Freedomnomics!
Tweet
A refresher on the lack of intellectual rigor and honesty that permeates the mainstream right. What I’ve never understood about the right is: They claim to be so sure, so steadfast, so honest in their beliefs, why is there this consistent multi-decade practice of making stuff up?
MORE: Case in point.
35 Responses to “Freedomnomics!”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Glenn Greenwald agrees.
So, reportedly, do Rick Ellensburg, Thomas Ellers, and a couple of guys named “Ellison” and “Ryan” do. And hey, so does “Wilson.”
J.
I was wondering how long it would take Jay or one of the other resident wingnuts to trot out that lie.
Less than a year, Rheinhard… which is how old the story Oliver “broke.”
In other news, I’ve busted about a dozen sock-puppets on Wizbang myself. Always from the left side of things.
And it wasn’t a lie. Greenwald was busted, fair and square.
You wanna talk about just plain making shit up? Neither side has a monopoly on that one.
Next?
J.
So what exactly is your point, Jay? Do you dispute anything mentioned in the article OW linked to? Is John Lott not a serial and blatant liar? Is he not, despite that being patently obvious, strongly supported by the right? Does this not clearly show that the right is vastly hypocritical?
Why is it the response from the right always seems to be “Well, let me show you other examples from the left” and never “You’re right. That guy should be run out of town on a rail.”
Let us accept that John Lott as did Greenwald created a sock puppet and is a fraud. A fraud that disputed one of the premises of the very interesting book Freakonomics.
Does that mean that the consensus here is that John Lott is a bad person for his intellectual dishonesty? Or is it the crime of sock puppetry?
If it is the hypocrisy of sock puppetry can we expect a show of disapproval over all such puppetry?
If it is methodology does this mean that the left will be diligent in rooting out all deceptive use of statistics?
Or is it the message? That armed citizens decrease violent crime more than a selective culling of the most violent prone segments of our society.
Or is it just because he falls on the right side of the political spectrum?
“ lack of intellectual rigor and honesty that permeates the mainstream right.”
Let us examine the statistics of violent crime in America with intellectual rigor and intellectual honesty. What shall we find? Damn John Lott, right wing bastard!
Sean, I never disputed the facts, only Oliver’s spin:
“A refresher on the lack of intellectual rigor and honesty that permeates the mainstream right.”
Hell, I’ve USED variants of the same line Oliver used: “if you have the facts on your side, why do you have to keep making shit up?” I’ve tossed it around several times, when certain global warming panic stories tuned out to be bogus and when Dan Rather decided to throw away his whole career on some flagrantly forged documents.
Fakers like Oliver cited DO need to be ridden out of town on rails. Regardless of ideology. My disagreement with Oliver is that it is exclusively (or even predominantly) on one side or another.
J.
You’re in DC/Philly/NYC and this guy comes up and offers to sell you a watch. It’s a Rollex/Rolexx/Romex. You’ve aheard about those and you never thought you could afford one. They’se like over a hunnert dollars! This fool wants to sell one for twenny. Boy, I took him.
Now, everyone laughs at your purchase and you’re not quite sure why. So, you digs in your heels and thinks, “they the fools, not me”. Sound familiar yet? Add in such notable institutions of lesser learning like BobJones, Pensacola KKKristian, Liberty Law Skool and Lube Shop or Regent Law & Gentlemen’s Club (a local thing, ask around).
These are the ‘almost’ kids. The ones that don’t buy the ultratrendykewl UGGS but get the Payless knockoffs. And then pretend the items are the same and equal.
“You wanna talk about just plain making shit up? Neither side has a monopoly on that one.”
The last resort of the losing side… “The other side is no different than us.”
Yes, JayIDTea claims Greenwald was “busted.”
Nevermind the fact JayIDTea has no evidence to support this–other than demonstrating a lack of technical knowledge on the subject of IP addresses and the like.
It should also be noted Greenwald has denied sockpuppetry and Lott has reluctantly admitted to it.
Stroke, good point. Now kindly repeat it for Oliver, who inferred in his all-too-brief commentary that this sort of thing is pretty much exclusively the domain of the right.
