Quotulatiousness

February 27, 2018

Many Americans feel that the elites have “betrayed and abandoned them for a mess of virtue signaling and glib ideologizing”

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

ESR on the fraught subject of US immigration policy:

Crime is a real issue. Legal immigrants have a slightly higher criminal propensity than the native born (the difference is small enough that its significance is disputed) but illegals’ propensity is much higher, to the point that 22% of all incarcerees are illegals (that’s 92% of all jailed immigrants).

But the elephant in the room is the impact of illegal immigration on social trust.

Diversity erodes social trust, trust being that extremely valuable form of social capital that enables people to make handshake deals, leave their doors unlocked, and trust institutions to treat them fairly. Sociologist Robert Putnam was so shocked to discover this that he sat on his results for seven years before publishing. In diverse communities trust drops not only between ethnolinguistic groups but within them. It’s insidious and very harmful – low-trust societies are bad, bad places to live.

The U.S. has a proud tradition of assimilating legal immigrants into a high-trust society, but it succeeds in this by making them non-diverse – teaching them to assimilate folk values and blend in. Putnam’s work suggests strongly that without the ability to rate-limit immigration to be within some as yet undetermined maximum, the harm from erosion of trust would exceed the benefits of immigration.

We are probably above the optimal legal immigration rate – the highest compatible with avoiding net decrease in social trust over time – already (later in this post it will become obvious why I believe this). There is little doubt that we would greatly exceed it without immigration controls.

Anyway, even if ending border enforcement were a good idea (and I conclude that it is not, despite my libertarian reflexes) it’s a political nonstarter in the U.S. Trump got elected by appealing to sentiment against illegals, and beneath that is a phenomenon one might call Putnam backlash; everywhere outside a few blue-state enclaves, Americans sense the erosion of social trust and have connected it to illegal immigration.

And on the very strong divergence of opinion between the elite (very pro-immigration) and non-elite (becoming much more anti-immigration over time):

One of the major forces currently poisoning our politics is a breakdown in trust between people like you and me – the cognitive elites – and the rest of America. Deplorables. Flyover country. Brexit, and Trump’s election, slapped me upside the head. I’ve been forced to confront some uncomfortable truths.

They think we’ve betrayed and abandoned them for a mess of virtue signaling and glib ideologizing. On the left: identity politics, PC, and open borders justified on multiculturalist grounds. On the right: free trade and open borders justified on laissez-faire principle.

They have a point. I’m seeing that now.

I mean, I might still think free trade is a good idea and have lots of arguments for it. But my arguments don’t mean fuck-all to a Rust-Belt steelworker who’s watched his livelihood get exported and the community around him wither and has nothing left but a cheap high on opioids. Nor to an unskilled black or legal-immigrant urbanite who can’t get a job because the restaurants can hire illegals for cheaper.

We owe these people more than we have given them. What we owe can’t mainly be paid in money. It’s compassion; a fair hearing. Respect. Not dismissing them as trash or troglodytes because they don’t love the brave new globalized world that gives us options but – too often – closes off theirs.

I don’t have easy solutions to these problems. But is it too much to ask that people like you and me should stop being arrogant assholes about them?

February 26, 2018

A few jotted notes on woodworking plane companies

Filed under: Britain, Business, History, Technology, USA, Woodworking — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

I’ve been dabbling more in the woodworking hand tool market recently, and found myself getting confused about the various manufacturers and their products. Mostly to try to sort out the history for myself, I started taking notes as I trawled from website to forum to auction site, looking for answers. In a very abbreviated and assuredly incomplete and inaccurate thumbnail sketch, here’s how I think the woodworking hand tool market has changed over the last hundred and fifty years or so:

