Atlas Shrugged: The Mocking

Monday, September 21, 2015

A Different Type Of Piggish Scandal

Yes, I said I was fed up with Megan McArdle. And I have work to do. But I could not ignore this story; many thanks to cynic for the link. From The New York Times:


Specialists in infectious disease are protesting a gigantic overnight increase in the price of a 62-year-old drug that is the standard of care for treating a life-threatening parasitic infection.

The drug, called Daraprim, was acquired in August by Turing Pharmaceuticals, a start-up run by a former hedge fund manager. Turing immediately raised the price to $750 a tablet from $13.50, bringing the annual cost of treatment for some patients to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“What is it that they are doing differently that has led to this dramatic increase?” said Dr. Judith Aberg, the chief of the division of infectious diseases at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. She said the price increase could force hospitals to use “alternative therapies that may not have the same efficacy.”

Turing’s price increase is not an isolated example. While most of the attention on pharmaceutical prices has been on new drugs for diseases like cancer, hepatitis C and high cholesterol, there is also growing concern about huge price increases on older drugs, some of them generic, that have long been mainstays of treatment.

Although some price increases have been caused by shortages, others have resulted from a business strategy of buying old neglected drugs and turning them into high-priced “specialty drugs.”

 McArdle's solution for the hepatitis C high price tag was to have the government pick up the tab. That's an odd solution for a libertarian but obviously that just means McArdle contains multitudes. The government should do this because, as McArdle has always said, drug innovation depends on high US drug prices. She does not note that the company that owns the drug did not develop the drug itself; it bought the company that did, which used government-funded research.

So the optimal pricing strategy -- for everyone, not just pharmaceutical companies -- is to charge rich countries a lot and sell the drug at near-marginal cost in poor countries. If the rich countries insist that they should also get the drug near-marginal cost, then they benefit in the short term. But over the long run, the company loses money on its products, and then we don't get any new drugs.

See also:

http://www.awpagesociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Gilead-Sciences-Case-Study.pdf
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/22/us-pharmasset-founder-idUSTRE7AL2ES20111122
http://news.emory.edu/stories/2012/03/tech_transfer_highlights/campus.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_F._Schinazi
http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/pharmasset-science-founder-lands-fortune-11b-gilead-buyout/2011-11-23





The former hedge fund manager is Martin Shkreli.

This is not the first time the 32-year-old Mr. Shkreli, who has a reputation for both brilliance and brashness, has been the center of controversy. He started MSMB Capital, a hedge fund company, in his 20s and drew attention for urging the Food and Drug Administration not to approve certain drugs made by companies whose stock he was shorting.

In 2011, Mr. Shkreli started Retrophin, which also acquired old neglected drugs and sharply raised their prices. Retrophin’s board fired Mr. Shkreli a year ago. Last month, it filed a complaint in Federal District Court in Manhattan, accusing him of using Retrophin as a personal piggy bank to pay back angry investors in his hedge fund.

Mr. Shkreli has denied the accusations. He has filed for arbitration against his old company, which he says owes him at least $25 million in severance. “They are sort of concocting this wild and crazy and unlikely story to swindle me out of the money,” he said.

You can find more details of Shkreli's malfeasance here.

I think we can safely predict that McArdle's free market fairy tale will not change when confronted with any new and/or damaging information. Right now she is busy discussing Greece's need for more austerity and busy not discussing Greece's poverty.

Thursday, September 17, 2015

Story Time

"You don't know much," said the Duchess, "and that's a fact."


I am learning so much from Megan McArdle. I just discovered that if you make a mistake that damages your argument you can erase the mistake, not mention the little fact that you erased your mistake, and go on your merry way. No doubt to make as many more mistakes as you please because it's not like you are a real journalist or analyst anyway; why bother holding someone to professional ethics and standards when they are just putting on an act?

True, it's odd that Bloomberg publishes a fictional column which has every appearance of being a factual column but now it is clear that McArdle is a storyteller, not a journalist. She makes up Free Market fairy tales and relates them to her kindergartners readers, who enjoy the little tales enormously. Everybody wins except for the people who could be damaged by her little fictions and they obviously don't count.

In her recent post How Hash HealthCare.gov Hash Went So, So, Hash Wrong Hash Hash Hash, McArdle said that the faulty 2012 rollout of the website was a contributing factor to the Republican's House win in 2010. You will not know this unless you read the comments because McArdle erased her mistake without making a note that she had done so. Erasable McArdle is so much more diligent than non-eraseable McArdle!

jmquillian
Not to split hairs, but the GOP took the House in 2010, not 2012. Obamacare played a part in those midterms, but healthcare.gov did not.

    reaganite88
    The Democrats lost the House of Representatives in 2010... not 2012.
    (or Jan 2011 if you want to get hyper-technical about it)


    "(although not sure that the failure of the website is the reason the House went GOP. Certainly a contributing factor, but only one of many)."
    The House went GOP in the 2010 election. The website wasn't an obvious failure until 2013. So, no, not a factor.

    You can see in the above quote exactly what McArdle said. That parenthetical quote is now gone. This is what her post says now:

    They couldn’t, because they still lacked the votes to break a filibuster, and in 2012, Obamacare cost them the House of Representatives.

    Since McArdle's material keeps appearing and disappearing like the Cheshire Cat's smile, let's reprint the end of her post. If/when an admittance of error magically appears we will be able to see the difference.

    [...]architects didn’t understand how big it was. The holes in the legislation created an impossible management structure. And the federal contracting system was optimized to prevent corruption rather than deliver working systems on time and on budget.

    It’s hard to see how spending more hours creating and reading reports would have fixed any of these problems. At best, it would just have provided slightly better documentation of the disaster in progress.

    This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

    To contact the author of this story:
    Megan McArdle at mmcardle3@bloomberg.net

    To contact the editor responsible for this story:
    Philip Gray at philipgray@bloomberg.net

    At this point I feel like I am complaining that the clown is wearing clown make-up and making pratfalls and throwing buckets of glitter. Of course she is. What else would a clown do?

    One of the fractured fairy tales in her post: rules and regulations just get in the way of business deals, which are based on trusting relationships.
    [...]

    A client is a long-term relationship; you want to preserve that.

    But the federal contracting system specifically discourages these sorts of relationships, because relationships might lead to something unfair happening. (In fact, the report specifically faults CMS for not documenting that one of the people involved in the process had previously worked for a firm that was bidding.) Instead the process tries to use rules and paperwork to substitute for reputation and trust. There’s a reason that private companies do not try to make this substitution, which is that it’s doomed.

    Yes, you end up with some self-dealing; people with the authority to spend money on outside vendors dine very well, can count on a nice fruit basket or bottle of liquor at Christmas, and sometimes abuse their power in other less savory ways. But the alternative is worse, because relying entirely on rules kills trust, and trust is what helps you get the best out of your vendors.

    Trust is open ended: You do your best for me, I do my best for you. That means that people will go above and beyond when necessary, because they hope you’ll be grateful and reciprocate in the future. Rules, by contrast, are both a floor and a ceiling; people do the minimum, which is also the maximum, because what do they get out of doing more?

    McArdle should watch an episode of American Greed some time.

    This is the same woman who said that people in the financial industry had no incentive to manipulate the system.
    All of these papers suggest that the search for a villain behind the crisis will ultimately be fruitless. There are two basic narratives of what happened. The first is that bankers had bad incentives: they took massive risks because the profits were so good in the up years that it was worth the risk of the bad, or because they could pass the risks onto some other sucker, or they thought Uncle Sugar would bail them out. The other narrative is that bankers had bad information: they didn't understand the risks they were taking. I've always preferred narrative B, because Narrative A doesn't make much sense. The CEOs of big banks lost vast sums of money, and their jobs, most of their social status, and so forth. They held onto the worst tranches of their securities, which implies they didn't know how badly they were going to blow up. Etc.  
    I find it vastly more plausible, if not so comforting, to believe that systems can occasionally produce bad results even if the incentives basically point in the right direction. The FICO score revolution was valuable, but we took it too far. The money sloshing around US markets disguised the problems, because people who got into trouble tapped their home equity, or in a pinch, sold the house at a tidy profit. Everyone from borrowers to regulators was getting the same bad signal, that their behavior was much less risky than it actually was.  
    That doesn't mean that nothing can be done. Maybe we decide we want a less complex financial system. But it won't be because there's some villain manipulating everything into ruin; rather, we may decide that there are certain kinds of risks we can trust ourselves to handle.  
    I'm not sure that this would work, and I'm skeptical that it's a good idea. But the more time we waste trying to figure out who did us wrong, the less quickly we will arrive at an actual solution.

