Libertarian Gullibility

Libertarianism is so obscure that "we" are often proud even to be mocked.  And so we encourage posting click-bait, by saying "Isn't this terrible? Click on this!" thereby perpetuating the practice of Lib'n-baiting.

So, this--done by some master-baiter--recently made the rounds:

But in fact that's just a (not especially clever) photo-shopping of what was actually done by TGI Fridays.

More on this still-developing non-story.

.

Levothyroxine

It appears I am hypothyroid, in terms of blood tests for TSH.

The doctor prescribed the (common) drug Levothyroxine.

There are many possible side effects.  But two of the more prominently mentioned are:

• Change of consciousness
• False or unusual sense of well-being 

I don't want to reveal anything embarrassing.  But Angus and I really could have used some of this stuff in 1981.  Because what we were using to change our consciousness and produce a false or unusual sense of well-being was more expensive and harder to get.

Hard to imagine going to the doctor and complaining, if that is the profile of side-effects to expect...

The Thing Itself: An Utterly Corrupt System

The level of corruption of our government is nothing short of remarkable.  Look, a dark-skinned man.  Let's steal all his money.  Because we have guns.  Oh, and badges.  But mostly, because we have guns.

"In April of this year, two Drug Enforcement Administration task force members stopped a man named Issa Serieh at Los Angeles International Airport, asked him some questions, and seized $30,750 in cash off of him. They sent him on his way without charging him with a crime...The complaint states they identified him as Issa Serieh later, during their questioning. The only reasons they give for initial suspicion are the backpack, and the flight from Chicago to L.A."  (Source:  The right-wing WaPo)

Clouds taste metallic

Here is an actual un-"shopped" photo of actual clouds this evening in Norman before the Gustnado activity kicked of the 2015 tornado season:

Pretty freaky, but no real damage done in Normatopia.

Or, As Charlie Sheen Would Call It: "Thursday"

A heartwarming story.

Young man decides to commit suicide, goes to Mexico.  Spends his money on drugs and hookers.

Wakes up and thinks, "Wow, that was fun!  Now  I have a reason for living!  I want to make enough money so I can do this again soon!"

Or something like that.

Nod to Angry Alex.

War. What is it good for?

Nod to the LMM.

The Importance of Basic Economic Education

The reporters of the New York Times illustrate yet again the importance of a basic knowledge of economics.  By, yet again, showing what happens when "reporters" lack such basic knowledge.

A truly remarkable article.  Even by the appalling standards of the Times, this is terrible.

Pelsmin provides this commentary, via email.  I have underlined some points that made me giggle:

I've been following the NYTimes' coverage of drug shortages. I'm sure you've seen the stories about how critical drugs are running out, even generics. The lack of understanding of the most basic economic principles is funny, or maybe sad or pathetic. To me, there was only one POSSIBLE reason why widely manufactured on-patent and generic drugs could be running out; government interference. 

Sure enough, the reasons I've seen include factory shutdowns imposed due to failure to meet gov't quality standards and restrictions and hurdles placed on "over-prescribed" drugs like Adderal and certain pain killers. There is now a shortage of saline solution (!) and critical cancer drugs. 

The Times' coverage not only misses this but presents the government regulators as acting heroically to fix this. For example, the FDA proposed that a company with physical contaminants in a product FILTER the product and then sell it, instead of shutting down the factory, as if the company wouldn't have proposed this themselves. Now, not imposing a draconian restriction or condition on a company is considered innovative problem-solving by the government. 

Better is their feeble stab at the evil thinking by the drug companies. First, they blame "narrow profit margins" as one reason companies won't make vital drugs that are in short supply. I'm trying to picture the curve that explains this (currently reviewing some Escher drawings for inspiration...) The writer also states that "in a peculiarity of the generic drug industry, a drug is often made by only a few producers, making it difficult to mitigate the effects of a shortage". 

Think about that one; generic drugs are only made by a few producers, whereas on-patent drugs are -- what, made by hundreds? No, made by one company, typically, except for license deals. Other reasons indicate that either the writer understands factory production line optimization better than the companies, or maybe doesn't have a clue what she is talking about. Of course, the only way the wackier ideas of high-demand/low-supply/low price are possible is if the FDA has caused this (e.g. Medicare sets and enforces prices that have no bearing on costs or utility.) Yet the article cites praise for the government and "acknowledged that [the FDA] could not ultimately force drug companies to produce." Not yet, until the new five-year quotas are issued under executive order through the medical commisar.

