Posted on 07/04/2007 12:08:18 AM PDT by goldstategop
Just in time for the Fourth of July, John Lott, author of the groundbreaking 1998 book "More Guns, Less Crime," has released another amazing book: "Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don't." This book provides studies and analysis proving that your every right-wing instinct is based on sound economic analysis.
To wit:
* Women shouldn't vote: "What changed ... that explains the growth of government? The answer is women's suffrage."
* Fox News Channel isn't conservative: "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."
* Public schools are government re-education camps: "(P)ublic education was actually designed to spread government-approved values."
* Nothing good has come from abortion: "(A)bortion, in fact, increases crime."
* Felons vote Democrat: "Remarkably, it looks as if virtually all felons are Democrats."
To make your flights even more enjoyable this summer, consider this interesting incentive system described by Lott: "To receive disability benefits due to job-related stress, air traffic controllers must present a well-documented stressful incident – a collision or close call – that has caused a deterioration in their performance. Unsurprisingly, when it became easier to file for disability, flights suddenly started experiencing more 'close calls.'"
Say, wouldn't it be even more stressful, deserving of a greater disability payment, if the near-miss involved an Iranian Air jet?
Lott shows that there are pretty clear answers to what lowers the crime rate, what increases the crime rate and what doesn't have any effect at all. Despite their popularity as explanations for the remarkable drop in crime in the '90s, the aging of the population and the enforcement of quality-of-life crimes both had virtually no effect.
What did work was higher arrest and conviction rates, concealed-carry laws and the reinstitution of the death penalty. "Generally, the studies found," Lott writes, "that each execution saved the lives of roughly 15 to 18 potential murder victims." So basically, there's a much bigger death penalty for having no death penalty.
Meanwhile, gun locks and gun self-storage laws lead to more deaths, for the obvious reason that if the owner can't get to his gun in time, the beneficial effect of having a gun is lost. Lott also shows crime skyrocketed in cities that implemented affirmative action policies that lowered allegedly "biased" and "irrelevant" tests for cops.
Speaking of crime, there's even something for Paris Hilton in this book! Lott says that "when we analyze the overall consequences a criminal faces after conviction, we find a surprising result: Rich criminals face disproportionately high penalties."
The Los Angeles Times recently did an analysis of jail sentences for Hilton's precise offense: i.e., driving with a suspended license after being arrested for drunk driving. The majority of these offenders served four days, exactly what Hilton got – until she was returned to prison. By serving her full 23 days, Hilton served more time than 80 percent of people arrested for the same offense.
In addition to losing their reputations, their inheritances and generally their spouses, according to Lott, wealthy felons also earn less money post-conviction than poor defendants. Not relative to their prior salaries, but in direct comparison. "Amazingly," Lott says, "after controlling for a variety of social and demographic factors, wealthier ex–convicts on average earn a lower salary after their conviction than poorer ex-convicts."
Let's hope so. Felons are usually Democrats. As Lott notes: "Michael Milken, Martha Stewart and Leona Helmsley share something in common besides being convicted felons – they are all Democrats. While their wealth sets them apart from the typical felon, their party registration is the same as most former convicts."
I believe this point was subtly highlighted when Willie Horton told the press in 1988 that of course he supported Michael Dukakis for president. "According to academic studies," Lott says, "from 1972 to 1996, on average, 80 percent of felons would have voted Democratic. An overwhelming 93 percent ostensibly would have voted for Bill Clinton in 1996."
This is not because, as you might imagine, blacks have high crime rates and also happen to be overwhelmingly Democratic. Lott compares the voting patterns of felons and non-felons, controlling for race, age, education level, religious habits, employment, age and country of residence. Wholly apart from all these factors, felons were still more likely to vote Democratic. Indeed, in the 2004 election, Lott says, felons in Washington state "voted exclusively for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry."
With so many felons being Democrats, the party might want to think about changing its mascot from a donkey to a jailbird.
Needless to say, Democrats are neurotically obsessed with restoring the right to vote to felons. But the ex-cons themselves rarely express any interest in regaining this particular right. What ex-cons want is the right to own a gun. "Felons," Lott says, "who frequently live in poor, high-crime neighborhoods, want to be able to defend themselves."
