Sunday, February 26, 2017

US mass public shootings in perspective

From John Lott.

Moral of the story: You are being misled by the politicians and the media about US mass public shootings.  The US has more guns and a lower rate of mass public shootings compared to other countries than you have been told.


But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn’t happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.” –President Obama, announcing his new executive orders on guns, January 7, 2016
“The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world.  And there’s some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently.” –President Obama, interview that aired on CBS Evening News, Dec. 2, 2015
“With respect to Planned Parenthood, obviously, my heart goes out to the families of those impacted. … I say this every time we’ve got one of these mass shootings: This just doesn’t happen in other countries.” –Obama, news conference at COP21 climate conference in Paris, Dec. 1, 2015
“We are the only advanced country on Earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.” –Obama, statement on shootings at Umpqua Community College, Roseburg, Ore., Oct. 1, 2015
“You don’t see murder on this kind of scale, with this kind of frequency, in any other advanced nation on Earth.” –Obama, speech at U.S. Conference of Mayors, June 19, 2015
“At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.” –Obama, statement on the shooting in Charleston, S.C., June 18, 2015

Yet, despite the impression that President Obama has been creating, France suffered more casualties (murders and injuries) from mass public shootings in 2015 than the US has suffered during Obama’s entire presidency (Updated 532 to 527 in Tables below).  Note that these numbers don’t adjust for the fact that the US has 5 times the population of France.  The per capita rate of casualties in France is thus 8.19 per million and for the US it is 1.65 — France’s per capita rate of casualties is thus 4.97 times higher than the rate in the US.

The Armed Citizen

Tuesday, February 14, 2017

Kerry Drake plain wrong about guns

Here is a comment by John Lott that appeared in the Wyoming News.

John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He is an expert on gun laws and their impact on crime.

Here is JL's comment.


Would you post a sign in front of your home announcing that you live in a gun-free zone? Would this make you feel safer?

To criminals, gun-free zones just look like easy targets. But in a recent column for the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, Kerry Drake argues that killers pay no attention to gun-free zones. He accuses me of “falsehoods,” “lies,” “half-truths” and, again, “lies.”

But consider the fact that since 1950, more than 98 percent of public mass shootings in America have taken place where citizens are banned from carrying guns. In Europe, every mass public shooting in history has occurred in a gun-free zone. And Europe is no stranger to mass public shootings. In the past eight years, it has experienced a per-capita casualty rate 50 percent higher than that of the U.S.

With permit holders preventing dozens of mass public shootings in recent years, it is unsurprising that killers try to avoid resistance.

Last year, a young Islamic State sympathizer planned a shooting at one of the largest churches in Detroit. A FBI wiretap recorded his reasons for picking the church: “It’s easy, and a lot of people go there. Plus people are not allowed to carry guns in church. Plus it would make the news.”

These killers might be crazy, but they aren’t stupid. Picking defenseless targets means being able to kill more people. A long list of killers have explicitly stated this reasoning, including the 2015 Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting, the 2012 theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and the 2015 attack in San Bernardino, California.

In March 2013, 86 percent of police officers surveyed by PoliceOne, the 450,000-member private organization of police, said that casualties would have been prevented if legally armed citizens had been able to carry guns in places such as Newtown and Aurora.

Drake ignores these simple facts. He resorts to personal attacks and questions my objectivity by suggesting that I was paid to testify before the Wyoming Senate two years ago. I was invited by state Sen. Curt Meier, R-LaGrange. The Wyoming Gun Owners didn’t pay for me to testify.

Contrary to what Drake writes, I never claimed that armed civilians had helped stop 39 different incidents. Since 2012, civilians have stopped 18 mass public shootings and a couple of stabbing attacks. Other incidents were stopped by off-duty police officers, but I didn’t reference those cases in my testimony. In my writings, I have made a clear distinction between cases involving off-duty officers and those involving civilians.