  • Until the mid-19th century, most woodworkers made their own tools whenever they could, as the ability of manufacturers to produce economical, dependable tools was limited, and woodworkers (like other skilled craftsman of the early industrial era) were capable of producing most of the necessary tools with only minimal outlay to other trades.
  • By the mid-19th century, innovators and inventors were prolific in their proposed solutions to all kinds of problems (some real and many probably imaginary). Among those many, many febrile innovators was a gentleman named Leonard Bailey. Bailey managed to almost single-handedly revolutionize the woodworking market by coming up with a line of hand planes that could out-compete most of the hand-made competitors while taking advantage of the economies of scale offered by mass production. It became more economical for a woodworker to buy a ready-made tool rather than take time away from productive work to fabricate it for himself.
  • The Stanley Works of Massachusetts bought Bailey’s company — probably more for the value of Leonard’s patents than for the company’s sake itself — and parlayed that patent protection into becoming the acknowledged standard for woodworking planes.
  • Even after the Bailey patents expired, other manufacturers paid backhanded tribute to Bailey by straight-out cloning his designs with very minor changes and putting their own functional copies on sale in direct competition with the original Stanley products … often even using the same or barely concealed names/numbers for their clones (for example, the British company Record generally just prepended a zero in front of the “standard” Stanley model numbers, where a #4 plane from Stanley was a #04 from Record).
  • In the British market following the financial crisis of 1929, the government’s imposition of tariffs against inter alia American hand tool manufacturers encouraged many British companies to introduce Stanley clones for both domestic and Imperial markets. To their credit, not all of the opportunistic entrants went for the low-hanging fruit, and some of the British clones were at least as good and in some cases superior to the original products.
  • After the Second World War, the market for woodworking hand tools in North America began a rapid decline, although it remained strong enough in Britain to keep many of the clone manufacturers going for another 20 years or so. In response to the softening market, Stanley began to cheapen their manufacturing processes and the product quality began a precipitous decline.
  • By the early 1970s, Stanley had almost completely given up the hand tool market in woodworking, and their products were a sad mockery of what they’d been producing just a decade before, but North American woodworkers were inundated with innovative power tools from, among others, Black & Decker and the Sears Craftsman line that promised better/faster/more productive output from amateur woodworking shops than could be done with hand tools alone. That, coupled with the decreased emphasis on “shop” subjects in North American high school curricula meant that youngsters didn’t automatically become familiar with the use of hand tools unless they were already interested and had access to a workshop to indulge that interest.
  • The same process of shrinking market requiring “rationalization” and “economization” hit the British manufacturers fifteen to twenty years after Stanley and their surviving American competitors, and the order of the day was ever-shrinking profit margins, smaller markets, and mergers/bankruptcies/take-overs among the tool manufacturers.
  • After the financial bloodbath of the 70s through the 90s, it became clear that there was still a small-but-affluent market for quality woodworking hand tools, and a few new entrants made their mark by first copying the best designs of the past and then, hesitatingly, innovating with modern technology beyond what was possible a generation or two earlier.

Here are some notes I jotted down about a few of the key woodworking hand tool manufacturers and their respective rise and decline, based on a very cursory survey of what information is available online at the moment:

STANLEY (USA, UK, CANADA and AUSTRALIA)

A vintage Stanley No. 4 smoothing plane from a recent eBay listing. Even though this is the single most common woodworking plane ever, the example I own is a late-70s piece of crap, so I went looking for a more representative image.

The Stanley Works was founded in 1843 by Frederick Stanley in New Britain, Connecticut.

In 1857, the Stanley Rule & Level Company was founded by Frederick Stanley’s cousin Henry. I imagine most people of the time assumed there was only the single Stanley company, as they produced products in related-but-not-competitive fields.

Stanley purchased Bailey, Chaney and Company in 1869 along with the Bailey plane patents. The Bailey patents were the key to Stanley’s future dominance of the hand plane market.

Stanley Rule & Level Co. purchased the Roxton Tool and Mill Company in Roxton Pond, Quebec (founded 1873). Manufacturing continued here from 1907 until about 1984. From the timing, I assume this was seen as a good way to get Stanley hand tools into the Canadian market without paying tariffs.

In 1920, The Stanley Works merged with the Stanley Rule & Level Company. The initials “S.W.” within a heart outline was introduced at that time. Later references to tools with this mark invariably refer to them as “Sweetheart”, but it’s not clear that the newly unified Stanley used that term in their own marketing until a few years later. The logo and name have been revived in the last decade or so, probably to cash in on the nostalgia factor.

In 1937, Stanley acquired J.A. Chapman (of Sheffield, England). I’m assuming this was a shortcut to getting non-tariff access to the British (and Imperial) hand tool market.

Stanley manufactured planes in Australia from 1965 to the early 1990s in Moonah, Tasmania.

In 2010, The Stanley Works merged with Black & Decker to become Stanley Black & Decker (Stanley Hand Tools is a division of the much larger company).

MILLERS FALLS (USA)

I happen to actually own a Millers Falls #9 smoothing plane (as of Friday). Look similar to the Stanley #4 above? It should, as it’s a near-clone.

Incorporated in 1868 as the Millers Falls Manufacturing Company, renamed as the Millers Falls Company in 1872. Introduced hand planes into its line of tools in 1928/29. Millers Falls chose to compete for the high-end of the hand tool market and managed to carve out a profitable niche for themselves, especially in the hand plane segment. Their futuristic plastic-and-chrome “Buck Rogers” planes of the late 1950s were visually distinctive enough that they kept the company in the black for longer than almost all of their US competitors.

In 1957, Millers Falls acquired the Union Tool Company of Orange, Massachusetts. The Union brand was kept active until 1975 when the Union plant was closed down.

Millers Falls became a subsidiary of Ingersoll Rand in 1962, and closed down their Massachusetts operation in 1982 with a corporate relocation to New Jersey after a buyout.

RECORD (UK)

(front) A Record No. 05 jack plane, a close copy of the Stanley #5

Record was a brand name used by C & J Hampton from 1909. The company was founded in 1898 and incorporated a decade later. The founders, Charles and Joseph Hampton, had left the family business (The Steel Nut & Joseph Hampton Ltd in Wednesbury, Staffordshire) to set up shop in Sheffield. Joseph eventually returned to the family firm, but the sons of Charles succeeded to leadership roles in the younger company.