So the evidence is in on that one, too: Preferring the right to bear arms to the right to vote (for choice), convicted felons have a superior value system to liberals.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
thanks, bfl
ping
Hunter: Ann Coulter Approaching 'Great American' Status
Posted by pissant
On News/Activism 07/03/2007 2:20:50 PM PDT · 57 replies · 1,413+ views
National Journal ^ | 7/3/07 | Irene Tsikitas
Hunter defends Ann Coulter against critics
Posted by pissant
On News/Activism 07/02/2007 11:33:20 PM PDT · 90 replies · 1,616+ views
MSNBC ^ | 7/2/07 | staff
Cheers!
Democrats also prefer Michael Moore over Ann Coulter. What a bunch of Sickos.
I’d like to know how abortion increases crime. According to the bestselling book Freakonomics, the large dropoff in the crime rate in the early to mid 90s was mainly due to abortion. That was right about the time that Roe v. Wade turned 18.
If Lott has something to counter that, I’d like to know what it is. I’m not trying to justify abortion in any way, nor am I saying that Lott is wrong. I just want to know his reasoning and his evidence.
That is like saying how does murder increase crime. Are you that ignorant?
Ahh.... Lady Ann!
When her column appears on FReepers, I save it for early in the morning.
Having read Ann’s words around 6:00 a.m., I am braced for the day and fit for any challenge.
July 3, 2007, 8:21 PM
MORE GREAT AMERICAN MEN: God Bless America! - JONATHAN FALWELL: DEFENDING ANN COULTER
RUSH LIMBAUGH ON ANN COULTER
JOHN DERBYSHIRE RADIO: ANN COULTER
Ann ~ right on the money as usual.....
Happy 4th!!!!
JOHN DERBYSHIRE RADIO: ANN COULTERFast forward to 23:25 - for the WONDERFUL part about Ann.
The women got the vote and the nation got Harding.
This may not be as out of proportion as it may seem. For the "average" person 4 days out of work could have a ripple effect for those living paycheck to paycheck. They could lose their job, miss a rent or mortgage payment and have severe child care issues.
A wealthy person's effect may simply be they have to get their social secretary to rearrange their lunch and dinner engagements and perhaps donate tickets for missed events to others.
Lott is on shakier ground still when he argues that legalized abortion caused an increase in crime, while citing data equally consistent with the view that some other factor, e.g., the sexual revolution, caused both the increase in uncommitted sex (with or without contraception) and the push for legalized abortion. Given the relatively short history between Griswold and Roe, in which Americans enjoyed a "constitutional" right to contraception but not abortion, it's not clear we will ever know which factor caused the other. That said, Lott does appear to have made as strong of a case for the view that abortion causes crime as Levitt [Freakonomics] did for the view that it prevents it, thereby neutralizing the abortion-as-crime-control argument with which Levitt himself stops short of fully endorsing.
Under current law, like it or not, abortion is not a crime. Murder is. One million abortions could be performed without a single crime being committed. One million murders would equal one million crimes.
Russ asks the kind of question I think everyone should ask, and I wish more liberals in particular would ask; What is the specific hypothesis and what is the evidence? Then, be open to what the evidence (or data) says.
Very fair question, Russ. The answer may be in the book, which sounds like it would be worth reading. I would like to see how he analyzed for this, myself.
The attitude that life can be snuffed out (legally via abortion), if it is inconvenient to another leads to the overall devaluation of life.
I don’t know if that’s the point the author is trying to make, or even how you’d prove such a point, but I believe it.
Wow, I always suspected the Democrats had a lock on the Felons, but now we’ve got some hard numbers.
No wonder the Democrats’ hate Ann so much. She’s got their number.
Freakonomics was a good book with interesting ideas, few of which were left-wing or needed rebutting. But when they got into the gun issue, you could see the fingerprints (and deception/ignorance) of the NYT co-author all over it.
Can’t wait to read Lott’s book. It sounds like a winner.
Obviously this Ann Coulter dude can't get laid and hasn't been on a date with a woman in years, if ever. He wouldn't talk like this if he didn't hate women.
(That's sarcasm!)
If you take a look at the top marginal income tax rate over time, you will see it is in the single digits until soon after women get the right to vote. It quickly reaches 90%.
And if you bring this up and say that in general women seem to be in favor of bigger government and a nanny state, you're shouted down in an emotional hail of vitriol.
I suggest you buy the book, Freedomnomics, by John Lott.
“This may not be as out of proportion as it may seem.”