Jade, might I introduce you to Patterico’s absolutely step-by-step breakdown of the case against Greenwald, in excruciating detail?
http://patterico.com/2006/07/27/annotated-wuzzadem-the-facts-behind-the-greenwald-sock-puppetry/
Yeah, it MIGHT have been a setup. But it would have taken a huge, HUGE conspiracy to pull it all off without leaving a trace, and really, to what point? Occam’s Razor cuts Greenwald’s throat on this one.
J.
Shorter Jay Tea: Waaaaahhhhhhhh!!!!!!!
J: Citing Patterico’s ignorance of the internet(s) doesn’t advance your case. Any more than citing the Discovery Institute’s website.
No setup involved.
I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that all those “real” people stopped posting comments after Greenwald was busted.
CSS: The last resort of the losing side… “The other side is no different than us.”
Last resort? Then they must not have many resorts to run thru, becuase it seems to come up pretty fast.
Jay Tea: Now kindly repeat it for Oliver, who inferred in his all-too-brief commentary that this sort of thing is pretty much exclusively the domain of the right.
He inferred that? Damn, I wonder what that implies about you.
Actually, while sock puppetry sucks, its the fact that Lott just made shit up and passed it off as economic analysis that is the problem. And it is the right that does this in the overwhelming majority.
Oh, Patterico? The same asshat that went around threatening to “out” TBogg when he was still just a pseudonym? That Patterico? I’d trust that guy about as far as I can throw Dickless Cheney.
Jay Tea: “Stroke…”
I’m glad to see you make no pretense to hide how sub-human you really are. I just wish you would stop whining about being treated unfairly.
Jay Tea: “…good point. Now kindly repeat it for Oliver, who inferred in his all-too-brief commentary that this sort of thing is pretty much exclusively the domain of the right.”
Can I ask you a question? I know you are stupid, but are you acting stupid here, or do you really believe this? Your persecution complex is colouring everything your read. It makes it impossible for you to comprehend the written word as it was intended.
Oliver never even mentioned Sock Puppets in his commentary. He talked about Lott’s lies. Lott lied when he wrote his paper on the gun laws vs. crime.
The sockpuppetry is an amusing diversion from the real point of the article, while we all love to laugh at the fools who don’t realize they can be tracked via known internet traditions, it’s a venal sin. John Lott’s crime is publishing work that is fraud, or of such poor quality as to be indistinguishable from fraud. His punishment for this crime is non-existent. He doesn’t lose his sweet AEI gig, he doesn’t lose his book deal, I imagine I could find him on FoxNews regularly, etc. I’m on the academic research side of things and if I were to publish tripe like this, I would be fired, ostracized, and completely cut off from future funding. There’s a dearth of intellectual honesty, integrity, and accountability in the institutions of conservatism today, which will one day come back to bite them.
Jay Tea, if you have any equivalence for this from the left, I’d love to hear it.
Sorry for the possible threadjack, but via FARK comes: http://www.horror-movies.ca/horror_12194.html which is claiming that Jessica Alba will be Barbarella!
“Actually, while sock puppetry sucks, its the fact that Lott just made shit up and passed it off as economic analysis”
ROTFLMAO
Do you have any idea what the premise of John Lott’s position is? Did you even read it or Freakonomics which it refutes?
I have a real sneaking suspicion that you haven’t. Perhaps you are just posting anything you can find negative about conservatives with your own snarky headline. This is too funny; sometimes you just can’t make this stuff up. Big clue, this isn’t really about economic analysis.
The short version:
John Lott
Armed citizens are responsible for the drop in violent crime, the drop in crime tracks the issuance of ccw permits.
Freakonomics
Violent crime is concentrated in a certain demographic slice of America. This same certain demographic slice of America also experiences a higher rate of abortions per capita. The unintended consequence of Roe vs. Wade is a reduction in crime because so many potential criminals were never created.
Even shorter version:
Freakonomics
Fewer blacks = less crime
John Lott
No, that’s wrong
“Fewer blacks = less crime”
No son, YOU made that leap. That was never in Freakonomics. Nice to see the mask came off, or in your case the hood.
Amused Observer, I would think that anyone so willing to throw around accusations of ignorance should at least understand the a book such as Lott’s consists of more than a single statement. While Lott’s thesis “Armed citizens are responsible for the drop in violent crime, the drop in crime tracks the issuance of ccw permits.” may seem true to you, as a piece of academic work, it must be tested with all available statistics. Lott’s work does not meet this standard and has been deemed substandard, to the point that an article in the Stanford Law Review determined there was “significant coding errors and systemic bias”. That’s the academic equivalent of a slapdown.
I’m a fairly amused observer of these goings on, since my field is far more pure than these socioeconomists (see http://xkcd.com/435/), but I know all about the problems of fraud in academic research, and between the numerous rebuttals, the accusations of malfeasance, and the outrageous lawsuits, Lott reeks of it.
Dear Crusty Dem and Enlightened Liberal,
Please brush up on your reading comprehension skills. I am neither supporting nor debunking either thesis as a careful reading of my posts will indicate. I am laughing at the underlying opposing premises being highlighted on this site. Specifically that the more politically correct premise of John Lott is the target of ridicule.
EL,
From Freakonomics:
“ In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals.”
CD,
“I would think that anyone so willing to throw around accusations of ignorance”
One might think you were referring to me, LOL. One might think you were implying ignorance on my part. Many thanks for the explanation of academic review and statistical analysis. The best academic review comes from careful reading and comprehension of the subject matter.
I have always enjoyed your stick figures. It looks like a great timesaver. It is said that a picture is worth a thousand words. I ‘m not sure if that refers to written or spoken word. The spoken word gains much from tone and inflection while the written word relies on correct construction and the comprehension skills of the reader.
Freakonomics
Fewer blacks = less crime
A plain lie, AO.
From Freakonomics:
“ In the early 1990s, just as the first cohort of children born after Roe v. Wade was hitting its late teen years—the years during which young men enter their criminal prime—the rate of crime began to fall. What this cohort was missing, of course, were the children who stood the greatest chance of becoming criminals.”
Now kindly point out where you found “black” in this passage.
It seemed pretty evident to me and some other observers that the sockpuppet was Greenwald’s boyfriend and Glenn was just too classy/protective of him to actually come out and say it.
It was true, Greenwald did sometimes visit his critics’ sites and reply to them under his own name, so it doesn’t really fit his MO to sockpuppet at other sites critiquing him (the sock puppets never appeared in the same threads as Greenwald). Also, having run his own blog Glenn would have been aware of IP address tracking to identify and ban irritating trolls reregistering under different names. It’s hard to countenance him being dumb enough to do it himself.
This is a pretty good synopsis:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2006/07/glenn_greenwalds_ip_address_stolen/
Also there is the matter of Greenwald being, you know, intellectually honest and making legitimate fairly argued points not based on misleading research, unreproducable figures and other intellectual tricks.
“Freakonomics
Fewer blacks = less crime”
That’s a lie. That’s a lie that is probably the result of an amazing level of racism found within Amused Observer.
“I am laughing at the underlying opposing premises being highlighted on this site. Specifically that the more politically correct premise of John Lott is the target of ridicule.”
How stupid are you? Ridiculing John Lott has nothing to do with political correctness. In fact, I think you are only bringing up political correctness because you are racist, and racism and political correctness don’t go hand-in-hand.
John Lott is wrong because the evidence he claims existed doesn’t.
“But really, I’m not a racist person.”
sigh, that link didn’t work right.
Oh, fuck it.
True, AO, the best academic review does come from careful reading and comprehension of the subject matter. And the real experts, of which I am not one (like I said, outside my field), have concluded that Lott’s work is substandard or fraudulent. Now I can go brush up on my reading skill with something worthwhile, rather than your thoughtless drivel.
Maybe the book Freakonomics, which I have not read, made the point that fewer African-Americans (I am more comfortable using those words than “black.” Call me politically correct, I don’t care.)= less crime; however, the excerpt that AO gave, the excerpt which was supposed to prove that the book indeed made this claim and thus, show that Enlightened Liberal has egg on his face, did nothing of the sort.
I have the book, daniel. The book made no such claim. The book did say that the fetuses most likely to be aborted were unwanted and mostly from single moms with few prospects. Nothing there about black/AA or any ethnicity. So AO is just a racist, hence his disappearance from this thread. He’ll be back at some point like it never happened so be sure to remind him!
I have read the book also, Daniel. AO made it up.
“He’ll be back at some point like it never happened so be sure to remind him!”
I hate that shit. Too often the right-wingers here jump into a thread, spout some hit, and then run away when confronted. That doesn’t have to happen too many times before you can give up debating the person and you are tempted to just insult them.