The first Record planes were offered for sale in 1931 (No. 03 through 08 and three block planes: No. 0110, 0120 and 0220). Record got into the plane business partly due to the preferential tariffs the British government levied on foreign (mainly American) hand tools and the fact that the Stanley Works’ Bailey patents had expired, so there was no legal issue with flat-out cloning Stanley’s plane line.

In 1934, Record took over production of some Edward Preston and Sons Ltd. products (mainly bullnose and rabbet planes). Preston had been acquired by John Rabone and Sons Ltd. (Birmingham) in 1932, but they decided to stick with the rule and level business and offload the plane manufacturing to Record.

Woden Tools Ltd was purchased from The Steel Nut & Joseph Hampton Ltd in 1961 and Record continued to use the Woden trademark for another 10 years (some sources say only five years: take your pick).

Record acquired 50% of William Marples and Sons Limited in 1963, the other 50% being held by William Ridgway & Sons, Ltd. (Parkway Works), also of Sheffield.

In 1972, Record merged with Ridgway to form Record Ridgway Tools Ltd.

In 1982, Record Ridgeway was acquired by AB Bahco of Sweden, but a management buyout in 1985 took it back to British ownership as Record Holdings plc.

In 1988 the company became Record Marples (Woodworking Tools) Ltd.

In 1998, Record Marples accepted an offer from American Tool Corporation and became part of the Record Irwin Group as Record Tools Ltd. Irwin was acquired by Stanley Black & Decker in 2017.

WODEN TOOLS (UK)

A pair of Woden planes as shown on the wodentools.com website.

Woden Tools was a wholly owned subsidiary of The Steel Nut & Joseph Hampton Ltd, producing planes from 1953/54 in Wednesbury, Staffordshire. (The planes were originally manufactured by W.S Manufacturing (Birmingham), which was acquired by The Steel Nut & Joseph Hampton around 1952.)

C & J. Hampton (Record) purchased Woden Tools Ltd from SNJH in 1961 and continued to use the Woden trademark for another 10 years (some sources say only until 1965).

LEE VALLEY/VERITAS (CANADA and USA)

A current Veritas 5 1/4 junior jack plane from Lee Valley Tools

Founded in 1978 by Leonard Lee in Ottawa, Ontario. The first out-of-town store was opened in 1982 (Toronto West). I think I visited that store in its original location in 1984. The company launched their website in 1997 and added e-commerce features in 2000.

In the early-to-mid 1980s, Lee Valley contracted with Footprint (UK) to produce a line of bench planes to their specifications. The “Paragon” line were sold in Canada by Lee Valley and by Garret Wade in the United States for a few years, but quality issues apparently doomed the venture. In a thread on the Sawmillcreek.org forums, Robin Lee said “Actually – we ‘remanufactured’ many of them here [in Ottawa]… We set out the specs, made some tooling changes, and had Footprint make them for us (and GW). All planes were received and inspected … – and in many cases, fettled and reground… We abandoned the brand shortly after – and formed Veritas tools as our manufacturing company…”

In 1999, the first Lee Valley manufactured plane, the Low-Angle Block Plane, was introduced. The Veritas line of bench planes was launched in 2001. The first shoulder plane was introduced in 2003. In 2014, the Veritas Custom Bench Plane line was introduced, which the company characterizes as the first user-customizable line of planes in the industry.

In 1982, the company began manufacturing its own tools under the Veritas label. In 1985, Lee Valley Manufacturing Ltd. was incorporated and later renamed as Veritas Tools, Inc. Manufacturing is primarily in Ottawa and (possibly) in Ogdensburg, New York.

February 24, 2018

Is Unemployment Undercounted?

Filed under: Economics, Government, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

Marginal Revolution University
Published on 25 Oct 2016

You may recall from our previous video that to be counted in the official unemployment rate in the U.S., you have to be an adult without a job and have actively looked for work within the past four weeks. That means that if someone has given up looking for a job, even if they want one, they are no longer counted under the official definition.

Does this mean that unemployment is undercounted? In other words, is the unemployment rate in fact higher than is reported?

Some have claimed this to be the case. However, unemployment is a tricky statistic. It’s important to consider that adults without jobs can fall into different categories. Many retirees, for example, are willing to leave retirement and take a job for the right price. If we are counting people that aren’t actively looking for employment, shouldn’t the retirees also be considered unemployed?

The simplest solution to this conundrum is to only count unemployed adults actively seeking work.

But what about discouraged workers — those who are unemployed and have not sought work in the past four weeks, but have sought work in the past year. Should we consider them in our calculations?

There are actually six different unemployment rates measured by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The various rates have less and more stringent criteria. The official rate, called U3, falls somewhere in the middle. Another rate, called U4, does include discouraged workers in its calculation. All six rates follow a similar track over time.

So while the official unemployment rate may not be perfect, it does provide us with a good indicator of the state of the labor market and where it’s headed.