    Another example of McArdle's storytelling habit:

    Once upon a time, there was a country with a housing market that started to rise. As the market started to rise, housing defaults started to fall. They fell not because people had gotten wiser about borrowing, or better at managing their money, but because borrowers in a rising housing market virtually never need to default; they can always simply sell the house, walking away with whatever equity is left over after paying off the mortgage.

    Lenders loved this. "Splendid! If default has become less likely," the lenders said, "we do not need to worry so much about things like down payments or credit histories. Who cares if they can't pay the mortgage each month; if they get into trouble, they'll just sell the house and pay us."

     I have to stop reading McArdle. There is no point in fact-checking fiction. Nobody cares that she lies. Nobody will ever hold her to account. Nobody holds anybody to account, from Obama to Trump to McArdle. (Except the poor, of course.) I am wasting my time.

    Go, little liar! Fly free and fly high! Enjoy screwing over the poor! It's not like I can do anything about it anyway.

    Wednesday, September 16, 2015

    Hashalot

    Shorter Megan McArdle: Nobody in the government can do anything ever.

    Conservative Man: You sit here, dear.

    Conservative Wife: All right.

    Man: Morning!

    Megan McArdle: Morning!

    Man: Well, what've you got?

    McArdle: Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and hash; egg bacon and hash; egg bacon sausage and hash; hash bacon sausage and hash; hash egg hash hash bacon and hash; hash sausage hash hash bacon hash tomato and hash.

    Commenters: Hash hash hash hash...

    McArdle: ...hash hash hash egg and hash; hash hash hash hash hash hash baked beans hash hash hash.

    Commenters: Hash! Lovely hash! Lovely hash!

    McArdle: ...or Lobster Thermidor a Crevette with a mornay sauce served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines garnished with truffle pate, brandy and with a fried egg on top and hash.

    Wife: Have you got anything without hash?

    McArdle: Well, there's hash egg sausage and hash, that's not got much hash in it.

    Wife: I don't want ANY hash!

    Man: Why can't she have egg bacon hash and sausage?

    Wife: THAT'S got hash in it!

    Man: Hasn't got as much hash in it as hash egg sausage and hash, has it? Commenters: Hash hash hash hash...

    Wife: Could you do the egg bacon hash and sausage without the hash then?

    McArdle: Urgghh!

    Wife: What do you mean 'Urgghh'? I don't like hash!

    Commenters: Lovely hash! Wonderful hash!

    McArdle: Shut up!

    Commenters: Lovely hash! Wonderful hash!

    McArdle: Shut up! (Commenters stop) Bloody commenters! You can't have egg bacon hash and sausage without the hash.

    Wife: I don't like hash!

    Man: Sshh, dear, don't cause a fuss. I'll have your hash. I love it. I'm having hash hash hash hash hash hash hash beaked beans hash hash hash and hash!

    Commenters: Hash hash hash hash. Lovely hash! Wonderful hash!

    McArdle: Shut up!! Baked beans are off.

    Man: Well could I have her hash instead of the baked beans then?

    McArdle: You mean hash hash hash hash hash hash...

    Commenters: Hash hash hash hash. Lovely hash! Wonderful hash! Hash ha-a-a-a-a-ash hash ha-a-a-a-a-ash hash. Lovely hash! Lovely hash! Lovely hash! Lovely hash! Lovely hash! Hash hash hash hash!

    Tuesday, September 15, 2015

    Today's Blue Plate Special: More Hash!

    Today's Megan McArdle rehash: There were no villains in the 2008 crash.
    Bubbles are not fundamentally about evil people doing evil things. They are not even about stupid people doing stupid things. No, the problem with bubbles is worse: It's quite ordinary people, doing stupid things that a trick of the light has made appear very smart.

    McArdle also discussed this in There Are No Villains in Financial Crises, Villains of the Piece,  an appearance on CNN with Matt Taibbi  and The Government's Role in the Housing Bubble.   There are probably more posts on the subject as well. It is not surprising that a blogger would revisit a topic but it is notable that she would continue to peddle the same debunked material for years.

    McArdle adds variety and changes focus on her rehashes but whether or not you serve it with catsup or poached eggs on top, it's all hash.

    Monday, September 14, 2015

    Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

    We all remember that Megan McArdle lied about data to support her attempt to destroy subsidies for the poor so they could afford to buy health insurance like the middle and upper classes, who usually get subsidized insurance through their jobs. I apologize for rehashing old material but it is necessary because McArdle is still attempting to tell the same lies. She now skips over data and merely restates her premise, confident that there is nothing anyone can do to hold her to account. She is right.

    But the truth is always the truth, no matter how many lies are told.
    [yap yap yip] Right now, the U.S. accounts for a disproportionate share of the profits that make it attractive to keep looking for new drugs, precisely because we do not have a pricing board that attempts to hold down reimbursements to levels closer to marginal cost. That means we're providing a disproportionate share of the incentive for new research. Every so often, there is a clamor about lowering our prices and forcing other countries to pay their "fair share" of research costs, but there is no practical way to do it. So the only question is, are we willing to subsidize new research?
    I am not arguing that the current prices of these drugs reflects some platonic ideal of value, or that the free market has found the best possible combination of affordability and incentive for innovation. As I mentioned above, the pharmaceutical market has all sorts of strange wrinkles that make it hard to assess the value they are delivering for the prices they charge.  
    However, people who are advocating for a government price-setting board cannot simply say, "Well, there are some issues with the way that pharmaceuticals are priced." The onus is on them to show that the government would do a better job of determining the tradeoff between innovation and current prices than the market already does -- that it would not, for example, set prices artificially low in order to reap temporary political benefit, at the expense of future generations who would then have to go without beneficial treatments. And perhaps they will. But saying "Merck could still make drugs with a 9 percent profit margin" is hardly adequate.
    Unfortunately, making that case is hard, because the systems in other countries are smaller, and benefit from that implicit subsidy from the U.S. There's no way to see what the world would look like if the U.S. decided to hold prices closer to marginal cost, except by moving to a pricing board and accepting the risk that we might be shooting the goose that's laying the golden eggs.
    Look, Ma, no data! See how easy that was? We already subsidize research via the government but trying to fight lies with facts is crazy talk. McArdle would just hide behind even more vague statement and implications. You'd have to be an idiot to fight back.
    susanoftexas • 3 days ago You said you made up the statistics that were the basis for this claim. From your Washington Post chat:  
    Anonymous: You said that medical innovation will be wiped out if we have a type of national health care, because European drug companies get 80% of their revenue from Americans. Where did you get this statistic?  
    Megan McArdle: It wasn't a statistic--it was a hypothetical.  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago As I believe I explained after that exchange, I had confused the question with a different post than the one the questioner referred to. I also stopped using that stat, because I don't think it's reliable. However, I don't think we need to relitigate an offhand remark in a web chat that is now seven years in the past. It's basically arithmetic. If we agree that drug prices for brand names are higher here--and we all do!--then mathematically, the US must be producing a disproportionate share of the profits for new drugs. http://www.bloombergview.com/a..  
    If you think this is not the case, could you explain where you think the extra spending on drugs that we're all complaining about is going. Is it being diverted to complicated money laundering operations that place most of it in the hands of someone other than the company, its managers, or its shareholders? Are pharmaceutical firms paying higher taxes here than in the United States? Is it being destroyed by the hyperinflation of the US dollar? Is FDA overregulation making it unprofitable to release drugs here? What is your working theory of what happens to the money that does not produce disproportionate profits on new drugs in the United States?
    McArdle attempts to confuse the issue by switching to a discussion of whether or not the US provides most profit for drugs. This is a time-honored trick of propagandists; get the enemy to agree with something-anything-and use that distraction to insist you are right about the main point. It is a big mistake to engage in an argument created only to distract.
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago If I were you I would not base my claims on my ability to do arithmetic. http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/07/in-search-of-effective-stimulus/60129/#disqus_thread  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago I am more than happy for you to correct my arithmetic and tell me where the money is going.  
    ratiocination > McMegan • 3 days ago It's moot! Seven years is wayyy past the statute of limitations for Internet errors (or non-errors - I'm disinclined to see what the other poster is referring to because it's, well, moot). A skier who doesn't fall down once in a while is not trying hard enough. A pundit who does not go out on a limb, only to see the limb break, isn't being bold enough. Keep on keeping on! A divided and uneasy nation looks forward to your thought-provoking essays, cogency, and engaging writing style.
    "Going out on a limb" is an interesting way of describing lies.

