Overdue Links for February 6, 2011: FDA regulates stem cells as drugs; Obama ignores marijuana questions; Krugman pooh-poohs austerity; others….

February 12, 2012

    "Hold it right there, mister. Are those stem cells 'safe and effective'?"

  1. Stem cells, like other medical products that are intended to treat, cure, or prevent disease, generally require FDA approval before they can be marketed. At this time, there are no licensed stem cell treatments.”

    The article links to the actual FDA opinion. Over/under: How many tens of thousands of people to you think will die unnecessarily while awaiting awaiting the FDA to approve this procedure?

  2. Death by bureaucracy.

  3. How will Obama dance around it tonight? Let’s find out….

  4. [I]t ought to be obvious to everyone that something is very wrong when this many people keep asking the same question and the president has nothing to say.

    Completely ignored this time. Not even laughed at. The amazing thing was that the top questions were all posted right under the video as it aired. The powers that be here did not even try to cover up the blaring silence.

  5. Paul Krugman here in full flower. Usually missing from these austerity-bashing editorials is some indication that the government either actually has, or can reasonably obtain, the money that they are supposed to spend to jump-start the economy. Where is this money cming from? I’m looking for something like this. The concern is usually dismissed, a la Kevin Drum, as a can that may be safely kicked down the road. I say, “No. Let’s talk about that ish right now!”

  6. Politically motivated expulsion of cameramen from a hearing room. Pretty lame.

  7. I hope this means we can forget about it by year’s end. Maybe 2013 will be the “Year of the Bhagavad Gītā”.

  8. Here in America, I’m pretty sure that the court would not touch a case like this due to Establishment Clause concerns. Personally, I would be satisfied with leaving a record that I was baptized as a baby, presumably without my consent, and that I had voluntarily chosen to leave the church. I ain’t in it to re-write my history and say that what had happened did not happen.

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.


Last Week’s Links, for February 13, 2012: A Hodgepodge

February 11, 2012
  1. I think the “Big Think” is to progressives like what “LearnLiberty” is to libertarians. This is good, I think, because it showcases for us some often mind-numbing obliviousness.

    I must say I’m a bit confused. The man claims to have been drowning in an ocean of free marketers and Hayekians, yet he doesn’t seem to hear anything they say, much less comprehend it. First, he completely misrepresents their ideas. Then, he claims that no fiscal conservatives are talking about this, that, or the other progressive talking point. It’s as if he had never so much as visited a libertarian website in his life, much less had his voice drowned out by gaggles of real, live libertarians. Maybe he’s talking about Republicans. Hmmm….

  2. Probably the largest picture of Paul Krugman you’re likely to see on the web.

  3. We can gamble in Vegas. We can donate on Kiva or Kickstarter. But it’s illegal to purchase $100 of stock in a job-creating business? That makes no sense.

    The rule evidently applies to those without the financial wherewithal to satisfy the SEC.  I didn’t even know about it. Really? If this is true, then ‘free country’ my ass. It’s really a miracle that anything ever gets done at all with such shackles on markets.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for October 31, 2011: Stanhope on Liberty; Voices from the “1%”; Government owns polluted rivers; others….

October 29, 2011
  1. Fifteen minutes of brilliance. (NSFW: Language)

  2. Priceless. Uncut footage available here, here, here, and here. I would love even more. Apparently, the conversation lasted three hours.

  3. A different voice from the 1%, This one from the “tax me” contingent. Sorry. You can raise you own taxes if you want, but you got no moral authority to raise your neighbor’s taxes, as far as I’m concerned.

    I have spent far more hours than I should have these last few weeks … trying to understand who these people are and why they would possibly care about my taxes.

    It’s called empathy. It’s called reciprocity. I make more money than some unfortunate people, but I don’t like the idea of other people reaching into my pockets and taking my money on that account. On the other hand, I don’t think I’m better than everybody else. If there were a rule that said: “You may reach into anyone’s pocket but Tim G.’s.” I would consider that rule to be arbitrary and unfair to others. A more fair rule would be: “Nobody reaches into anyone else’s pockets.” I don’t have a particular love for this guy. I just think there ought to be predictable, non-arbitrary, even-handed rules of private property. Is that so wrong?

    The author also extols the government and union help his family received during his impoverished youth. It’s tough to play the “what if” game, but if the government did not interfere so much in the economy to limit people’s productive capacities there is reason to believe that his youth may not have been as bad as he assumes that it would have been. Again, I don’t have a crystal ball, but another way is possible.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for August 22, 2011: Obama on Medical Marijuana: “Herp derp, uh duuur.”; Krugman and Schiff on the Economic Benefits of Fake Space Alien Attacks; The FDA Protects Us From Cow Pee; others….

August 21, 2011
  1. Well, you know, a lot of states are making decisions about medical marijuana. As a controlled substance, the issue then is, you know, is it being prescribed by a doctor, as opposed to, you know — well — I’ll — I’ll — I’ll — I’ll leave it at that.

    There you have it, folks. That’s why medical marijuana is illegal at the federal level. Straight from the mouth of the President of the United States of America. I was debating a drug war supporter a few weeks ago who offered this rationale: “Actually, I’m not attempting to convince anyone. The laws that you don’t like are already in place. It’s you that needs to convince others. Not me.” Perhaps this is also the President’s position.

  2. This has been going on for years, not weeks. Remember 2008? But hey. At least Ron Paul was invited to the debate this time, unlike some other Gary Johnsons I know.

  3. Of course, Krugman is just using space invasion as an example.

    Absolutely. This is a great example of how foolish stimulus and war prosperity myths can be! Peter Schiff responds directly here: New York Times Breaking News: Superhero Paul Krugman Saves World from Imaginary AlienRead the rest of this entry »


Links for July 19, 2010: To Stimulate or Not To Stimulate; What Police Can Do; much, much more….

July 18, 2010

    Paul Krugman: Boost aggregate demand! Muahahaha!!!

  1. It’s good to hear Krugman speak and respond to questions. The thrust of this discussion is that the opposition to the stimulus is a visceral reaction, not an intelligent one. Although some guests early on questioned the empirical efficacy of the stimulus, we did really not hear from any Thomas E. Woodses or any Peter Schiffs who maintained, in quite an intellectual fashion, that the stimulus is simply bad economic policy. Krugman remarks toward the end that he doesn’t see stimulus jobs as “makework” jobs. I do not understand how this position can be honestly defended alongside the position that we now need government to “boost aggregate demand”, i.e. create demand where none existed before. What is the purpose of the stimulus if it is not to “make work”? If these were not “makework” jobs, we would do them anyway. We would not need an economic crisis as a pretense for passing $700 billion spending bills. For a response to the assertion that Roosevelt’s slashing of the deficits caused a recession in 1937, see this. For a response to the assertion that World War II spending lifted the U.S. economy out of the depression, listen here, starting at 32:17.  Read the rest of this entry »


Links for July 12, 2010: Is the Energy Star Program a Rubber Stamp?; Much Ado About the Economy, Economics; Much, Much More!

July 11, 2010
  1. The Government Accountability Office tested the government’s Energy Star program with phony products and found it essentially to be a rubber stamp–except that only 15 of 20 products were accepted and two were rejected.  I wish they’d explained the rejections in a little more detail.

  2. Every time a libertarian stays in the closet, an angel gets its wings ripped off.

  3. We need you out here!!! I highly recommend listening to Mises.org podcasts and watching Reason.tv. After a while, you’ll come to realize that you have ready responses to every statist argument that comes down the tube.  Also, take Christopher Hitchens’s sage advice to heart.

  4. “The Conscience of a Liberal”: Calling your opponent “bizarre” and “crazy” = Checkmate!!! See full ThinkMarkets.wordpress.com response hereRead the rest of this entry »


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 428 other followers