February 23, 2018

Cuban Missile Crisis – Eyeball to Eyeball – Extra History – #2

Extra Credits
Published on 22 Feb 2018

Sponsored by DomiNations: https://smarturl.it/CubanMissile1

After President Kennedy’s television address, tensions are rising. Fidel Castro is getting annoyed at the US and Soviet Union alike, and everyone else has their own ideas on what retaliation looks like.

Timothy Sandefur’s Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man

Filed under: Books, History, Liberty, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

Jonathan Bean responds to a negative review of Sandefur’s new biography in the New York Times:

Frederick Douglass, whose bicentennial birthday fell on Valentine’s Day, is one of the great figures in American history, a hero whose legacy is celebrated even by those who might otherwise contest his actual ideas.

Illustrating this truth, the New York Times marked the occasion by publishing a largely negative review of Timothy Sandefur’s new biography, Frederick Douglass: Self-Made Man — a book that depicts the African-American ex-slave and social reformer as a classical liberal who championed individual liberty based upon natural rights, self-reliance, and Rule of Law.

The book reviewer, Yale University historian David W. Blight, criticizes Sandefur and other “conservatives” for “co-opting” Douglass. (Sandefur is a self-described libertarian, but in Blight’s mind, ‘libertarian’ and ‘conservative’ are distinctions without a difference.) In making this complaint, Blight demonstrates his confusion as to the meaning of “the Right” and classical liberalism.

Blight concedes that Douglass was a “radical thinker and a proponent of classic 19th-century political liberalism” who “loved the Declaration of Independence” and “the natural-rights tradition.” On these issues, Blight’s view is consistent with Sandefur’s libertarian interpretation of Douglass.

Yet, Blight goes on to protest that the libertarians (or conservatives — he conflates the two groups) are wrong to co-opt Douglass because the great abolitionist “believed that freedom was safe only with the state and under law.”

But this view of freedom’s security is not one that libertarians would dispute. To say otherwise is to make a classic straw man argument.

[…]

Blight’s review gets two things about political classification especially wrong. First, classical liberalism is neither Left nor Right. Throughout history, classical liberals have extolled “unalienable Rights,” individual freedom from government control, the U.S. Constitution as a guarantor of freedom, color-blind law, and capitalism. These values distinguish classical liberalism from left-wing liberalism, with its emphasis on group rights, equality of outcomes, and hostility to free-market capitalism. They also put classical liberals squarely in opposition to nativists and white supremacists who used the law as a weapon to exclude “undesirable” immigrants or separate the races in the American South.

Second, “libertarianism” — the modern descendant of classical liberalism — is not and never has been a “do-nothing” philosophy. Classic liberals (or libertarians) were activists for abolishing slavery, eradicating segregation, defending immigrants’ rights, passing anti-lynching measures, and much more. Indeed, although they recognized the role that law played in protecting the exercise of liberty, it was the law that so often violated the inalienable rights of Americans. Classical liberals fought slavery, segregation, pernicious immigration quotas, internment, and “affirmative action” because these government measures denied individuals equal protection of the law.

Blight’s conceptual errors may account for why he sometimes badly misreads his subject. He claims, for example, that Douglass loved “the reinvented Constitution — the one rewritten in Washington during Reconstruction, not the one created in Philadelphia in 1789.” This is a gross mischaracterization of Douglass’s views.

QotD: Cosmopolitans, as viewed by non-Cosmopolitans

Filed under: Britain, Europe, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

… it’s a problem that our tribe of self-styled cosmopolitans doesn’t see itself clearly as a tribe: because that means our leaders can’t see themselves the way the Brexiteers and Trumpistas and Marine Le Pen voters see them.

They can’t see that what feels diverse on the inside can still seem like an aristocracy to the excluded, who look at cities like London and see, as Peter Mandler wrote for Dissent after the Brexit vote, “a nearly hereditary professional caste of lawyers, journalists, publicists, and intellectuals, an increasingly hereditary caste of politicians, tight coteries of cultural movers-and-shakers richly sponsored by multinational corporations.”

They can’t see that paeans to multicultural openness can sound like self-serving cant coming from open-borders Londoners who love Afghan restaurants but would never live near an immigrant housing project, or American liberals who hail the end of whiteness while doing everything possible to keep their kids out of majority-minority schools.

They can’t see that their vision of history’s arc bending inexorably away from tribe and creed and nation-state looks to outsiders like something familiar from eras past: A powerful caste’s self-serving explanation for why it alone deserves to rule the world.

Ross Douthat, “The Myth of Cosmopolitanism”, New York Times, 2016-07-03.

February 22, 2018

QotD: The importance of defining your terms

Filed under: Liberty, Politics, Quotations, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 01:00

If you don’t understand these [gun-related] terms already, why should you care? You should care because when you misuse them, you signal substantially broader gun restrictions than you may actually be advocating. So, for instance, if you have no idea what semi-automatic means, but you’ve heard it and it sounds scary, and you assume that it means some kind of machine gun, so you argue semi-automatics should be restricted, you’ve just conveyed that most modern handguns (save for revolvers) should be restricted, even if that’s not what you meant.

It’s hard to grasp the reaction of someone who understands gun terminology to someone who doesn’t. So imagine we’re going through one of our periodic moral panics over dogs and I’m trying to persuade you that there should be restrictions on, say, Rottweilers.

Me: I don’t want to take away dog owners’ rights. But we need to do something about Rottweilers.
You: So what do you propose?
Me: I just think that there should be some sort of training or restrictions on owning an attack dog.
You: Wait. What’s an “attack dog?”
Me: You know what I mean. Like military dogs.
You: Huh? Rottweilers aren’t military dogs. In fact “military dogs” isn’t a thing. You mean like German Shepherds?
Me: Don’t be ridiculous. Nobody’s trying to take away your German Shepherds. But civilians shouldn’t own fighting dogs.
You: I have no idea what dogs you’re talking about now.
Me: You’re being both picky and obtuse. You know I mean hounds.
You: What the fuck.
Me: OK, maybe not actually ::air quotes:: hounds ::air quotes::. Maybe I have the terminology wrong. I’m not obsessed with vicious dogs like you. But we can identify kinds of dogs that civilians just don’t need to own.
You: Can we?

Because I’m just talking out of my ass, the impression I convey is that I want to ban some arbitrary, uninformed category of dogs that I can’t articulate. Are you comfortable that my rule is going to be drawn in a principled, informed, narrow way?

So. If you’d like to persuade people to accept some sort of restrictions on guns, consider educating yourself so you understand the terminology that you’re using. And if you’re reacting to someone suggesting gun restrictions, and they seem to suggest something nonsensical, consider a polite question of clarification about terminology.

Ken White, “Talking Productively About Guns”, Popehat, 2015-12-07.

February 18, 2018

“The minority of one is the most oppressed minority of all”

Filed under: Britain, Liberty, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

Matt Ridley on the rising tide of neo-Victorian prudery in western society:

Is it so different here or are we slipping down the same slope? Pre-Raphaelite paintings that show the top halves of female nudes are temporarily removed from an art gallery’s walls; young girls are forced to wear headscarves in school; darts players and racing drivers may not be accompanied by women in short skirts; women are treated differently from men at universities, as if they were the weaker sex, and saved from seeing upsetting paragraphs in novels; sex is negotiated in advance with the help of chaperones. We have been here before.

In Orlando, Virginia Woolf’s novel of 1928, she portrayed the transition from the 18th century to the Victorian period thus: “Love, birth, and death were all swaddled in a variety of fine phrases. The sexes drew further and further apart. No open conversation was tolerated. Evasions and concealments were sedulously practised on both sides.”

How we laughed at such absurdity in my youth. But even for making the point that some of the new feminism seems “retrograde” in promoting the view that women are fragile, the American academic Katie Roiphe suffered a vicious campaign to have her article in Harper’s magazine banned before publication. “I find the Stalinist tenor of this conversation shocking,” she told The Sunday Times. “The basic assumption of freedom of speech is imperilled in our culture right now.”

The sin of blasphemy is back. There are things you simply cannot say about Islam and increasingly about Christianity, about climate change, about gender, to mention a few from a very long and growing list, without being accused of, and possibly prosecuted for, “hate speech”. Is it hate speech to say that Muhammad “delivers his country to iron and flame; that he cuts the throats of fathers and kidnaps daughters; that he gives to the defeated the choice of his religion or death: this is assuredly nothing any man can excuse”? That was Voltaire, one of my heroes. You may disagree with him but you should, in accordance with his principle, defend his right to say it. In demanding tolerance of minorities, many younger people seem to be remarkably intolerant.

There is an odd contradiction between the declared wish to live and let live — “diversity!”, “don’t judge!” — and the actual behaviour, which is ruthlessly and priggishly judgmental. They never stop drafting acts of uniformity, always in the name of the collective against the individual. The minority of one is the most oppressed minority of all.

The legal loophole that allows profiteering scumbags like Martin Shkreli to gouge the public

Filed under: Bureaucracy, Business, Government, Health, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

The US pharmaceutical market is a long way from a freely competitive environment, largely due to the amount of regulatory oversight required by lawmakers and enforced by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Among all the regulatory checks and balances, there’s one weird trick that allows predatory companies to reap excess profits legally — the “restricted distribution” loophole:

For immunocompromised adult patients who have the toxoplasmosis parasite, the FDA recommends taking 50 to 75 milligrams of Daraprim a day for up to three weeks, followed by half that dosage for an additional four to five weeks. So at the high end, an adult course of Daraprim therapy for a U.S. patient used to cost around $1,350 total.

While that might not seem cheap, it was a drop in the bucket compared to the cost after Turing Pharmaceuticals, Shkreli’s company, bought the rights to Daraprim and jacked the price up to $750 per pill in 2015. That move increased the cost of one course of treatment to around $75,000.