Yes it is. I don’t know about the merit of your rationalizations. But I do know that an important principle in our law is “equality before the law.” The punishment for a given crime should be the same for everyone. Four days is four days, period.
Felons Smarter Than Liberals (Ann Coulter Early Bird Special Alert)
Posted by goldstategop
On News/Activism 07/04/2007 12:08:18 AM PDT · 26 replies · 1,416+ views
Worldnetdaily.com ^ | 07/03/2007 | Ann Coulter
Studies show: Felons smarter than libs
Posted by JWR_Editor
On News/Activism 07/03/2007 12:53:50 PM PDT · 21 replies · 879+ views
JewishWorldReview.com ^ | July 3, 2007 | Ann Coulter
Is Ann serious on this one? I don’t know. I may have to part company with Ann in this case. Women have the vote, will have the vote, and should have the vote - even if it may have had unfortunate consequences. If women tend to vote poorly - the female gender gap favoring Democrats - that is a challenge. Regardless of sex, people have to learn that incentives matter, facts matter, experience matters, and that one cannot emote one’s way to good policy.
Get over it.....it was a joke.
My wife jokes about this all the time. She finds the inaninity of women's voting statistics sickening......and a bit shameful......and she's still able to laugh at it, as Ann apprently is here.
Partly IMO
She is using that statement to make a good point for sure.
I've seen more than one female conservative pundit rue the day women were given the vote.
The conclusion that "women shouldn’t vote" seems to be Ann Coulter’s, not John Lott’s...From My Lunch with Ann Coulter by Jonathan Freedlund, with The Guardian, May 19, 2003:
...Later she's explaining why the US should not only leave the United Nations--"It's a useless, pathetic organisation"--it should actually boot the New York-based body out of the country altogether. "I just don't think these ridiculous countries with tin-pot dictators should have any say over anything America does. This isn't hatred for them. I wish them luck. But expanding the franchise? I'm annoyed how broad the franchise is in America already. Extending it, what, to the French?"
Why does she think the franchise is too big already? Who exactly has the vote who shouldn't have?"Women," she says, laughing. "It's true. It would be a much better country if women did not vote.
That is simply a fact.
In fact, in every presidential election since 1950--except Goldwater in '64--the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted..."
The question is are YOU Serious? I bet you read Swift and thought he was REALLY advocating eating babies, didn’t you?
Just another case of the humor deprived missing the joke.
Go Listen to Derbyshire. He made a remark about your kind.
Thanks for posting the article. It was an excellent article by Ann, as always. John Lott’s book has definitely made my short list.
And over the decades we also got Kennedy and then Clinton.
Speaking of voting, I wonder if anyone has done a study based upon the type of individuals we get into public office corresponding to how easy we make it to register and vote. I am tending to lean more every day to Hienlen's concept of letting only those who served in the military vote and hold public office.
I went and listened to Derbyshire. Very good statement, very true, and very funny! I would like to see some simple test people have to take before voting. Just a 3 or 4 question test, more or less based upon the man on the street interviews Sean Hannity does on his program. According to my test, the majority of NYC liberals would not be allowed to vote.
ping
I remember Heinlein’s idea from Starship Troopers that only those only the military and ex-military could vote. That would sure shake things up.
bump
“In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in ‘64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted...” “
Not only that, but we would have better conservative republican presidents. Pandering for votes by promising to take care of everyone for everything(poor things) would be a lot less necessary. Government should be based on cold, hard facts and not one iota on feelings.
Is that you, John? LOL!
When I saw Ann Coulter at UCONN, the lefties (read: hairless retarded apes) in the audience kept hounding her about that quote. Finally, she came down to thier level and explained to them that it was a joke and not to be taken seriously. Those twits still didn’t understand even after she clued them in...I feel so bad that they’re my fellow students...Ann, if you’re reading this, I still feel bad about how they treated you there, it was a damn shame!
RATS are criminals, and criminals are RATS. No suprises there.
Thanks RonDog! Confirmation of my de-fault memory is always good...LOL
That’s socialist class warfare thinking.
The same thought process is what encourages juries to hit wealthy defendents in lawsuits with outrageous monetary damages, while another person without “deep pockets” doesn’t even get sued in the first place.
The statue of Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.
Actually considering the effect on the accused like job loss etc is part of federal sentencing guidelines and is considered. This is why Clinton's sentence was lowered and why it is an outrage that the same consideration was not applied to Libby.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
