I've already posted this to my Facebook profile, and I imagine everyone who reads this already follows me there. But I'm curious if someone with more spare time -- and possibly accces to a more plush version of Lexis or J-STOR -- could look into how accurately Michael Gerson characterizes the studies he cites in this Post column. I don't have the highest regard for him after the train wreck of his libertarianism and Second Life column. But perhaps I'm being uncharitable. And while I disagree vehemently with Gerson's conclusions again here, I do want to make sure my intuitions are grounded in data.
ETA: Kerry Howley actually did some digging into Gerson's stats. Turns out my intuitions are right.