim, prior history, etc.) when deciding whether or not to hand down the death penalty, simply citing these numbers does not tell the whole story in the least. . . . the author conveniently forgets that not every state has the death penalty. For instance, Michigan, New York (from 1978-94, well within the time that this statistic draws from), Massachusetts, as well as the District of Columbia do not currently execute anyone. These states (and district) all have some of the highest black populations in the country. . . .


The problem is that the gap between blacks and their share of executions and murders has gotten larger over time. This was originally in the op-ed, but got cut for space constraints. (The numbers before 1980 are pretty meaningless because even when an execution took place, there was only one execution a year.)


















Further, your piece misses the point in its entirety. It is deceitful to say that the Court "effectively halted U.S. executions via lethal injection," because it does not tell the whole story. I'm sure you know that the issue at hand is whether the lethal injection itself constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" . . .


There are two points. 1) The point of the piece was to address some of the general arguments that have been presented agains the death penalty. 2) There are so many issues that one can get into in 700 words. I figured most people know this claim you point to and can judge for themselves whether lethal injection is so cruel.

This is simply a temporary stop-gap measure designed to ensure that the constitution is not trampled. This case currently before the Supreme Court does not aim to question the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.


Does the moratorium increase the chances that the death penalty through lethal injection will be ended? If lethal injection is found to be "cruel," would hanging or a firing squad be cruel? In any case, does it then lower the cost of criminals committing murder?

Thus, not only is this piece intellectually dishonest, but the most extreme instance of a "jack story" that I can imagine. . . .


Thanks for you thoughtful comments. But I must confess that I don't know what "jack story" means.

A further discussion of these issues can be found in my book, Freedomnomics.

Labels: , ,

An Analysis of Concealed Permit Holders in Tennessee

WBIR TV in Knoxville, Tennessee has a detailed discussion of permit holders' characteristics. It shows a county by county breakdown of the 177,881 permit holders in the state. They find that while permit holders tend to be white males living in the suburbs, "there was no clear pattern" with income.

The actual TV report can be seen here. One county apparently had 11 percent of people with permits. The survey that they are referring to about the US having the highest gun ownership rate in the world is wrong. The study paid for by George Soros confused total guns with gun ownership rate.


Thanks to SayUncle and Clint Kritzer.

Labels: ,

11/01/2007

The Brady Campaign gets some examples of bad uses of guns wrong

The Brady Campaign will sometime float examples of people using concealed handguns improperly. It involves only a small number of examples. Howard Nemerov took some time to look throughf the Brady Campaign examples and shows how they get some of even the few they point to wrong.

Labels:

Roberts and Hanson Rounds II and III

Unfortunately, Russell Roberts seems unwilling to respond to my previous comments on his postings on empirical work. If he wants to talk about the weaknesses of empirical work, be specific. If he wants to talk about empirical work free from political biases, have the guts to point to specific examples where this bias exists and say how he would do it differently. What is this work missing. He cites Ed Leamer (a former professor of mine), but he ignores that the work that he does discuss does follow Leamer's recommendations. So then what would Roberts do differently?

No Roberts tries to impose the obiligation on those who might know the empirical literature better.

Robin is taking my observation about pragmatism and applying it to handguns. I didn't mean to. I brought up pragmatism in order to highlight the general dangers of excessive faith in reason. Assuming that econometric analysis always trumps an anecdote is an example of the potential dangers of econometric analysis. Yes, relying on anecdotes is lousy science. But lousy econometrics is lousy science, too. What my podcast with Ayres made me realize is that lousy econometrics may be the norm rather than the exception.

Such cynicism can come cheap. It also seems to leave us with anecdotes. Well, there's also common sense, intuition and general lessons gleaned from experience and empirical work that is less prone to manipulation.

So again, my question to my better-read colleagues in the profession--give me an example of a statistical analysis that relies on instrumental variables, for example, that is done well enough, that is so iron-clad, that it can reverse the prior beliefs of a skeptic.


OK, let me give Russell a response. These points and other similar ones are in my book Freedomnomics. The second point below is also in More Guns, Less Crime. I realize that Russell hasn't had time to read either book, but before he comments more on these types of empirical work, he might benefit from reading them.

1) I don't put a huge amount of weight often on instrumental variables, but let me give one example from my own work on giving women the right to vote. The instrument there is whether states voluntarily or were forced to give women the right to vote. We found that both types of states experienced a similar increase in government growth after women were given the right to vote. If it was simply increased liberalism by men that caused both suffrage for women and government growth, you should see that in states that reached a critical mass to voluntarily give women the right to vote, but not in others where states were forced to given them a vote.

2) Regarding correlation and causation that is precisely why some research try to provide many qualitatively different empirical tests. For example, with right-to-carry laws: 1) violent crime falls, 2) the size of the drop increases over time the longer the law is in effect because more permits are issued, 3) there are differences between violent crimes where a criminal comes in contact with a victim who might be able to defend herself and a property crime where there is no contact (violent crimes fall relative to property crimes), 4) there are differences between different types of violent crimes (e.g., between murder generally and multiple victim public shootings because the probability that someone will be able to defend themselves with multiple victim public shootings is much higher than the case where there is only one or two victims present), 5) a comparison between adjacent counties on opposite sides of a state border, and 6) differential benefits across different types of victims.

Russell, try to come up with an alternative explanation for these different findings.

As a general comment, I am disappointed how vague Roberts' discussion is and how filled it is with platitudes.


Finally, Robin Hanson summarizes where Russell might be coming out on all this: "Russ finally answers as I'd originally expected: he relies on simpler clearer data and theory. " I think that there is a lot of regression and empirical work that uses very simple approaches (see the above reference to women voting or I would even argue many issues involving concealed handguns such as permit holders being extremely law-abiding and not posing a risk by themselves), So Russell, what do you have to say to that? In addition, Russell, I don't think that Ayres conceded anything to you on Friedman's Monetary History.

Labels: , ,

Christmas gift ideas for little ones

Inspired by Sonya Jones' recommendations for Christmas gifts for children, I thought that I would offer my own suggestion. If you want something that fundamentally questions what government should and shouldn't do, I recommend Dr Seuss's little known "Thidwick the Big-hearted Moose." It is an amazing book where poor Thidwick lets a couple of animals take up residence in his antlers and then start ordering him around through majority voting. Poor Thidwick goes along with the majority decision making to his peril. In typical Dr. Seuss style this book is perfect for young children 4 to 8 years old, but I think that even much older kids can benefit.

Labels:

Backlash by Women Because They Feel People have been Attacking Hillary?

Shades of Rick Lazio's campaign all over again? I guess that I thought that women think that Hillary was tougher than this.

The criticisms followed Penn’s assertion that Clinton was “unflappable.” He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.


I am not sure that Obama or Edwards would have had a chance with these voters in the first place.

Labels: ,

Mascot Violence in College Sports: A Growing Problem?

The Chronicle of Higher Education asks where Mascot Violence is increasing in college sports. The Oregon Duck here has a vicious attack on a Houston Cougar.

Labels:

Fox News' Greg Gutfeld is pretty funny

Greg Gutfeld is really quite funny. For one example of his zaniness see this here.

Labels: