Oh my lord.... Why hasn't that loon been put out to pasture by now? Sheesh....

It's an awesome book, highly recommended!!!!

How many chapters are about guns?

The three-way I had with American Hawk and John Lott was the best sex I ever had.

And I was only an observer.

I swear that guy Lott is like an endless pit of stupid. Why can't these people stop embarassing themselves.

Yes, AH, Kieran and Kevin are criticizing him for supporting free markets. That is exactly what those posts are about. Thank you for your insight, as usual.

my opinions are completely my own!

It's apparently going to a dissertation on free markets. Hopefully, it'll be at a level that will help liberal bloggers understand why price controls, rationing, and racist college quotas are a bad idea.

What, you mean insightful and chock full of amazing insights that no one's ever come up with before?

No?

So, it's just the same old Randian drivel?

In fact, I bet it'll be at a level that will help wingnuts understand why price controls, rationing, and racist college quotas are a bad idea.

That is, It'll be scraping the bottom of the ideological barrel of Ideas Whose Fifteen Minutes of Fame Are Up.

Sounds like you're the target audience, American Hack.

Whoops. US chickenheart misses his bonus by being second to the thread.

Thanks, Mary, for the laughs.

Isn't this guy like totally discredited by now as a self-promoting, data distorting hack? Ethically he's self-immolated, no?

Obviously not in his own deluded, egotistical mind.

See. So simple, I could answer it myself.

As a psuedo scientist you should lap him up, chickenheart.

Hilarious.

We're lucky we don't live in a world that's boring.

Without idiocy, there would be no purpose.

Hey, take it easy on loons. We used to have a pair of common loons on our lake. Loons are a real old species of birds that have solid bones (that is why they ride so low in the water) instead of hollow bones like other birds.

If you want to view a real wacko:

George Bush's Favorite Historian
The strange views of Andrew Roberts.
By Jacob Weisberg

http://slate.msn.com/id/2162837/

OT: Also at Slate the funniest take on the whole LATimes fiasco:

No Exit
One man's desperate attempt to quit the Los Angeles Times.
By Richard Cohen
Posted Wednesday, March 28, 2007, at 2:05 PM ET

Can someone help me?

I've been trying for days to quit the Los Angeles Times, but I cannot seem to do it. In the first place, every time I announce I'm leaving, a more senior editor ups and quits and grabs all the attention, and, in the second place, I do not know anymore who my editor is, who the editor is, who the publisher is, and who owns the company. I think it's the Chicago Tribune, although that might not be the case, either, by the end of the day, since the paper is for sale, or being auctioned, but not the whole thing, mind you, just the TV stations, a newspaper in Lake of the Ozarks, Ark., and an avocado ranch somewhere south of Bakersfield, Calif., which was started by Gen. Harrison Gray Otis, an early publisher, and which now appears to be the only profitable part of the entire enterprise.'

[snip]

http://www.slate.com/id/2162856/

Now I know Richard Cohen stepped in **it up to his armpits when he bought Powell's dog-and-pony show but this is quite amusing.

It's an awesome book, highly recommended!!!!
Posted by: Mary Rosh

Has rdw undergone gender reassignment?

"Opponents of social spending tend to justify these policies in terms of market mechanism: that all they want is to keep 'government's hands out of people's pocket[s], and to let the 'invisible hand of the market mechanism' regulate the economy. Yet, the twin policy of tax break[s] for the wealthy and the lion's share of public money for military industries seems more akin to an iron fist that is designed to redistribute national resources to favor the wealthy than the invisible hand of market mechanism." - Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism

I posted this over at Crooked Timber, but thought commenters here could also respond:
I still don’t get it. The authors of Freakonomics are pro-market, and some have even considered them libertarian. Why would Lott have a beef with them? (I don’t know the whole story; could someone explain?) In particular, is there a reason he is copying their format? Is he parodying them, or basically saying that his book is the real deal and not theirs? Or is he just a lunatic?

New Republic isn't all that enamored of Freakanomics.

Might be one instance where I'd have to agree with them. Lot of superficial crap gets dumped under this rubric. Have heard it called 'Cute-o-nomics'.

One must admire liberals' ability to know that a book is loony without having read it.

Incidentally, a many books are knockoffs of some other successful book in some way. AFAIK Kevin and his merry posters have criticized none of them. Apparently different rules apply to writers who dispute liberal orthodoxy.

I still don’t get it. The authors of Freakonomics are pro-market, and some have even considered them libertarian. Why would Lott have a beef with them?

I second this. Is he just complaining that Freakonomics goes beyond an Econ 101 supply and demand curve? What's the deal?

faux-liberal wrote: "One must admire liberals' ability to know that a book is loony without having read it."

ROFL... One must admire the ability of clueless twits to ignore the past history of lunatic, lying authors and assume that their newest work will not be more of the same.