Drake absurdly claims that concealed handgun permit holders have only stopped four mass public shootings. Here are four cases from 2015 alone:

Conyers, Georgia, May 31, 2015: A permit holder returned fire after a shooter killed two people at a convenience store. The attacker retreated from the store. Rockdale County Sheriff Eric Levett said of the incident: “I believe that if Mr. Scott did not return fire at the suspect, then more of those customers would have (been) hit by a gun(shot). ... So, in my opinion, he saved other lives in that store.”

New Holland, South Carolina, May 5: A man, firing his gun, approached a volunteer fire department parking lot “full of children and firefighters.” Two permit holders stopped the attacker. A local TV station, Fox Carolina, carried the headline: “CWPs likely stopped deaths of children, firefighters.”

Chicago, Illinois, April 2015: An Uber driver had just dropped off a passenger when he saw gunman Everardo Custodio open fire on a crowd of people. The driver, who had a permit, shot and wounded the gunman. Assistant state’s attorney Barry Quinn praised the driver for “acting in self-defense and in the defense of others.”

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 2015: A permit holder was walking by a barbershop when he heard shots fired. He quickly ran into the shop and shot the gunman to death. “I guess he saved a lot of people in there,” said Police Captain Frank Llewellyn.

Drake cites a study which found that, “From 1966 to 2015, just 12 percent of the 111 mass shootings with high numbers of fatalities happened in gun-free zones.” But this wasn’t a Johns Hopkins study, as Drake claims. And the author of the report, Louis Klarevas, wrote: “In all fairness to Lott, when he conducted his study, he employed a different definition of mass shootings.” I had used the FBI definition of mass public shootings, which excludes “shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence” or that were committed as part of some other crime.

Drug gang shootings account for most of the difference between my research and Klarevas’ study. Drug gang shootings are important, but the causes and solutions to drug gang shootings are very different from those of mass public shootings at movie theaters or schools.

Drake incorrectly claims, “The National Conference of State Legislatures said only eight states now allow concealed firearms on college campuses.” For example, as the NCSL notes, Arkansas and Tennessee allow staff and faculty to carry guns on college campuses, and graduate students are often designated as staff.

Gun-free zones are magnets for murderers. Even the most ardent gun-control advocate – presumably even Drake – would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on his home. Let’s stop putting them elsewhere.

A stunning display of dishonesty from the national press and radical left

A column by Bill O'Reily.  He is on target.


Last week, about 680 undocumented aliens were arrested by ICE officials countrywide. Many of them have already been deported. The coordinated raids targeted aliens who had committed crimes in the USA -- mostly felonies.

Seventy five percent of those taken into custody had convictions, including homicide and rape. One man arrested in Chicago, was an Iraqi citizen with a conviction of sexual abuse of a victim [who was] unable to consent. Many of the arrested non-felons were associating with the criminals. But those facts have largely gone unreported by the American press. And by the radical left, which is actively misleading you. Here are a just a few examples:

Speaking on CNN, California State Sen. Kevin De Leon (D) said, “What took place yesterday with raids and personal homes is part of the cog of the Trump deportation machine.”

On MSNBC Attorney Raul Reyes said, “…how inhumane this is to be breaking down people's doors and separating parents from their children.”

Also on MSNBC, Arizona Rep. Ruben Gallego (D) said, “This is Donald Trump really executing his campaign plan. He is trying to be a tough guy, so, he will go after, you know, the maids, the moms, the people that are working in the shops instead of going after the hard-core criminals.”

Maids, moms, and shopkeepers, according to that dishonest politician.

Now, the false news reporting, actually reached the level of hysteria.

There were newspaper headlines screaming things like "The Trump deportation regime has begun," "Immigrant community on high alert fearing Trump's deportation force." “On Devon Avenue in Chicago, news of immigration raids intensifies fears.”

We could find no headlines in major newspapers. None.  That bannered the fact that raids were targeted at illegal aliens who had committed serious crimes. Committed them. That is not press bias. That is blatant dishonesty.