At that point you might have expected another company to jump in and start offering a generic version of the drug. But Shkreli used a regulatory loophole to keep that from happening.

You see, when a generic manufacturer wants to create a cheap version of a branded drug, it has to buy thousands of doses from the manufacturer in order to run comparison tests. Generic manufacturers use the results of these tests to prove to the FDA that their version is identical to the branded drug that the agency has already approved.

More often than not, the company that holds the marketing and distribution rights to a branded drug will sell those comparison doses to the generic manufacturer without being obstructionist, because that’s the trade-off for receiving a 20-year monopoly by way of a drug patent: The branded manufacturer gets to charge whatever they want for years and years without facing competition, and in exchange for that government-backed monopoly, it’s supposed to sell equivalency samples to generic companies.

But what if the company is run by an unscrupulous asshole like Martin Shkreli? Then it might opt to put the drug into what’s called “restricted distribution,” which means no distributor anywhere can sell comparison samples to a generic manufacturer.

The FDA originally created the concept of restricted distribution to limit the availability of drugs that might be dangerous. Methadone, for instance, was first approved in the 1940s as a painkiller. In the 1970s, the FDA restricted its availability because regulators didn’t want the opioid used for anything other than the treatment of opioid dependence. Even today, methadone can be dispensed only in highly regulated settings and only for one approved reason.

In 2007, Congress empowered the FDA to create an entire system of safety controls beyond restricted distribution, and the agency now requires the manufacturers of certain substances to develop Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS) to prevent misuse and abuse of potentially problematic compounds.

The list of approved drugs that the FDA says must have an REMS is here. Daraprim is not on that list. You can’t get high off it. It’s not habit forming. Yes, the FDA label says it can be carcinogenic after long periods of use, and that it might cause birth defects if used in high doses by pregnant women. These potential effects are serious, but there is no post-market data suggesting that Daraprim is causing more harm than benefit in the intended patient population. Shkreli’s company put Daraprim into restricted distribution to boost their profits, not protect patients.

February 17, 2018

Only 3.8% of American adults identify themselves as LGBT

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

Most people guess a much higher percentage, and if the poll was restricted to the under-30s, the number would likely be at least twice as high. The poll is a few years old now, but it points out that most Americans over-estimate the number of gays and lesbians in the population:

The American public estimates on average that 23% of Americans are gay or lesbian, little changed from Americans’ 25% estimate in 2011, and only slightly higher than separate 2002 estimates of the gay and lesbian population. These estimates are many times higher than the 3.8% of the adult population who identified themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender in Gallup Daily tracking in the first four months of this year.

The stability of these estimates over time contrasts with the major shifts in Americans’ attitudes about the morality and legality of gay and lesbian relations in the past two decades. Whereas 38% of Americans said gay and lesbian relations were morally acceptable in 2002, that number has risen to 63% today. And while 35% of Americans favored legalized same-sex marriage in 1999, 60% favor it today.

The U.S. Census Bureau documents the number of individuals living in same-sex households but has not historically identified individuals as gay or lesbian per se. Several other surveys, governmental and non-governmental, have over the years measured sexual orientation, but the largest such study by far has been the Gallup Daily tracking measure instituted in June 2012. In this ongoing study, respondents are asked “Do you, personally, identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender?” with 3.8% being the most recent result, obtained from more than 58,000 interviews conducted in the first four months of this year.

H/T to Gari Garion for the link.

February 16, 2018

Trump’s Fake News: Deep Breaths and Fact-Checking Might Just Save America

Filed under: Humour, Media, Politics, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 04:00

ReasonTV
Published on 15 Feb 2018

President Trump labels whatever he dislikes as “fake news,” and makes up his own, but the media is part of the problem. In the latest “Mostly Weekly,” Andrew Heaton provides a solution.

—————-

Donald Trump tends to call whatever he dislikes “fake news,” from inconvenient facts to unfavorable reporting. Even though the President himself is less a font of truth and more a spigot of self-serving exaggeration and insults.

But Trump isn’t all wrong when he labels reporting against him as fictitious or slanted. Reporters have become so enraged with the President that in their hurry to lambast him, they sometimes forget about fact checking and standard quality controls.

The result is that actual “fake news” is slipping into major news outlets. When hit pieces turn out to be false, they bolster Trump’s claims about the media and discredit journalists in the eyes of his supporters.

In the latest “Mostly Weekly” Andrew Heaton explains the relationship between “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” fake news, and a solution for the media.

Mostly Weekly is hosted by Andrew Heaton, with headwriter Sarah Rose Siskind.

Script by Sarah Rose Siskind with writing assistance from Andrew Heaton and Brian Sack.

Special guest appearance by Brian Sack as “TV doctor”

Edited by Austin Bragg and Siskind.

Produced by Meredith and Austin Bragg.

Theme Song: Frozen by Surfer Blood.

February 15, 2018

DicKtionary – D is for Dollars – Hetty Green

Filed under: Business, History, USA — Tags: , , , , — Nicholas @ 06:00

TimeGhost
Published on 14 Feb 2018

D is for dollars, 100 to the penny,
Some have but few, others have many,
Some hoard them too – the frugal and mean,
And none was more frugal than one Hetty Green.

