Sunday, May 18, 2025
Jed Rubenfeld: It's a Terrible Idea, But Trump Probably Can Accept a Free Jet From Qatar
Tyler Cowen: The Hidden Cruelty of Capping Drug Prices
Pharma is more complicated, because the additional spending gets us more drugs through the channel of encouraging more research and development. But the basic mechanisms are the same, and there is strong evidence that additional market spending—which so many oppose—does lead to the invention of more new drugs. If a new drug is very profitable, companies will invest more in trying to discover new drugs.But I'd never heard this put this way, which I think is enlightening:
That’s why trying to artificially force the prices of pharmaceuticals down can raise their prices, albeit in a somewhat invisible manner. Right now, properly understood, the prices of most drugs are infinite. That is, the drugs do not exist. That includes possible drugs for cancer, ALS, Parkinson’s, dementia, and many other maladies. Higher prices mean better incentives for discovery, and over time the prices of these would-be drugs will fall from infinity to something within the realm of human possibility.
Peter Wood: Will DEI Madness Return to the University of Florida?
Saturday, May 17, 2025
McCarthy: Can We 86 '8647'?
Rational, as usual:
The term “86” is an old one and it just means to throw something away, to get rid of it because it has no useful purpose. In the glossary of words anti-Trumpers of the left and right have applied to the president, it is comparatively tame. It is tame, too, in comparison to the words and imagery Trump has applied to his political opponents. And that some lunatic fringe may invoke “86” to suggest assassination does not mean the term loses its familiar meaning — any more than the mafia’s use of “off” to refer to murder means the rest of us have to stop saying “off.”
Everybody knows Comey is deeply opposed to Trump and would like to see him impeached; nobody with a brain who is speaking honestly believes Comey wants Trump to be killed. It should not have been necessary to make this point, but in taking his foolish Instagram post down, Comey asserted that he opposes violence, had no thought that “86 47” was a call to violence, and had no intention of suggesting violence.
The people who are feigning great offense over this are the same people who staunchly defended Trump’s Ellipse speech and who bristled at the description of the January 6 riot as an insurrection.
Just as I think Comey should avoid using cyphers that others can easily misinterpret (intentionally or otherwise), I didn’t think, politically speaking, there was any defending Trump’s speech or the unrest at the Capitol. But legally speaking, it was utter distortion to portray Trump’s speech as criminal incitement, and what happened at the Capitol was clearly not an insurrection (a term Lincoln applied to the Civil War). That is why Trump, though indicted on scores of criminal counts, was never charged with incitement (the federal offense is called “solicitation to commit a crime of violence” — Section 373 of the penal code). And it’s why not a single one of the 1,600 people prosecuted over January 6 was charged with insurrection (Section 2383).
I made those points more times than I can count over the past four years... That said, Trump’s Ellipse speech — in particular, his urging his followers to “fight,” knowing he was also exhorting them to march on the Capitol — was closer to incitement than anything Comey said. And it still wasn’t incitement. And experienced prosecutors, investigators, and security officials know that.
What a stupid time to be alive.
Eighty-Six the Snowflake Right
Friday, May 16, 2025
8645
Or, alternatively 8647...but he'll always be 45 to me....*
So far nothing in any way surprising or notable about this.
* I'm being lazy with the single-quotes here, leaving it to your brain to automatically sort out whatever use-mention problems there might be here.
** This, notably, does seem to be mostly deduction, whereat--notoriously--most of Holmes's "deductions" are actually abductions (or inferences to the best explanation, or whatever flavor of explanatory inference you prefer).
Wednesday, May 14, 2025
Drug Price Controls: Trump's Worst Idea Since Tariffs?
Since I'm still not sold on the view that tariffs are obviously stupid under prevailing conditions, this seems to me to be just about his worst idea.
Monday, May 12, 2025
Christopher Caldwell: Trump Takes on Disparate Impact
It's absolutely imperative that we kill disparate impact theory.
It's very unlikely we'll be able to do so.
TFP: Trump's Disgraceful "Palace in the Sky:" The Dubai 747
He's probably constitutionally incapable of resisting a bribe present like this.
"What Is Becoming Of College Sports?"
A massive pile of shit, that's what.
College sports is basically dead is what.
Wesley J. Smith: Bioethics is Becoming Just Another "Social Justice" Political Movement
The Pulitzer for Fake News Goes to...
If you can win 'em for Russiagate, I guess you can win 'em for anything.
Turley: Hypocritical Dem Law Firms Squeal About Trump Turning the Tables on Them
Turley seems right yet again: Trump shouldn't be doing this, but these law firms really do deserve it.
Washington Times: VA Dems Can't Seem To Give Up "Trans" Madness
Thursday, May 08, 2025
Trump's "Trans" Military Ban
Bill Ackman: Harvard Losing Tax Exemption is Fair Game
NRO: "Trump's Detente With the Houthis"
A different perspective.
I don't even really understand why Obama's Iran deal was so bad, TBH. Is it really possible to keep up with all this stuff?
Not for me, apparently.
Matthew Petti: "Trump Gets Bored With The War In Yemen" (?)
I don't even know whether this is a fair assessment.