I'm all confused....

I'm really confused.

The guy at the NRO, where I expect to agree, has this completely, bizarrely, wrong.  He really couldn't be more confused (though, as he notes in every column, he went to Harvard Law School,
(I wanted to use a nicer font, to capture the self-congratulatory joy felt by Mr. Shapiro) so the fact that he is confused is not all that surprising).

The guy at the WaPo, with whom I almost never agree, has it right, and the for the right reasons.  In fact, Eugene Robinson totally nails it.  I find that I agree with Eugene about half the time now.  Five years ago, zero.  I'm very confused.

Fortunately, my good friend Nick Gillespie does explain why.  Nice column by Nick. 

Stoned & Starvin'

Queen my Spam! (You know, to make it funny)

Just got the strangest email.

Dear Webmaster, 
 I am Bryce Mills and I’m contacting you on behalf of MedExpressRx.com. 

While reviewing my site’s links I noticed that you’ve linked to my website on your following pages, http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/*****
http://mungowitzend.blogspot.com/*****

 Link Type: Blog Comment 

I would be very grateful if you could remove the aforementioned links from your website. These links may have been either submitted by our previously hired professionals or by third party SEOs. However these are against our company’s current SEO policies and thereby needs to be removed from your WebPages. 

It would be great if you could inform me about the link removal via email. 

Kind Regards, 
Bryce Mills, Web Marketing Team, 
Website: - www. MedExpressRx.com 
Email:- brycemills.med@gmail.com

I checked those links, and what happened is that this spamming fake medical company put up spamming fake "comments" on those two posts, to increase their Google ranking.

And now they want ME to go to those pages, and delete their spam.  Oh, and I should confirm back to them when I have finished that chore.  It's like some graffiti punk sprayed paint on my car, but now demands that I get the car repainted because his graffiti no longer pleases him.

I sent back an email saying that I would not be doing that.  And that I hoped they would send some additional communication, some kind of threat or attempt at intimidation.  Because then we would all be famous.

The golden age of 'murcan tennis?

 By the way, congrats to Rafa on major championship #13!

Hairy Elefante

See what I did there?

Anyway, here's a new painting by one of my favorite young artists, Nigel Conway:

And here's a great video to go along with the art:

Why Do Prescription Drug Makers Advertise?

Advertisements impact the physiological efficacy of a branded drug 

Emir Kamenica, Robert Naclerio & Anup Malani
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, forthcoming

Abstract: We conducted randomized clinical trials to examine the impact of direct-to-consumer advertisements on the efficacy of a branded drug. We compared the objectively measured, physiological effect of Claritin (Merck & Co.), a leading antihistamine medication, across subjects randomized to watch a movie spliced with advertisements for Claritin or advertisements for Zyrtec (McNeil), a competitor antihistamine. Among subjects who test negative for common allergies, exposure to Claritin advertisements rather than Zyrtec advertisements increases the efficacy of Claritin. We conclude that branded drugs can interact with exposure to television advertisements. 

Nod to Kevin Lewis

It's enough to make you want to break your arm

You might want to break your arm, just to get aholt of some of these drugs.  Apparently.


Now we know what Angry Alex does on weekends...

Since No Taxpayer $$ is Involved....

Since No Taxpayer $$ is Involved....why not buy the really NICE police cars?  Anonyman sends this suggestion (note the Lamborghini on the wall, to save space).

You remember, I hope, that if the police finance their purchases from money they seized because it was "related" to a drug bust (distant cousin, by adoption, in many cases), then "no taxpayer money was involved."  Lamborghinis all around!  They gots 'em in Dubai, why not Wendell?

An Insult to "Corrupt"

Calling U.S. drug enforcement "corrupt" is an insult.  To the word "corrupt."  Corruption is old, and sort of honorable, a way of smoothing out bad government.  But U.S. drug enforcement is bizarrely hypocritical, with lots of sharp edges.

HSBC settlement:  Appalling.

Outright theft of a family-owned hotel, because some tenants used drugs.

Outright theft of money, for ...well, for no actual reason at all.  Some people thought the guy might, possibly, maybe buy drugs.  Later.