Hosted and Written by: Indy Neidell
Based on a concept by Astrid Deinhard and Indy Neidell
Produced by: Spartacus Olsson
Executive Producers: Bodo Rittenauer, Astrid Deinhard, Indy Neidell, Spartacus Olsson
Edited by: Bastian Beißwenger

A TimeGhost format produced by OnLion Entertainment GmbH

February 13, 2018

Forensic (junk) science

Filed under: Law, Science, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 05:00

In The Nation, Meehan Crist and Tim Requarth report on a solved-by-forensic-science case that opens a lot of valid questions about the “science” part of forensic science:

Today, Genrich is 55 years old and has been in prison for nearly 25 years for crimes he says he didn’t commit. His latest appeal has been taken up by the Innocence Project, in the hopes of not only freeing Genrich, but getting the courts to recognize recent scientific challenges to forensic pattern-matching techniques that affect hundreds of thousands of people at all levels of the criminal-justice system. In our investigation, we comprehensively reviewed the literature on handheld toolmarks published in forensic trade journals, dug through past legal rulings, pored over nearly 7,000 pages of trial transcripts, and conducted dozens of interviews with prosecutors, defense attorneys, forensic practitioners, judges, academics, and scientists, from Grand Junction to the Department of Justice. What we found was a startling lack of scientific support for forensic pattern-matching techniques such as toolmark analysis; a legal system that has failed to separate nonsense from science even in capital cases; and a consensus among prosecutors all the way up to the attorney general’s office that scientifically dubious forensic techniques should be not only protected, but expanded. With Donald Trump in the White House and Jeff Sessions at the helm of the DOJ, the nominal momentum for forensic-science reform spurred by the two major reports is slowing. Genrich’s case reveals a system that makes it nearly impossible to throw unproven forensic science out of courts and may be keeping thousands of innocent people behind bars.

[…]

Firearm and toolmark analysis emerged out of a national push in the early 20th century to professionalize police investigative techniques at a moment when Americans were particularly enamored with science. Law enforcement borrowed terms from science, establishing crime “laboratories” staffed by forensic “scientists” who announced “theories” cloaked in their own specialized jargon. But forensic “science” focused on inventing clever ways to solve cases and win convictions; it was never about forming theories and testing them according to basic scientific standards. By adopting the trappings of science, the forensic disciplines co-opted its authority while abandoning its methods.

Amid the swirl of new forensic techniques, the courts realized there had to be a gatekeeping mechanism to filter out quackery. In 1923, the DC Court of Appeals provided that mechanism in Frye v. United States. The judges rejected a doctor’s dubious claim that he could use a polygraph to detect when a person was lying from a rise in their blood pressure. In the ruling, the court said that in order for scientific evidence or expert testimony to be admitted, it must be offered by an experienced practitioner making inferences from a “well-recognized scientific principle” that has “general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs.” In Frye, the judges deemed the scientists in the “particular field” relevant to polygraph use to include psychologists and physiologists—not just polygraph practitioners who would, presumably, be biased toward preserving the technique’s reputation. The effectiveness of Frye in keeping dubious science out of the courts depends on whom judges include in their definition of the “relevant scientific community.” But as the decades wore on, and the forensic disciplines gained influence, judges tended to restrict their definition of the “relevant scientific community” to the forensic examiners themselves. Judges began taking advice on what counted as good forensics from the very people who invented the techniques and made a living off of them.

In the American criminal-justice system, where prosecutors regularly battle defense attorneys over what constitutes valid evidence, judges’ rulings on admissibility are the final word. Once a technique has made it into court and survived appeals, subsequent judges, most of whom have no scientific training and little ability to assess the scientific validity of a technique, will continue to allow it by citing precedent. Forensic examiners, in turn, cite precedent in order to claim that their techniques are reliable science. Prosecutors point to guilty verdicts as evidence that the science brought to court was sound. In this circular way, legal rulings — which never really vetted the science to begin with — substitute for scientific proof. This is Frye’s fatal flaw: Nowhere in this process is anyone required to provide empirical evidence that the techniques work as advertised. Frye aimed to keep pseudoscience out of the courts, but instead has helped create the perfect conditions to keep it in.

[…]

No human endeavor is perfect, yet many forensic examiners claim “zero” or near-zero error rates. In a widely cited 1984 paper in the Journal of Forensic Sciences, bite-mark examiners claimed a coincidental match would occur less than one in 10 quadrillion times. But when actually tested, even the most experienced examiners were wrong about one in six times, and in one study they struggled to distinguish a child’s bite mark from an adult’s. In 2009, the chief of the FBI Firearms-Toolmarks Unit wrote that a qualified examiner will “rarely if ever commit a false positive error (misidentification).” In practice, error rates for matching bullets to firearms can be dramatically higher: In 2008, the Detroit Police Department’s crime lab was shuttered when auditors found that its examiners made one error in every 10 cases. The head of the FBI’s fingerprint laboratory testified that its error rate was one in 11 million—because he knew of only one error in the FBI’s 11 million comparisons—but subsequent tests of fingerprint examiners show error rates ranging from one in 680 to one in 24.