    JoshInca > ratiocination • 2 days ago I can't believe that I agree with rationalization. What's next, cats and dogs sleeping together?  
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago It is up to you to explain, not me. You admitted you made up your statistics. Perhaps it would be a good idea to do a little investigative journalism and find out. You can start off with this. http://www.nybooks.com/article...  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago This about sums up my opinion of Marcia Angell's incredible lack of understanding of how businesses and investment works. http://marginalrevolution.com/... Or as I said above: budget decisions and investment decisions are very different. If you confuse them, you go badly astray.
    McArdle has never analyzed Angell's work herself for obvious reasons.
    SgtFraggleRock > susanoftexas • 3 days ago You cut out the rest of her statement: "However, whenever I have been able to find pharma financial statements that break down their profits by region, the lion's share always comes from the US." For those who want the full context: http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
    And the trap is sprung.
    susanoftexas > SgtFraggleRock • 3 days ago McArdle:  
    'A reader sends in this note: "I am a former tax lawyer who worked for years on pharmaceutical international transfer pricing cases. The basis for such cases revolves around what share of profits is attributable to a given country. Let me tell you, you will never get an accurate figure, because no such figure exists - all the numbers are purely notional.  
    [snip]  
    For this reason, any number as to the percentage of pharma profits made in the U.S. should be treated as arbitrary and bogus. It will entirely depend on how the costs were allocated, which will differ from company to company, and may even differ from one company's financial statements to its tax returns."  
    I find this argument pretty compelling. So it looks like I got taken, at least in the sense that there's probably no way to come up with an estimate that I would find acceptable. I wouldn't have put that number in a blog post, because I would have looked for better corroboration, and I'm sorry that I used it when responding on the fly, which I did several times.  
    I'm now adding this to my long list of "dark numbers", with the best available proxy being the global sales of New Chemical Entities. Two thirds of those, not more than three quarters, occur in the United States, versus about a quarter in Europe. You can argue about what the fixed costs are in various places, but as my correspondent implies, given how much cross border activity there is, the problem seems to be indeterminate, so I'll stick with a number we know. This doesn't really change my assessment of the problem, since 2/3 is still pretty overwhelming, but statistics matter.  
    On a side note, the reason I said 80% was a hypothetical in the Washington Post chat is that . . . well, I didn't. I forgot that conversation, and thought the commenter was referring to this post. These are the perils of typing thousands of words a week, and also, of getting old.'  
    Also:  
    I may be in error on that--I've heard 80-90% from people in healthcare consulting, and I've seen that sales and profits in the US are usually larger when they're broken out on financial statements, which they aren't all that often. But they were not speaking on the record, and financial statements are not necessarily a very good guide to allocating the net profitability of a drug, because of various tedious pricing strategies involving market timing that you can read about in an exhaustive volume from the OECD that I have on my desk, if you want to come to my office, or spend $100 to buy it yourself. There are also issues of the way that companies allocate profits across international borders, which vary for all sorts of reasons, including the location of the company." http://meganmcardle.theatlanti...  
    Also:  
    80% may not be right, and I can't back it up with any hard numbers, because there are no hard numbers available. But multiple corresponding sources suggest that the number is well over 50%. 60% is probably the floor of likely." http://www.theatlantic.com/bus...  
    Also:  
    "I'm glad that you have never, ever made a basic cognitive error, NDM, but there you are, I do from time to time. We live in a world of imperfection and travail. "http://www.theatlantic.com/bus... For those who want the full context, excepting people not Megan McArdle who have also debunked this claim.  
    SgtFraggleRock > susanoftexas • 3 days ago So, she admitted a mistake and corrected it multiple times about a stat . This is why I trust her more than the Washington Post or the New York Times (who tried to claim Kim Davis (a Democrat) was a Republican).
    She foolishly admitted she lied out of arrogance. Naturally this had no effect on her readers who wanted to believe her lies. He even rationalizes that the "mistake" means McArdle is honest. There is nothing anyone can say or do to convince such people. The truth has no effect but that never stopped me before.
    susanoftexas > SgtFraggleRock • 3 days ago Except here she is, repeating that same claim after denying it--as she has done many times since.  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago I'm not repeating a statistic. I merely made the obvious arithmetical point that if prices are higher here, and production costs are not, then the profits must be higher here, as well.  
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago Proof that depends on belief is not proof.  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago ... and refutation that depends on non-responsive answers is not refutation--nor, grasshopper, is it even argument.
    McArdle thinks her "witticisms" will hide the truth; she is admitting she simply believes this to be true and doesn't have any facts to back her up. She thinks my refusal to argue her distraction is a sign of weakness.
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago Nice goalpost moving. The issue is not whether profits are higher here. The issue is whether medical innovation depends on keeping American drug prices high.  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago You are, of course, free to believe that the size of the available profits has no impact on the number of drugs developed. I have stated a different opinion.  
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago More goalpost moving. I did not say profits have no impact on the number of drugs developed. I said you made up statistics in support of your claim that medical innovation would be wiped out.  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago And yet I neither used said statistic in this post, nor claimed that medical innovation would be wiped out--only that we would run the risk of losing beneficial treatments, if we brought monopsony pricing to the US.  
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago Yes, it is true that your warnings are getting less and less specific and you are relying on implication rather than made-up "facts."  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago I do not think the words "repeating" and "statistic" mean what you think they mean.
    This retort must have been devastating at some point in her life since she continues to use it.
    Maggie Mahar > susanoftexas • 2 days ago Yes.
    Ms. Mahar says elsewhere in the comments that she is a 'Long-time senior editor at Barron's--wrote many investigative pieces about the drug industry. Author of Money-Driven Medicine--a book that was favorably reviewed by NEJM, and then made into a documentary by Alex Gibney Healthcare Fellow at The Century Foudation, where I created the blog "HealthBeatBlog.com"'
    susanoftexas > McMegan • 3 days ago Then by all means continue to pass off information you personally debunked as the truth. Your readers do not care and you have been very successful using your current business model.  
    ajwpip > susanoftexas • 3 days ago it kind of lessens the Perry Mason go ha moment when the surprise witness against Megan is Megan herself. It doesn't actually show her having less integrity. It does the opposite. But I give you points for implying she lies for money without going the full Kochtopuss. You must have wanted to very badly. Hey, I haven't read anything posted by Nepotismis(whatwastherestofthatscreenname?) lately. Nep is that you?  
    susanoftexas > ajwpip • 3 days ago Actually, nothing could be more effective than the person making the claim admitting that the claim is not proven. If you want to discuss Ms. McArdle's connection to the Koches (I do not) you can find that information elsewhere very easily.
    Trap set.
    ajwpip > susanoftexas • 3 days ago Making the most reasonable inference and being open about doing so is not something that calls one's integrity or motivations into question. For instance I am inferring that you buy into Koch paranoia by your implicit endorsement of all the Koch -mcardle screeds on the Internet. Is it proven? No. But am I intellectually dishonest for making an inference. Nope. Yet under your schema you would feel justified in implying that I am a paid Koch shill. That seems ironic in an Alanis Morisette kind of way.
    Trap sprung.
    susanoftexas > ajwpip • 3 days ago  
    Endorsement means "an act of giving one's public approval or support to someone or something." Saying that I will not discuss McArdle's ties to the Koches and telling someone to look elsewhere for that information is not an endorsement. In fact, such a statement might imply that I do not endorse them because I refused to discuss them. Therefore you are being intellectually dishonest by implying I am endorsing unethical connections between McArdle and the Koches.  
    However, relating facts about any of McArdle's associations with the Koches would not be an endorsement either. For instance:  
    McArdle trained as a journalist at the Institute for Humane Studies. The IHS's board chairman is Charles Koch. Charles Koch donated $12.4 million to the organization from 2008-2012. She was emcee for IHS's 50th anniversary dinner in honor of Charles Koch. Those are facts. Reciting those facts does not imply McArdle is a shill for the Koches.  
    McArdle has spoken and/or moderated at centers that have received Koch funding such as the Mercatus Center, America's Future Foundation, and Cato Institute. Stating these facts does not imply she shills for the Koches.  
    McArdle was a judge for Reason's Bastiat prize. Reason received funds from Koch Foundations. She has written for Reason. McArdle defended the Koches from accusations that it was funding the Tea Party. The Tea Party received funds and/or assistance from Freedomworks and Americans for Prosperity, both of which have received Koch funds. (McArdle's husband worked for Freedomworks and works for Reason but that is pertinent only to her public disclosures of Koch associations required by professional journalism standards and practices.)  
    McArdle defended the Heartland Institute from an Obama fundraising letter. The Heartland Institute also received Koch funds. These are facts. Stating those facts does not imply McArdle is a Koch shill.  
    However, "a shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization." McArdle has disclosed some but not all of her ties to organizations funded by the Koches while stating that she was making a complete disclosure and so has left herself open to accusations of being a shill.  
    Maggie Mahar > susanoftexas • 2 days ago Susan-- -Thanks for so many facts  
    sufferingsuccatash > Maggie Mahar • 2 days ago Maggie---McArdle is a libertarian who is a Koch Bros. shill. Her columns draw the libertarian crowd like Marshal and Joshlnca below. They are a condescending lot---  
    susanoftexas > Maggie Mahar • 2 days ago You're welcome.  
    JoshInca > Maggie Mahar • 2 days ago She didn't post any 'facts'. Your believing that she did discredits you.  
    Joe_Hubris > ajwpip • 3 days ago Not Koch. Koche.  
    McMegan > susanoftexas • 3 days ago I'm not sure what your complaint is. You seem to be upset that I am continuing to use statistics that I abandoned years ago, and also that I am not continuing to use them. Which is it?  
    JoshInca > susanoftexas • 2 days ago Logic, how does it work? 
    y81 > susanoftexas • 3 days ago This lawyer is talking about profits, McMegan is talking about revenues, which are much less subject to manipulation.
    McArdle made a rare substantive post later that day discussing microaggressions, thereby giving her audience something new and less embarrassing to read and discuss.