So, to review:  if you are a large corporation, and can pay off the government, you are free to participate in the wholesale distribution of drugs.  If you try to run a legitimate business, however, that entire business can be taken from you.  And if the cops find any sort of asset they can steal, they will just take the money, like Mexcan Federales in some bad movie.  You have to sue to get the money back, and the burden of proof is on YOU to show you were NOT going to spend the money on drugs.

Here's the interesting thing:  in the late stages of Prohibition, corruption took the form of payoffs to crooked cops.  With the civil forfeiture rules now in place, corruption takes the form of simple, direct theft:  the authorities simply take anything of value that that they want, unless you are a large corporation and can afford lots of lawyers.

I keep calling it "corrupt."  But I don't think that word means what I think it means.  I need a knew word.

Nod to MK

Sarbox, Dodd-Frank, and Now the Drug War

I am always amazed that my colleagues think that Sarbox or Dodd-Frank increase regulation, and are therefore good.  What they do, and what they are designed to do, is to advantage the big financial companies  (Goldman in particular, but generally the large outfits) at the advantage of small nimble companies that would otherwise make the industry competitive.

All Sarbox or Dodd-Frank really do is the raise the cost of doing business legally.  As an intercept shift, just a bunch of fixed costs.  If you already have a giant accounting and compliance office, like the big shops, then this is just a small extra cost, one that is easily passed on to customers as fees.  But if you are a small shop, or are considering entering the industry, the effect is devestating.  You have to make a much bigger nut to pay off your accountants and compliance people, before you can run even your first transaction.  If you want to lie, the SEC won't catch you, so the Bernie Madoffs of the world are perfectly safe.  This regulation doesn't affect actual criminal behavior, it just represents an entry barrier for new firms that want to do business legally.

It's true that compliance costs fall on big banks also, but you have to think about Bastiat's "seen and unseen."  What we don't see is the new firms that are not there, the start-ups that do not happen.  The big firms would prefer no regulation, perhaps, but this is the next best thing: regulation that reduces competition.

This is hardly surprising.  The Obama administration, and the Democratic party generally, is bought and paid for by the dinosaurs of the financial industry.  Goldman, et al. are desperately trying to defend what they see as their birthright of keeping what they win--if they win--and getting bailed out at taxpayer expense--if they lose.  Gotta keep the little guys out.  That's what regulation is designed to do, and that is what regulation does in fact do.  The idea that Dodd-Frank was "better" regulation is risible.  I'm laughing at it right now, in fact.  Ha.  Ha ha!

What I did not expect is that this logic would extend also to ILLEGAL business.  Consider:

The paradox of the war on drugs is that the harder governments push the fight, the higher drug prices become to compensate for the greater risks. That leads to larger profits for traffickers who avoid being punished. This is why larger drug gangs often benefit from a tougher war on drugs, especially if the war mainly targets small-fry dealers and not the major drug gangs. Moreover, to the extent that a more aggressive war on drugs leads dealers to respond with higher levels of violence and corruption, an increase in enforcement can exacerbate the costs imposed on society.

Logorrhea

Many words being spilt in UC's logo-gate. Here's an example:

The newly designed monogram of the University of California, while attempting to be modern, loses the prestige and elegance of the current seal.

Have a gander;

Let's give this kerfuffle the KPC breakdown:

(1)  there is nothing elegant about the original seal. A star, a book, and a plagiarized quote that makes no sense in this context.

(2) The second seal (sounds like we're discussing a Bergman movie) isn't "attempting" to be modern. It is modern and pretty cool at that.

(3) Most importantly, the seal doesn't give prestige to the institution, the quality of the institution gives prestige (or recognition) to the seal! Harvard isn't Harvard because of the prestige of their seal. It's the other way around.

Frampton comes full circle

Ex-UNC prof Paul Frampton has now been convicted of drug running in Argentina and sentenced to 4 years, 8 months.

Earlier KPC coverage of this story can be found here.

He claims he was scammed by a babe. But the prosecution says he texted said babe gems like: "I'm worried about the sniffer dogs".

Confirming my previous allegation that Frampton's drug of choice is LSD, he hopes to serve his time in a friend's apartment.

That's not how they roll, homie.

How to make $$$ selling drugs!

With thanks to Angry Alex, who passes on this gem pointed out by Radley Balko.

On the other hand....drugs in Russia.  Pretty bad, depressing story.  I guess in (ex)Soviet Russia, drugs do YOU.

Lagniappe:  Imagine what Michael Phelps could have accomplished if he had not done those bowls!