February 12, 2018

Australia’s unique contribution to hamburger culture – beetroot

Filed under: Australia, Food, History, USA, WW2 — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 03:00

On one of my mailing lists, an Australian member made a bit of a to-do about the only “proper” burger having “beetroot” on it, along with other (one assumes lesser) condiments. Having been pranked more than once by Aussie friends, I was sure he was just doing his bit to wind up the American burger purists on the list. Yet, a very cursory search produced this article from back in 2014 that appears to fully back the original assertion:

Australian hamburger sightings started during the ’30s: a by-product, no doubt, of our blossoming post-first world war relationship with America, but it wasn’t until the 1940s that beetroot began regularly appearing alongside tomato, lettuce and onion on burgers. That was thanks largely to the openings of the Edgell and Golden Circle canneries in 1926 and 1947 respectively – but one of the more interesting theories, however, suggests the trend has its origins in pranking US troops ashore on R&R.

“Maybe it was our desire not to be Americanised?” ponders Warren Fahey, Australian folklore collector and author of Australian food history compendium, Tucker Track. “For some reason the idea of hamburger wrapping stained by beetroot juice was accepted as the sign of a great hamburger. People get quite emotional over the subject of Australian hamburgers. Some say a real hamburger must have slices of canned beetroot and others still declare its inclusion as a travesty.”

According to Fahey, beetroot on burgers had its heyday in the ’50s and ’60s. Following the simultaneous 1971 arrival of fast food’s big two – the first McDonald’s opened in the Sydney suburb of Yagoona, while Hungry Jacks, the Aussie nom de plume of Burger King, began its Aussie campaign in Innaloo, just north of Perth – the combination’s popularity began to wane, as did that of milk bars, beachside kiosks and other traditional hamburger vendors.

Despite the sustained growth of American franchises, however, Australia’s burger-with-beetroot population remains stable. Even once the big players pull their seasonal go-Aussie burgers after 26 January, the odds of finding a beetroot-enriched specimen at a neighbourhood lunch bar or new-wave “gourmet” hamburger chain remain good.

[…] the country’s last Australian-owned cannery shut in 2013. Fortunately, the signs are promising that farmers in Queensland’s Lockyer Valley might soon have a processing facility to call their own. It’s a cause we can all get behind, not just for the sake of a rural Australian community, but in the name of national pride: an Aussie hamburger made using beetroot processed overseas just doesn’t seem fair dinkum.

A New Zealand member of the list also chimed in, saying that beetroot was an essential component of Kiwi hamburgers as well. While it might sound weird, it’s probably no more so than pickles or relish as a burger topping, once you get used to it.

Update: In 2017, New Zealand McDonald’s re-introduced the Kiwiburger, including beetroot:

So, you can get your beetroot burger fix in both Australia and New Zealand (for a limited time, anyway).

February 11, 2018

Bay area food entrepreneurs shut down by local health authorities

Filed under: Business, Food, Government, Health, Technology, USA — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 03:00

In Reason, Baylen Linnekin recounts the rise and fall of Josephine, an online operation intended to connect home cooks with willing buyers:

A dozen or so years ago, as my friend Dave was planning a move from Washington, D.C., to Philadelphia, he used the need to clean out his fridge before the move as an excuse to offer a half-empty jar of homemade kimchi for sale on Craigslist. While I don’t think the kimchi sold, Dave’s effort opened my eyes to the seemingly limitless possibilities of homemade online food sales.

The truth is that while those possibilities are limited theoretically only by imagination, they very often bump up in the real world against — to paraphrase Waylon Jennings — the limits of what the law will allow.

That truth was evident last week, when Bay Area food startup Josephine announced it will close its doors in March.

As I described in a Sacramento Bee op-ed in support of Josephine last year, the company launched nearly four years ago with a mission to provide cooks who are typically underrepresented in restaurant leadership — including women and immigrants — with a platform by which to sell home-cooked meals with their neighbors.

It’s a cool idea. And it worked quite well for a time. That is, as I noted, until local health officials “sent cease-and-desist letters to several Josephine cooks.”

Josephine responded by trying to work with lawmakers and regulators, pushing a bill in the state legislature that would provide some legal avenue for its cooks. Despite the fact that the bill is now moving through the California legislature, the company decided its passage would be too late for Josephine and its funders.

Josephine didn’t have to die. The regulations that have made it impossible for the company to operate should have died instead. But its fate mimics that of other similar home-food startups. A similar New York-based startup, Umi Kitchen, flamed out last year after just four months of operations. I wrote an appreciation of Forage Underground Market, the inventive San Francisco food swap that was shuttered by California state and local health authorities, way back in 2012. And I predicted at the time the food underground movement was just beginning to blossom.

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress