In response to:

Doing the Research the New York Times Won't Do

jrosen Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 7:16 PM
The problem with that, they'd blame all Stalin's ills on the Republicans... just like they blame everything on the Republicans! When is the GOP going to strike back, calling them liars like they are always calling conservatives? I don't like her, but we need Sarah Palin running the RNC... at least she'd stir-up the rhetoric instead of saying "Its beneath us to retort to those Democrat's lies." like the current RNC does!
kgrammer Wrote: Jan 10, 2013 10:19 PM
Maybe you don't like Sarah Palin because of the New York Times' relentless bashing. And lest we not forget Andrew Sullivan who like a pit bull would not let go of the notion that Sarah Palin's Downs Syndrome baby was her daughter's child. If Sullivan said it once he said in countless times in Newsweek, the long-ago venerated weekly magazine, now gone digital. Tina Brown thinks print can't keep up with online publishing. No, Tina, trash can't keep up with the truth. Your liberal message is not read (but it's Red) because liberals are take their news in sound bites.

In Sunday's New York Times, Elisabeth Rosenthal claimed, as the title of her article put it, "More Guns = More Killing." She based this on evidence that would never be permitted in any other context at the Times: (1) anecdotal observations; and (2) bald assertions of an activist, blandly repeated with absolutely no independent fact-checking by the Times.

There is an academic, peer-reviewed, long-term study of the effect of various public policies on public, multiple shootings in all 50 states over a 20-year period performed by renowned economists at the University of Chicago and Yale, William Landes and John...