Here's another example. In the year 2013, the Obama administration removed from this country more than 434,000 illegal aliens, the highest number in history, which goes all the way back to 1892. Did you see any anti-Obama demonstrations? Did you see any screaming headlines in the national media? No, you did not. Even after President Obama said this:

“What we should be doing is setting up a smart, legal immigration system, that doesn't separate families but does focus on making sure that people who are dangerous, you know, people who are gang bangers, are criminals, that we are deporting them as quickly as possible.”

And that is exactly what President Trump is doing. Exactly. But the illegal immigration issue has been set up by the media to demonize Mr. Trump, as a racist and a brutalizer of the poor. That is what is really going on here. A set up. It is flat out disgraceful. If the federal government cannot remove aliens who commit serious crimes in this country, then, we don't have an effective federal government. Yet, the far left and the press, knowing full well that the ICE raids last week were directed at dangerous people, chose not to report that. Instead, [they were busy] smearing President Trump. We have now reached a low point in American journalism.

As for the far left, they are people who do not want any immigration enforcement. They want open borders. They want alien criminals protected. They want anarchy.

Why? Because they don't like America as it stands now.

So, it is very important for all honest citizens to know you are not getting accurate information. And that there is a radical element in this country that wants to destroy it. If this continues, there will be a breaking point.

Monday, February 06, 2017

Climate Change

Here is a link to an article titled "Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate".

It appears to be a serious paper.  Perhaps, once again, the media, politicians, and many climate researchers with financial and activist agendas are wrong.

Here is the Foreword


In his speech at the United Nations’ climate conference on September 24, 2007, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, said it would most help the debate on climate change if the current monopoly and one-sidedness of the scientific debate over climate change by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were eliminated. He reiterated his proposal that the UN organize a parallel panel and publish two competing reports.

The present report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) does exactly that. It is an independent examination of the evidence available in the published, peer-reviewed literature – examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC, plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006. 

The IPCC is pre-programmed to produce reports to support the hypotheses of anthropogenic warming and the control of greenhouse gases, as envisioned in the Global Climate Treaty. The 1990 IPCC Summary completely ignored satellite data, since they showed no warming. The 1995 IPCC report was notorious for the significant alterations made to the text after it was approved by the scientists – in order to convey the impression of a human influence. The 2001 IPCC report claimed the twentieth century showed ‘unusual warming’ based on the now-discredited hockey-stick graph. The latest IPCC report, published in 2007, completely devaluates the climate contributions from changes in solar activity, which are likely to dominate any human influence.

The foundation for NIPCC was laid five years ago when a small group of scientists from the United States and Europe met in Milan during one of the frequent UN climate conferences. But it got going only after a workshop held in Vienna in April 2007, with many more scientists, including some from the Southern Hemisphere. The NIPCC project was conceived and directed by Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia. He should be credited with assembling a superb group of scientists who helped put this volume together.

Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues.

Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project, an organization I am pleased to serve as chair. SEPP’s major concern has been the use of sound science rather than exaggerated fears in formulating environmental policies.

Our concern about the environment, going back some 40 years, has taught us important lessons. It is one thing to impose drastic measures and harsh economic penalties when an environmental problem is clear-cut and severe. It is foolish to do so when the problem is largely hypothetical and not substantiated by observations. As NIPCC shows by offering an independent, non-governmental ‘second opinion’ on the ‘global warming’ issue, we do not currently have any convincing evidence or observations of significant climate change from other than natural causes.

Frederick Seitz President Emeritus, Rockefeller University Past President, National Academy of Sciences Past President, American Physical Society Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy Project
February 2008


Here is the Conclusion.


The central problems for policymakers in the debate over global warming are (a) is the reported warming trend real and how significant is it? (b) how much of the warming trend is due to natural causes and how much is due to human-generated greenhouse gases? and (c) would the effects of continued warming be harmful or beneficial to plant and wildlife and to human civilization?

In this NIPCC report we have presented evidence that helps provide answers to all three questions.

The extent of the modern warming – the subject of the first question – appears to be less than is claimed by the IPCC and in the popular media. We have documented shortcomings of surface data affected by urban heat islands and by the poor distribution of land-based observing stations. Data from oceans, covering 70 percent of the globe, are also subject to uncertainties. The only truly global observations come from weather satellites, and these have not shown any warming trend since 1998, for the past 10 years.

This report shows conclusively that the human greenhouse gas contribution to current warming is insignificant. Our argument is based on the well- established and generally agreed-to ‘fingerprint’ method. Using data published by the IPCC and further elaborated in the U.S.-sponsored CCSP report, we have shown that observed temperature- trend patterns disagree sharply with those calculated from greenhouse models.
        It is significant that the IPCC has never made such a comparison, or it would have discovered the same result – namely that the current warming is primarily of natural origin rather than anthropogenic. Instead, the IPCC relied for its conclusion (on AGW) on circumstantial ‘evidence’ that does not hold up under scrutiny.

We show that the twentieth century is in no way unusual and that warming periods of greater magnitude have occurred in the historic past – without any catastrophic consequences.

We also discuss the many shortcomings of climate models in trying to simulate what is happening in the real atmosphere.

If the human contribution to global warming due to increased levels of greenhouse gases is insignificant, why do greenhouse gas models calculate large temperature increases, i.e., show high values of ‘climate sensitivity’? The most likely explanation is that models ignore the negative feedbacks that occur in the real atmosphere. New observations reported from satellites suggest it is the distribution of water vapor that could produce such strong negative feedbacks.

If current warming is not due to increasing greenhouse gases, what are the natural causes that might be responsible for both warming and cooling episodes – as so amply demonstrated in the historic, pre-industrial climate record? Empirical evidence suggests very strongly that the main cause of warming and cooling on a decadal scale derives from solar activity via its modulation of cosmic rays that in turn affect atmospheric cloudiness. According to published research, cosmic-ray variations are also responsible for major climate changes observed in the paleo-record going back 500 million years.

The third question concerns the effects of modest warming. A major scare associated with a putative future warming is a rapid rise in sea level, but even the IPCC has been scaling back its estimates. We show here that there will be little if any acceleration, and therefore no additional increase in the rate of ongoing sea-level rise. This holds true even if there is a decades-long warming, whether natural or manmade.

Other effects of a putative increase in temperature and carbon dioxide are likely to be benign, promoting not only the growth of crops and forests but also benefiting human health. Ocean acidification is not judged to be a problem, as indicated by available data. After all, CO2 levels have been up to 20 times the present value during the Phanerozoic Period, the past 500 million years. During this time Earth’s climate has been remarkably stable, with no ‘run-away’ greenhouse effects – indicating strong negative feedbacks.

If, for whatever reason, a modest warming were to occur – even one that matches temperatures
seen during the Medieval Warm Period of around 1100 AD or the much larger ones recorded during the Holocene Climate Optimum of some 6,000 years ago – the impact would not be damaging but would probably be, on the whole, beneficial. [Lamb 1982, and Figure 26]

Policy Implications
Our findings, if sustained, point to natural causes and a moderate warming trend with beneficial effects for humanity and wildlife. This has obvious policy implications: Schemes proposed for controlling CO2 emissions, including the Kyoto Protocol, proposals in the U.S. for federal and state actions, and proposals for a successor international treaty to Kyoto, are unnecessary, would be ineffective if implemented, and would waste resources that can better be applied to genuine societal problems [Singer, Revelle and Starr 1991; Lomborg 2007].

Even if a substantial part of global warming were due to greenhouse gases – and it is not – any control efforts currently contemplated would give only feeble results. For example, the Kyoto Protocol – even if punctiliously observed by all participating nations – would decrease calculated future temperatures by only 0.02 degrees C by 2050 [re-calculated from Parry et al. 1998], an undetectable amount.

To sum up: This NIPCC report falsifies the principal IPCC conclusion that the reported warming (since 1979) is very likely caused by the human emission of greenhouse gases. In other words, increasing carbon dioxide is not responsible for current warming. Policies adopted and called for in the name of ‘fighting global warming’ are unnecessary. 

It is regrettable that the public debate over climate change, fueled by the errors and exaggerations contained in the reports of the IPCC, has strayed so far from scientific truth. It is an embarrassment to science that hype has replaced reason in the global debate over so important an issue.


A husband and wife are sitting quietly in bed reading when the wife looks over at him and asks the question....
WIFE: "What would you do if I died? Would you get married again?"
HUSBAND: "Definitely not!"
WIFE: "Why not? Don't you like being married?"
HUSBAND: "Of course I do.."...
WIFE: "Then why wouldn't you remarry? "
HUSBAND: "Okay, okay, I'd get married again."
WIFE: "You would?" (with a hurt look)
HUSBAND: (makes audible groan)
WIFE: "Would you live in our house?"
HUSBAND: "Sure, it's a great house."
WIFE: "Would you sleep with her in our bed?"
HUSBAND: "Where else would we sleep?"
WIFE: "Would you let her drive my car?"
HUSBAND: "Probably, it is almost new."
WIFE: "Would you replace my pictures with hers?"
HUSBAND: "That would seem like the proper thing to do."
WIFE: "Would you give her my jewellery?"
HUSBAND: "No, I'm sure she'd want her own."
WIFE: "Would you take her golfing with you?
HUSBAND: "Yes, those are always good times."
WIFE: "Would she use my clubs?
HUSBAND: "No, she's left-handed."
WIFE: -- silence --
HUSBAND: "Shit."

Price controls can kill

Here is the abstract from a  paper, "The Long-Term Impact of Price Controls in Medicare Part D", by Moreno, Eijndhoven, Benner, and Sullivan.

Whether or not the analysis is accurate, the fact is that there is a tradeoff between drug price controls and the rate of drug innovation.  There is also a tradeoff between the latter and the lifespan.  Therefore, a tradeoff is implied between the rate of drug innovation and lifespan.  This tradeoff is almost always ignored in what you hear from the media and politicians.



Price controls for prescription drugs are once again at the forefront of policy discussions in the United States. Much of the focus has been on the potential short-term savings – in terms of lower spending – although evidence suggests price controls can dampen innovation and adversely affect long-term population health. This paper applies the Health Economics Medical Innovation Simulation, a microsimulation of older Americans, to estimate the long-term impacts of government price setting in Medicare Part D, using pricing in the Federal Veterans Health Administration program as a proxy. We find that VA-style pricing policies would save between $0.1 trillion and $0.3 trillion (US$2015) in lifetime drug spending for people born in 1949–2005. However, such savings come with social costs. After accounting for innovation spillovers, we find that price setting in Part D reduces the number of new drug introductions by as much as 25% relative to the status quo. As a result, life expectancy for the cohort born in 1991–1995 is reduced by almost 2 years relative to the status quo. Overall, we find that price controls would reduce lifetime welfare by $5.7 to $13.3 trillion (US$2015) for the US population born in 1949–2005.

Sunday, February 05, 2017

Climate change - about time alternative approaches are considered

Here is an interesting piece by Bjorn Lomborg, a professor at the Copenhagen Business School.

The point is that global warming can be addressed without reducing the use of fossil fuels - in ways that are cheaper and can be implemented.  Until now, the problem solving  approaches favored by the Government, the media, and the climate change activists have been more problem creating than solving.

Here is BL's comment.


Even climate activists increasingly recognize that the lofty rhetoric of the global agreement to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, concluded in Paris just over a year ago, will not be matched by its promises’ actual impact on temperatures. This should make us think about smart, alternative solutions. But one such alternative, geoengineering, is a solution that many people refuse to entertain.

Geoengineering means deliberately manipulating the Earth’s climate. It seems like something from science fiction. But it makes sense to think of it as a prudent and affordable insurance policy.

Climate summit after climate summit has failed to affect global temperatures for a simple reason. Solar and wind power are still too expensive and inefficient to replace our reliance on fossil fuels. The prevailing approach, embodied by the Paris climate agreement, requires governments to try to force immature, uncompetitive green technologies on the world. That’s hugely expensive and inefficient.

Thursday, February 02, 2017

Anti-gunners' tactics

Here is an example of the dishonesty of one anti-gun person.  Unfortunately, he is not alone.  Bloomberg is not as extreme in his tactics, but is just as dishonest with his facts.

The following is an article by John Lott, President, Crime Prevention Research Center.

If you are interested in the facts about guns and the law, read John's "More Guns Less Crime".


BuzzFeed’s Founder Spreads False Information. I Was One Of His Victims.

At the moment, media outlets want nothing to do with BuzzFeed, the “news” website that published unverified, “fake” allegations against Donald Trump. The allegations are so flimsy that even Trump’s political opponents never used them.

What few know is that BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti has a history of knowingly spreading false information. He has used fraudulent websites and email accounts to pretend to be people he wished to defame. I was one of his victims.

But I wasn’t Peretti’s first victim. In 2001, MBA student Jeff Goldblatt set up a dating service called the Rejection Hotline, which was inadvertently in competition with Peretti’s newly created Peretti co-founded the service with his sister, Chelsea Peretti, who contacted Goldblatt in order to get information on his business. She “interviewed” him, pretending to be New York-based reporter Vanessa Holmes.

Then Jonah Peretti set up the website, under the pretense that it was Goldblatt’s personal website. Using the address, Peretti sent out emails that, according to Goldblatt, “contained multiple lies about me and portrayed me as an arrogant jerk who was bragging about how I stole the idea of the New York City Rejection Line.”

Goldblatt contacted me after Peretti did the same thing to me in 2003. In my case, Peretti set up and used the email address, Peretti’s expropriation of my name wasn’t for financial gain, but to support gun control.

Pretending to be me, Peretti sent out tens of thousands of mass emails lobbying against the proposed Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This bill, which passed in 2005, shielded gun makers from abusive lawsuits that were solely designed to put manufacturers out of business with overwhelming legal fees.

I was fairly well-known for my research on gun control, and my book “More Guns, Less Crime,” and Peretti sent emails under my name to convince people who that I had changed my mind and come out against the Act. The emails then urged people to ask their congressmen and Senators to oppose the bill.

A number of the recipients were people I knew, and some wrote back questioning why I would have changed my mind. But Peretti continued the charade in multiple email chains.

I first learned about the website from James K. Glassman, a former Washington Post columnist and later U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy. He shared with me the email exchange that he had with Peretti’s fake John Lott.

Peretti had also used my name and picture to advise people on how to violate gun control laws.

Soon I was being contacted by hundreds of people around the country. I received many angry phone calls from people upset that I was supposedly advising people to break the law.

My emails to asking who was behind the effort were ignored. The website’s registration didn’t help as it was supposedly registered to me. I spent money to find out who was behind these efforts. When I contacted Peretti, he denied any involvement. After I hired lawyers, Peretti finally included a disclaimer on the website, stating that he intended to parody me. But he still refused to take down the website down or stop sending emails.

Because Goldblatt didn’t have the money for a legal battle, I included him in my case.

It took a year-and-a-half to finally reach a legal settlement. Peretti, who worked for a company called Eyebeam, publicly acknowledged: “The site was created by The Eyebeam Atelier, Inc. This site was never associated, endorsed or otherwise affiliated with John R. Lott, Jr. E-mail sent from the domain that was identified as coming from Lott was also never associated, endorsed or otherwise affiliated with John R. Lott, Jr. Eyebeam deeply regrets any confusion and offers a formal apology to John R. Lott, Jr. The terms of the settlement are confidential.”

Peretti also apologized to Goldblatt and took down I received an undisclosed monetary settlement.

This week, people are asking how BuzzFeed could possibly publish such “fake” news against Trump. They need look no further than BuzzFeed founder Jonah Peretti.