    Fighting lies might be a waste of time but it beats getting futilely upset that the rich can control our lives and pay for an endless stream of propaganda. It won't harm or bother McArdle; what is a fleeting humiliation compared to all that lovely cash?

    Friday, September 11, 2015

    I Know I'm Going To Regret This

    I do not like to make comments on Megan McArdle's blog but since she is still pushing her lines about drug innovation I went ahead and dived into the muck.

    UPDATE: The muck is getting deeper.

    Thursday, September 10, 2015

    Consuming More Than You Need



    Shorter Megan McArdle: We are not cruel enough to the poors. For their own good, of course.

    Much Longer Megan McArdle:

    McArdle begins her latest exercise in empathy-free poor-shaming by rehashing old material. (Bloomberg ought to send her cancelled checks for her pay; if she can endlessly send out old material why can't they?) She once again describes a program that she saw firsthand in Hawaii regarding repeat offenders. She did not suggest that they fail upwards, oddly enough. She noted that sending parole violators to jail for a day or two will clean up their acts tout suite. Those violators will lose their jobs if they were actually able to find one but so what, "we" must be cruel to be kind.

    McArdle uses the old material as a launchpad for new cruelty. McArdle complains that the due process of law is keeping noble landlord from tossing evil scofflaws into the street when the rent check is late.

    This approach has been tried with drunk drivers, as well, and is now being explored for people on parole (probation is what you get instead of prison time; parole is what you get after prison time).  A few days ago Lowry Heussler asked if we shouldn't think about expanding Swift-Certain-Fair outside of the criminal justice system, to other contexts where this sort of dynamic operates. Specifically, evictions from public housing.

    Because people so poor that they live in public housing should be treated just like criminals.

    Heussler describes an eviction process that looks a lot like the old probation system. You miss your rent. The agency sends written notices of the arrears. You miss it again. There's a meeting with someone, followed by more reminders. A notice to vacate, followed by a grievance procedure. At all these steps, the tenant is offered the opportunity to cure the debt on a payment plan. Only after these steps is a case filed in court. But even then, judges frequently balk at evicting someone. These are, after all, needy families with few resources to negotiate a housing crisis. Then one day, the judge finally gives up, because the tenant is not complying, and they're evicted. And said tenant is shocked to find themselves out on the street.

    Despite the fact that they are given so many chances to be not poor, people persist in being poor and unable to pay the rent. Some fools might think that this problem should be attacked by addressing poverty but as McArdle has said in the past our poor aren't really poor because they have stuff like tvs and refrigerators. That makes them rich compared to people in, say, Africa, where the poor have nothing. If only our poor could be shipped to Africa they would realize how lucky they are but they aren't and they don't. They live in a very rich country and unaccountably they compare themselves to their fellow Americans, not Africans or Indonesians or other really poor people. In fact, Africans are so poor that McArdle says they would be happy to "slave" at garment "sweatshops," two words that would take on a whole new/very old meaning in Africa.

    Before one advocates being cruel, however, one must be kind.

    If you've ever seen an eviction, you know the awfulness of it: broken belongings out on the street, a stunned family trying to figure out where to go. Why not try to avoid this, Heussler asks, by making the process less all-or-nothing? Follow the jail approach: Lock people out for a few hours, or a day, every single time they miss their rent, instead of waiting until you have to do something catastrophic.

    How much kinder it would be to lock a single mother working at a minimum wage job for a few hours rather than tossing her out! True, her children would come home and be forced to sit on the front step until the landlord figured he had been kind enough and finally let them in to safety. But it would be kinder to teach them a valuable lesson about personal responsibility and the bootstrapping virtues of hard work than to let them in their rooms to go to the bathroom, get something to eat and do their homework as richer and therefore better children are able to do.

    There's a poignant moment in the essay when Heussler describes a tenant explaining why they didn't pay their rent (which is calculated as a percentage of income). "I realized the system was completely nuts when one honest tenant told me why she didn’t have the rent. 'If you don’t pay the cable bill they cut you off,' she said.  I tried. I told her that cable TV wouldn’t be much good without a roof over her head. She looked at me with pity, quite sure eviction was not on the horizon."

    You see, the poor are poor because they are inferior.  One hates to say it but what can one do? They are short-sighted and self-indulgent and would rather watch "Game of Thrones" than pay their rent. Rich children can have cable and therefore internet, which is now essential for children to do their schoolwork, much of which is on-line. Poor children should not. It's much kinder to accustom children to being deprived because let's face it, they'll never amount to anything anyway because poor people value social connections over money.

    The private market has figured out how to solve this problem: If you don't pay the bill, the service goes away. There is no uncertainty that might tempt people to stop paying their bills. But government benefits are girded round with thick layers of procedural protections that make it hard to predict the outcome of any particular action.

    Poor people always choose to not pay their bills which is very foolish. They need to be taught a sharp and immediate lesson. Then they will make good choices and stop being poor and be able to watch "Game of Thrones."

    Of course, the stakes are so much higher. There's a big difference between sleeping on the street and missing the latest "Game of Thrones." In order to protect people from catastrophic risks, we've raised the bar higher for depriving people of electricity, or their homes. But in doing so, we have actually made it more attractive to run the risk. The way to fix it is to make the risks clearer and more immediate -- and less catastrophic.

    We could be doing so much more to teach people valuable lessons. There is so much to take away from people who think they are poor but really aren't. For instance, those expensive children. Do they really deserve to have something they can't afford? It would be far kinder to take away their children for a few hours or days when their parents are unable to support them. The children might be kind of traumatized but which is better, a little trauma once or twice a month or a lot of trauma later when they are so poor that their children are taken away for good?

    This probably doesn't stop at public housing, either. These kinds of procedural protections surround all sorts of government programs, and undoubtedly often have the same undesired result: encouraging people to make decisions that are defensible in the short term and disastrous in the long term. Now that we've seen the success of Swift-Certain-Fair in one context, we should be looking for other places where we need to be a little more cruel, to be a lot more kind.

    Medicaid. They would probably rather spend the money on a new dress anyway. Social Security and Medicare. Those poor old women should have saved their pennies when they were young. Welfare. Woops, we already took that away. Aid to Dependent Children. Why are those children dependent when they should have trust funds? Going hungry will be much kinder and teach them a very valuable lesson about being born with mountains of things instead of nothing.

    One last word:


    This is a Thermomix. I didn't need it and it cost $1500 but I deserve it because I worked hard (or didn't, but whatever), stayed in school ( despite my lackadaisical attitude and poor work ethic but whatever), and didn't have kids (actually, cannot have kids but whatever).*


    *I would link to "jane galt's" confessions that she was a poor student who spent most of her time staring out the window and had a low GPA but the proud author deleted her past crimes against humanity, aka her old blog.

    ADDED: One of McArdle's commenters takes her suggestion and runs with it:

    Fish Heads
    I work my bird dogs using a Swift-Certain-Fair technique, also know as a shock collar. Tech is a wonderful thing, they even make them with GPS locators now. Violate your probation, expect some voltage. Really brings home the old phrase "reach out and touch someone". Very swift and certain.

    Wednesday, September 9, 2015

    The Opening Of Hostilities

    When people like Rod Dreher are allowed to continue their vicious anti-gay campaigns, gay people suffer. When anti-gay bigotry is ignored or permitted, children grow up to hate or be repulsed by the idea of gay children and adults. Those children make life miserable for other children who are obviously gay and continue persecution as adults. I have seen young children taunt and mistreat gay classmates and the effect on the gay kids will break your heart.

    Bigotry is bad enough but it is especially galling when the persecutor is working out his personal issues through political means. There are many rumors on the internet that Rod is bisexual. Rumors on the internet are not facts but those rumors must be kept in mind when reading Rod's work. Even if those rumors are false, Rod would still be working out personal issues regarding sexuality because of his father. Rod's father, going by what Rod has said, thought Rod was a sissy-boy and treated him with abusive disdain. His dad withheld approval because Rod was not what he wanted in a son. Rod's physical weakness, disdain for work and the manly art of killing, and love of books did not flatter him and make him look manly in the community. That is perfectly clear from Rod's writing. Rod went through years of depression, he said, after realizing that he would never have his father's approval.

    Now his father is dead and Rod will never be able to get that approval. Rod thinks he has come to peace with his father before the latter's death. He wrote about the beauty of his father's decline and death, how it brought his whole family together, and how he was able to feel closer to his father. Rod is utterly delusional and this inner peace will not last. It cannot. Nothing has changed. His father never accepted him. Rod never acknowledged the abusive nature of his parents; his father's disgust and his mother's compliance. When the afterglow of family togetherness fades, Rod will still feel rejected and inadequate and will still yearn for his father's approval. And now there is no hope of ever getting it and the emotional collapse will be as spectacular as it will be inevitable.

    I have reserved Rod's two books from the library and we will be taking a closer look at Rod's sexuality and family dynamics via his own writings.

    It may seem distasteful to discuss one man's sexuality in public. Rod pretends to want to retreat to an enclave of self-fulfillment but his career is both public and political.  Thanks to Rod Dreher we know that people's sexuality is not a private matter but a political matter that must be whipped up until every gay little girl or boy feels just as humiliated and rejected as Rod Douthat Dreher.

    Friday, September 4, 2015

    A Question of Failure

    It must be horrible to be conservative. Megan McArdle:
    "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" asks Henry Higgins in "My Fair Lady." Women might point out that, since too many men seem to trust a mysterious toilet paper fairy to change out the forlorn tube of cardboard, it makes more sense to ask: "Why can't a man be more like a woman?"
    But regardless of how we ask it, the question is a good one: Why can't members of the sexes be more alike? Why do so many irritating differences persist? Feminists' answer has been: cultural and structural sexism. Societies train women to take second fiddle to men in work and relationships -- and then punish them for trying to break out of their assigned roles. No, say traditional conservatives: Women and men are different, and cultures reflect those differences.
    Traditional conservatives also say that black people are inferior to white people. That women are inferior to men. That non-Christians are violent and Christians are peaceful. Conservatives say a lot of stupid things based on their neediness and fearfulness, which is a direct result of the abusive nature of conservative child rearing.
    The conservatives may now be getting some support from a surprising source: transgender men.
    It's not news that women's and men's brains aren't exactly the same. But why they aren't the same is a matter of some dispute. We know that training can actually change the physical structure of your brain. London cab drivers famously have more gray matter in the area associated with spatial recognition, perhaps developed through their work navigating the metropolis. In the same way, women's brains might be different from men's because they have been trained to be different, in ways that show up in the distribution of their brain cells over time.
    There are differences between male and female biology. Some might be an advantage, some a disadvantage, but biology is not destiny and one certainly cannot conclude that men are smarter than women from the evidence McArdle links to. She leaps to connect intelligence and success to brain differences because she is a conservative but if she had read the study she might have thought--well, we will never know, will we?

    Conservatives can take a fact and completely misinterpret it due to their need to conform to conservative beliefs. If women's brains have to be trained to become different they are not different. If they are different it does not necessarily follow that one is better than the other or that any difference makes a substantial difference in intelligence. Authoritarian, hierarchal societies require the separation of people into superiority and inferiority so they may maintain their position of power over others.
    A small but very interesting study was recently done on transitioning female-to-male transgender subjects, who receive high doses of testosterone. After just four weeks, images of their brains recorded significant changes.

    Obviously, I do not want to overinterpret the results of one study with a small number of subjects. But since I'm sure we'll see more studies like this in the future, with a range of results, I think it's worth asking some uncomfortable questions this raises: What if some of the disparity between men and women -- for instance, in the workforce -- never goes away? What if the gaps are, at some level, indelible because men's brains are simply better wired for success in that environment?

    Ahhhhhh. Suddenly WTF? becomes perfectly clear.

    McArdle failed at her chosen field. She flamed out. She waved bye-bye to money and power and a potential hedge fund manager spouse, apartment in Manhattan, beach "cottage" at Martha's Vineyard, and vacation maison in Paris. That elite, exclusive life that she wanted so dearly and never achieved and can only envy from afar. No amount of Thermomixes or luxury taxis on call at the push of an app will ever compensate for a husband who graduated from the University of North Florida or the knowledge that the only thing keeping her from humiliating anonymity is the largess of Koch-created wingnut welfare distributors.
    This study doesn't prove anything like this. Such a small study doesn't prove anything. And when we have enough data to draw big conclusions, we might conclude that the differences that actually exist don't matter for career success. Or that women have the biological advantage. On the other hand, the scientific process might prove the traditional conservatives were right. Ish.
    Since the scientific process never proves conservatives are right that is highly doubtful. After all, science proved that conservatives are low-information authoritarians and McAdle rejects that idea out of hand. Which is why McArdle also has cautioned us not to trust scientific studies, a fact that she must acknowledged here because some unkind and all-too-present people will be certain to point it out. Repeatedly.
    When evaluating scientific findings, I always remind myself: "The universe is not here to please you" and "nature doesn't care about fair." It can be true that women are less likely to have astounding math or engineering abilities, even though that's unfair as heck, and I don't like it. In the world of science, things do not become more true just because we'd be better off if they were.
    This is why it is horrible to be a conservative. Anything that interferes with conservative shibboliths must be ignored. McArdle probably has never heard of Ada Lovelace, Rosalind Franklin, Maria Gaetana Agnesi, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Marie-Sophie Germain, Amalie Emmy Noether, Dame Mary Lucy Cartwright, Esther Lederberg, Chien-Shiung Wu, Lise Meitner, Julia Hall Bowman Robinson, Nettie Stevens,  Shafi Goldwasser. And these problems are not in the distant past.

    Don't forget that McArdle also thinks it quite possible that Black people are genetically inferior to White people. Not that she says they are--dear me, no. Just that they might be stupider and Charles Murray might be right. Who knows?
    And when it comes to gender, it's clear that nature is completely uninterested in fairness. All nature cares about is that you a) survive and b) reproduce.  Justice is a human value, not a natural condition. Male orb spiders are more likely than not to end their romantic interlude as dinner for their mate. This is rather harder on the spiders than anything most female humans have to endure, but it seems to make for healthier kids, so the males have to take one for the team. What if nature, with its infinite disregard for our wishes, simply declined to deliver the raw talent for women to ever gain equal representation at the top of many fields?
    That would be balm to a wounded soul, wouldn't it? It's not that McArdle isn't terribly bright despite her extremely expensive education. It's not that she couldn't make it in the world she wanted to swan around in. She didn't fail to measure up. It's just that she's female and women might--not that she's saying it's so but just might-not be able to become rich and powerful and be interviewed on CNBC instead of having to be a tiny face in a tiny box with only 30 seconds of time on the Larry Kudlow show.

    But even though McArdle wasn't to blame for her personal failures it doesn't mean that she is not super smart and rilly elite.

    Well, it seems worth pointing out the things this wouldn't prove:
    1. It wouldn't prove that women belong back in the kitchen. Women are already in the workforce in large numbers, doing all kinds of jobs. Obviously, women can do those jobs. So we know that the old way of doing things was, in fact, holding a lot of women back from doing things they'd be good at.
    2. It wouldn't prove that sexism is no longer an issue. Male and female brains can be systematically different, and women can still be unfairly discriminated against in the workforce. One thesis does not disprove the other.
    3. It wouldn't prove that we can stand pat even if we've realized that we've reached a place where female and male brain differences are accounting for most of the difference in workplace outcome. If male brains do a better job at certain things -- say, competition or negotiating -- then the answer might be "we need to restructure the economy so that it better rewards female talents." Science can tell you what is. It cannot tell you what ought to be. And after all, gents, we are the majority. Fair is fair.
    4. It wouldn't prove that any individual woman is unsuited for a job. Averages are just averages. There are women who are great at math, and men who are great at nursing, just to name two historically gendered activities. Even if group averages are different, you can't infer anything about individual ability by looking at their group memberships.
    What this would do is greatly complicate the attempt to infer sexism by looking at differences in outcomes. Unfortunately, outcomes are the best data we have. It's pretty easy to count how many women are in the C-suite. It's nearly impossible to monitor the thousands of daily internal decisions that add up to a discriminatory barrier, or don't.
    Since everything is just too, too hard we will have to go by the sexist standards. It's only fair.
    So if we find out that women's brains really are different from men's, in ways that are driven not by the environment in which they are raised but the hormones suffusing their brain, we're going to need to start by rethinking the ways that we identify sexism in the first place -- and then start thinking about what sort of remedies might be appropriate. This is going to be an even longer, messier negotiation than the one we're having now.
    Especially if science tells us that women are just better at understanding complicated stuff like science. Men, the benighted darlings, will just have to trust us.
    Hee hee! Isn't the idea of women being smarter than men funny! Like a monkey appearing to read a book!

    And isn't it sad that we must divide the sexes into inferior and superior. But what else can we do when sexism is too hard to figure out?

    Thursday, September 3, 2015

    Off Of The Top Of My Head---

    You could grow old and die waiting for Megan McArdle to plink out a post. She has finally decided to do her job, ironically about someone who she notes refused to do her job, with a post that must have taken all of 15 minutes to create.
    A Kentucky clerk has been ordered to jail for refusing to issue licenses for gay marriages. This seems like a tad bit of an overreaction. Unfortunately, it's what we've come to in the culture wars.
    Tell that to the Republican judge who knew that she'd just sob and whine until conservatives paid her fines for her.
    I'll start by stating my priors: I believe in very strong protections for freedom of conscience, religious and otherwise.
    She's a libertarian who believes that the government should protect your feelings instead of letting the free market do the punishing for her.
    That means I believe that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has a perfect right to oppose gay marriage, and indeed, to refuse to issue those marriage licenses. But she does not have a right to refuse to issue those licenses while still remaining county clerk.
    McArdle goes on to say that you should be able to do what you want but you should not expect to keep a job you refuse to perform at the same time.
    The judge made absolutely the right choice, much as I rue the necessity. Rule of law is one of the most important things between us and barbarianism. No, it is never perfect, but it is better than the alternative. It has to be preserved no matter which side is the target. Conservatives who applauded the Hobby Lobby decision and now applaud Kim Davis should take a long, hard think about how they'd feel if President Obama took a bold stand for freedom of conscience by slapping Hobby Lobby with fines in open defiance of the Supreme Court. If you think that only the other side has to obey laws they don't like, then you are not in favor of the rule of law. You are in favor of law as a crude tool for the raw exercise of power -- and when you are in a minority, as the opponents of gay marriage are, then you should carefully consider where this is likely to end up.

    Unfortunately, the sheer volume of the culture war makes it hard to ask those questions. It's much easier to ask "my team or yours"? And where that ends up is absurd results like a county clerk going to jail, instead of quietly going to work somewhere more suited to her religious principles.
    It's scarcely absurd for someone to go to jail for contempt of court but whatever. Rule of law, bitchez!

    Many of her readers do not appreciate her even-handedness. Freedom of association! Pizza parlors and cake bakers! Obummercare!  Sanctuary cities! Legal weed! Will the jackboot never stop stomping??

    Wednesday, September 2, 2015

    Get Out While Your Brains Still Work: A McArdle Shorter

    Shorter Megan McArdle: The free hand of the marketplace has eliminated scarcity and communism arose because idealistic Russians wanted to make production more efficient.

    Please tell me I misinterpreted that post. Otherwise McArdle spent $100,00 and McArdle's parents spent about $125,000 on her education for nothing. Talk about a misallocation of resources.

    Tuesday, September 1, 2015

    How To Make Pie Crust

    Let's make a pie crust. Please forgive the bad lighting and focus; the lighting is poor in my kitchen and this is my first attempt to upload phone photos.
     
     
     


    First I stirred the flour with a fork to loosen it up. I measured out two level cups and whisked in one teaspoon salt.



    I cut in 2/3 cup of Crisco. I used the same pastry cutter that I've been using for my entire adult life. They cost about $10 and last forever. Mine is missing one tine but works just fine. I timed it and it takes one minute and ten seconds to cut in the fat until it is the size of crumbs.

    Next you add about 4-8 tablespoons of ice water and stir.  I've found it's better to add a little too much than not enough. The flour will absorb the water. Since I was photographing the crust I erred on the side of caution and added only 1/4 cup which is what the recipe called for. It wasn't quite enough and the crust was a little too crumbly but it still worked out okay. I stirred just until combined and quickly form the dough into a ball with my hands and flattened it slightly to make it cool faster.



     
     
     

    I wrapped the crust in plastic wrap and let it rest in the refrigerator for an hour. You should let it rest for at least half an hour but no longer than overnight. I took the dough out of the refrigerator, cut it in half, and formed it into two balls. I flattened the balls to make them easier to roll and put one back in the refrigerator. Then I was ready to roll out the bottom crust. Notice that there is flour on the board. It will not ruin the crust and it will keep it from sticking.

    I dusted the silicone rolling pin and rolled the dough gently up and down for a second or two. I turned the crust and rolled it again. Then I started in the middle and rolled outward all around the dough, enlarging the circle. I added a dusting of flour as necessary; as the circle gets bigger it will get stickier.

    Notice that it's not a perfect circle and that there are some breaks. If it tears I wet the crust a little and stick the two parts back together and dust it with flour.  If it sticks to the board I loosen it with a spatula and dust the board with flour. It takes practice to roll out the dough so it is of an even thickness and (rough) circle but once you get the hang of it, it's easy.




    I fold over the crust twice and unfold it into the pan or drape the crust over the rolling pin. Whatever works. I then rolled the second crust, put in the filling I had prepared while the dough rested (it was a chicken pot pie) and covered it. Note that there are many imperfections; that's okay. It'll be fine.


     
     

    I trimmed off the excess crust but left plenty of crust for the next step. I tucked and rolled the upper crust over the lower crust and then crimped it between fingers and thumbs in a kind of pinching motion I picked up from watching my mother.


     
     
     

    Because it is a savory pie I mixed one egg yolk with a teaspoon of water and used a pastry brush to cover the pie with the egg wash.  Pie crust does not brown very much. I then cut three smallish slits in the upper crust to let out steam. If it were a fruit pie I would brush it with milk and sprinkle it with a cinnamon-sugar mix. I baked it until it was bubbling and browned. McArdle is right that you should bake it for about 10 minutes at a higher temperature and then lower it to 350 degrees but my gas oven is about 65 years old and the regulator doesn't work very well so I just baked it at 350 the entire time.

    Voila! Chicken pot pie.


    It's Not Easy Being Green



    After a certain point conservatism becomes a sickness. Jonah Goldberg:

    Bear with me for a second. You may have heard that Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy broke up. This news came not long after Miss Piggy came out in favor of abortion rights, causing some — okay, me — to wonder if Kermit is prolife. But that’s a post for another day. A month after the break-up, BuzzFeed is reporting on Kermit’s new girlfriend, Denise[.]

    Now, I’m not judging. The heart wants what the heart wants. But isn’t it interesting that in a seemingly limitless universe of potential love-connections, Kermit the frog has fallen for yet another pig? I mean not only are there Muppets for every kind of animal, there are also Muppets for creatures not found in nature. What, exactly, is Gonzo for instance? You’d think that we might hear from some female frogs, complaining that they’re not good enough for the world’s richest and most eligible frog.

    "What can I say, I have a thing for pigs," Kermit said in one of the promos for the new Muppet show. But the idea of a relationship between a frog and pig bugged Goldberg enough to post in protest. Frogs should date frogs and female frogs should think that Kermit owes them--something. Purity before love!

    Jonah believes in pure blood and is repelled by mixed marriage, even when the blood is cold and the relationship is between two handfuls of felt.

    Another Round Of What's Wrong With Everyone Else

    Many, many times we have seen Megan McArdle link to a study that either disproves or does not prove her statements. Her "errors" always benefit the rich so there is little doubt of her dishonesty. But this is McArdle, so she must also lecture everyone else about their errors and bias. It's an old story--another rehash--but her latest effort reveals the depth of her own habit of deception: she assumes everyone else is just like her.


     [...J]ournal editors and journalists do not necessarily exercise appropriate caution. That's not because journal editors are dumb and don't get statistics, but because scientific journals are looking for novel and interesting results, not "We did a study and look, we found exactly what you'd have expected before you'd plowed through our four pages of analysis." This "publication bias" means that journals are basically selecting for outliers. In other words, they are in the business of publishing papers that, for no failure of method but simply from sheer dumb luck, happened to get an unusual sample. They are going to select for those papers more than they should -- especially in fields that study humans, who are expensive and reluctant to sit still for your experiment, rather than something like bacteria, which can be studied in numbers ending in lots of zeroes.

    Journalists, who unfortunately often don't understand even basic statistics, are even more in this business. They easily fall into the habit (and I'm sure an enterprising reader can come up with at least one example on my part), of treating studies not as a potentially interesting result from a single and usually small group of subjects, but as a True Fact About the World. Many bad articles get written using the words "studies show," in which some speculative finding is blown up into an incontrovertible certainty. This is especially true in the case of psychology, because the results often suggest deliciously dark things about human nature, and not occasionally, about the political enemies of the writers.

    ...

     Well, as I said in a column about an earlier fiasco concerning research findings on American attitudes about gay marriage, "We reward people not for digging into something interesting and emerging with great questions and fresh uncertainty, but for coming away from their investigation with an outlier -- something really extraordinary and unusual. When we do that, we're selecting for stories that are too frequently, well, incredible." This is true of academics, who get rewarded with plum jobs not for building a well-designed study that offers a messy and hard-to-interpret result, but for generating interesting findings .

    Likewise, journalists are not rewarded for writing stories that say "Gee, everything's complicated, it's hard to tell what's true, and I don't really have a clear narrative with heroes and villains." Readers like a neat package with a clear villain and a hero, or at least clear science that can tell them what to do. How do you get that story? That's right, by picking out the outliers. Effectively, academia selects for outliers, and then we select for the outliers among the outliers, and then everyone's surprised that so many "facts" about diet and human psychology turn out to be overstated, or just plain wrong.

    She is still pissed that social studies show conservatives are low-information, biased, callous, error-prone authoritarians but doesn't have the nerve to directly attack someone like Bob Altemeyer.

    Lizard People

    Driftglass reminds us that Jonah Goldberg's reaction to Hurricane Katrina ten years ago was exactly what one would expect from Jonah Goldberg. A refresher:
    ATTN: SUPERDOME RESIDENTS I think it's time to face facts. That place is going to be a Mad Max/thunderdome Waterworld/Lord of the Flies horror show within the next few hours. My advice is to prepare yourself now. Hoard weapons, grow gills and learn to communicate with serpents. While you're working on that, find the biggest guy you can and when he's not expecting it beat him senseless. Gather young fighters around you and tell the womenfolk you will feed and protect any female who agrees to participate without question in your plans to repopulate the earth with a race of gilled-supermen. It's never too soon to be prepared.
    Goldberg thinks he is funny because he laughs at The Simpsons. So he joked about the death and suffering of people that he obviously did not consider to be "real" people. His rancid racism almost obscures that fact. He joked about it. He watched the disaster on tv, sat down to his computer, and told a (purported) funny.



    We know that a defining attribute of libertarianism is a lack of empathy and Jonah is the poster boy-and we do mean boy-for that condition. But Jonah's racism and callousness are not the only things he revealed in that little paragraph.

    Jonah is a physical coward.



    Even in his power fantasy he could not imagine himself as powerful. "While you're working on that, find the biggest guy you can and when he's not expecting it beat him senseless." Of course Jonah would have to hit someone from behind. He is far too weak and spineless to do anything else. The wonder is that he would acknowledge it but obviously he was quite incapable of doing anything else. Jonah knows that for him to succeed in anything that entailed physical strength he would have to eliminate anyone strong.

    Of course he would also need many weapons because Jonah knows that eliminating the biggest man would still leave plenty of people who could take him out, such as big men, strong women, skilled teenagers, and babies with lollypop sticks. Even with the elimination of any competition and a stockpile of weapons, Jonah knows he is so weak and impotent that he could not hold any position of strength on his own. He would need "young fighters" because you can't always expect to be able to sneak up on your enemies. Someone would actually have to fight someone at some time. So Jonah figures that he'll get some better men to do all the fighting for him.



    It is no surprise that a racist would also be a coward; the two go hand in hand. We hate what we fear. It is also no surprise that a racist coward would be sexist as well. Someone incapable of putting himself in another's shoes would not be able to see a woman as a real person. Jonah "jokes" that he would tell the "womenfolk" that he would feed and protect them if they have sex with him.

    Before I continue a small reminder might be in order.


    I hardly need to add more but I will anyway. Jonah must add "who agrees to participate without question in your plans to repopulate the earth" because many questions immediately spring to mind, such as, "Are you shitting me?" Or, "What on earth makes you think I need you (or anyone else) to protect or feed me?" Or maybe, "Don't you realize that I would rather slit my own throat than see you naked?"

    Yes, this brainless, balls-less, heartless, repellent person felt perfectly comfortable joking and laughing while non-people died. Since then like Megan McArdle he has failed upward on and onward and will continue to do so while trying to ensure the poor suffer and die.

    Saturday, August 29, 2015

    Humble Pie



    A few days ago I noted that most of McArdle's columns are rehashes of old material. Friday's food post was no exception. McArdle has repeatedly told her audience that pie crust is too hard to make--which means that she can't make pie crust. Yet McArdle is also incapable of putting aside her pretense that she is a cooking and food expert. So McArdle tries to tell the little people all about pie without actually knowing how to make a decent pie.

    For example, take this post from March:
    Saturday is Pi Day -- 3.14.15. It's only going to occur once this century. So, naturally, you're going to want to celebrate by making some delicious, delicious pie. But how? I hear you ask. What if I am no good at making pie crust? I understand your worry. Pie crust is daunting if you've never made it before. And those refrigerator rolls of pie crust usually taste like you're chewing on a sheet of cardboard. But that needn't keep you from enjoying pie on Saturday. There are lots of ways to enjoy pie without giving yourself a crash course in pastry making. Here are five pies you can make without ever picking up a rolling pin.
    Admitting ignorance is hard on the ego but is absolutely necessary. You should never imply knowledge when you have none because some smartass will come along and make you look stupid for doing it.

    And I am that smartass.
    A reader wrote to ask me for my best pie recipes. This is a topic near and dear to my heart. I love pie. In fact, my favorite food in the whole world is purple raspberry pie, a delicacy that unfortunately is not available to most people because purple raspberries do not store well, so the only way to get them is to pick your own.
    Always read the study. Or, in this case, google "purple raspberry." One on-line nursery states:
    Our perfect purple raspberry! Plant is vigorous, hearty and resistant to insects. Yields large, sweet berries with great flavor. Fruit never fades, even when canned or frozen. Cold-hardy. Late-summer bearing. Ripens in August. Self-pollinating. A licensed variety of Cornell University.
    However purple raspberries are difficult to find, making them suitable for an elite foodie such as McArdle. I can't recall seeing them at a grocery store and I spend half of my life at grocery stores.

    Although there might be a reason that they are not as common as other raspberries.
    A hybrid of the black and red raspberry is known as the purple raspberry, taking on the purple overtone, but having the same texture as the black or red and a mildly sweet flavor. It isn't considered to be as good as the others by many growers.
    McArdle drones on:
    My official position on pie is that the benighted fools who do not like it have never actually had good pie, which is to say, a pie homemade by someone who knows what they are doing.
    That might be true; the author is not a food writer. It is still a silly claim. The "benighted fools" at Slate is one contrarian who thinks pie is a poor way to use berries.
    At this point, though, "American"-style pie is something of a relic: Where the civilized world has moved past its awkward bread-casket age to head in more refined directions, pie stands still. Our modern pie of piled fruit stewing in a shell of fragile dough is not an innovation but a replica of something primitive—piled meat entombed in hard crust—nudged in the vague direction of dessert.
    McArdle is very familiar with the ways of the contrarian, being one herself. It's a good way to sell an article without having to do a lot of work.

    Writer: I have a great idea! I'll write an article about pie, claiming that it's neither easy nor as American as!

    Editor: Great idea! It'll be clickbait! And then you can write another article about putting peas in guacamole!

    Writer: What? Are you crazy? Peas in guacamole?

    Editor: It's gold, Jerry! Gold!

    That's because pie is one of the trickiest foodstuffs in the American culinary canon. Good pie is sublime. But good pie basically cannot be had from a commercial establishment.

    Tell that to House of Pies, preferably after you have eaten one of their Black Bottom Pies. I too prefer homemade over commercial but McArdle's absolutes are very tiresome.
    Making it well is too labor-intensive to be profitable, and its ephemeral crust does not benefit from storage. It is best eaten on the day it has been produced (though I do not hesitate to dip in on the second and third day, even knowing that the crust will be chewy).

    House of Pies seems to bake pies every day. It is easy to tell if a pie is over one day old. Meringues weep, crust becomes soggy, fillings shrink from the crust. Their crusts might be a little more hardy than a homemade crust for obvious reasons but they are still very good. And every time I go there they are pushing a large rolling rack to the refrigerated case to unload freshly baked pies. Of course not all bakeries make good pies but they do exist.
    Most people who think they do not like pie labor under this delusion because they have confused pie with the dreadful things that are available in bakeries. Of these, the only positive thing that can be said is that probably no children were killed in the production process. We will not even speak of those premade pie crusts that you can buy in the refrigerator section. Except to note that anything cooked in one of these would taste even better if you just stuck the filling in a pie plate and cooked it by itself.
    Did you know that nobody can do anything ever?
    Unfortunately, making pie well requires skill and the aforementioned labor.
    Yes, that is why you will spend $12 for a pumpkin pie at House of Pies, instead of, what, three or four dollars for evaporated milk, canned pumpkin, a few eggs, and small amounts of spices. McArdle thinks that paying employees is an abomination before the Lord.
    These are not the easy delights of the layer cake, which can be mastered by anyone capable of reading the instructions for operating a stand mixer, and usually put in the oven in less than 20 minutes.
    Not so fast, cupcake. Cake can be difficult as well--for some people.
    Pie is a riddle wrapped in a mystery enclosed inside a crust that will toughen to the consistency of a brown paper bag if you overhandle it the least little bit. Yet at the same time, getting flakiness and the appropriate shape requires that you spend a lot of time slapping the dough around on a pastry board. Achieving this delicate balance requires practice and a spouse or a canine companion who will happily chew through your mistakes because, unfortunately, the only way you will know that you have erred is when you take that first bite.
    Slapping the pastry around will eliminate any flakiness. You get the appropriate shape by rolling it out properly. It does take practice but millions of housewives managed to develop the skill. You know, those perfect homemade pie bakers McArdle keeps mentioning?
    So why bother? Because, as I said at the top, pie is delicious. Done right -- and most of you have probably never had it done right, which moves me beyond words -- you get a delicate, almost velvety crust that melts in your mouth as the filling spreads over your tongue. Pie is well worth all the effort it takes to make it, and it will leave you with the satisfied feeling of having mastered a dish that is rapidly becoming extinct in these days of takeout and Pillsbury pie crusts. I'm just saying, it's not for the faint of heart.
    Says the person who never managed to make the effort.
    Before we can even get to recipes, we need to discuss the principles of learning to make pie crust. These are not even the principles of making pie crust -- we'll get to those in a minute -- but how you should approach the project if you are trying to teach yourself. 1.If at all possible, find someone who knows how to make really good pie crust. You are not looking for someone to teach you how to make pie crust -- I mean, it's nice if they offer, but watching them will prove surprisingly little help. The way you are actually going to figure it out is by making a lot of pie crust and determining what doesn't work, which is almost everything you will try. What you are looking for is someone to bake you a pie. That way, you'll know what it's supposed to taste like.
    I learned by watching my mother. I still had to practice, as McArdle notes, and it took a while to master the technique but I knew what to do from watching her. She made so many pies that I couldn't help but learn. McArdle's mother was a caterer. Couldn't she have learned by watching her mother? I guess not, since "watching them will provide surprisingly little help."

    This is why people think McArdle is a putz. Does she really think that nobody but she has ever had a good pie? Her bloviating hyperbole is incredibly annoying.

    This will be a tricky task because most people who think they know how to make good pie crust don't. A surefire sign of someone who doesn't is someone who tells you that it's not that hard to learn. They are making terrible, tough pie crust and will lead you to a bad end.

    Thank you, pie expert who can't make pie!
    2.Buy 10 pounds of good unsalted butter (I'm partial to Land O'Lakes) the minute it goes on sale. Pie crust uses a lot of butter. You're going to be making a lot of pie crust. Use whatever you have left over to make layer cakes, to remind yourself that you really do know how to bake.
    I am not going to buy 10 pounds of butter because I would prefer not to become a widow. I made an all-butter pie crust once when I ran out of Crisco and I was not very happy with the results. Crisco is very unhealthy as well but since I try to refrain from making too many sweets it's not a big issue.

    There is not just one way to make crust. I use the way I know, which is reliable and successful for me. Others use different methods and different ingredients which have proven to be successful for them. I break all the rules of pie making and most of my pies are good. My meringue pies need some work but that is just a matter of more practice.

    This is not rocket science. The pie will not explode on reentry. It doesn't have to be perfect.

    3.Make the biggest pie-crust recipe you can find, certainly bigger than your pan. I taught myself to make pie crust using a recipe for a 10-inch pie, even though I did not own a 10-inch pie pan. Why? Because the first few times you roll out a pie crust, the results are likely to look a lot less like the beautiful circles pictured in cookbooks and more like some sort of shape that appears only in theoretical n-dimensional universes from science-fiction novels. Having more than you need means that you will still have room to cut a circle out of it.


    Cut a circle out of it? Do people do that? You roll out the pie crust. You fold it over twice and put it in the pan. (Or drape it over a rolling pin or slide it off the silicone rolling mat or whatever method works for you.) Then you trim it if necessary. I wait until I put top crust on the pie and between the two crust there is always enough crust. You can even match top overlap to a skimpy bottom to correct any mistakes. Then trim it, roll the two crusts under, and crimp. Again, not rocket science.
    4.Keep the pie itself simple: No prebaked pie shells. This is the most basic form of pie, and it is the easiest to learn.
    Does that even make sense?
    5.Get a good silicone rolling pin. It's less sticky than a regular one, which means you run a lower risk of toughening your crust by adding flour.
    That is true but you need to flour the silicone pin. Most foodies tell you to use as little flour as possible when rolling out the dough; I believe Alton Brown, among others, say this. To a certain extent I ignore this advice and use however much I need to use to prevent the crust from sticking. McArdle believes in elite expertise and therefore can't get her pie crust off the counter. Alton Brown's pies are probably better than mine but as McArdle always says one can't let perfect be the enemy of good.
    6.Use either a food processor or a pastry cutter. Messing around with two forks is a challenge for the amateur who doesn't know what it's supposed to look like in the first place. And using your hands is a recipe for tough, tough crust.
    Does anyone use two forks anymore? It would help if she told her readers that the fat in pie crust melts in the oven and the rising steam makes the crust flaky. That is why you do not mix pie crust with your warm hands and take care when you use the food processor. I prefer a pastry cutter over a food processor but many people make very good crusts with the latter.
    7.Make a lot of pies. Assume the first ones will be bad. (The filling will still be very tasty!) My grandmother, a legendary pie maker, had to throw her first pie crust out over the bank behind the house. My mother, another legendary pie maker, spent a holiday evening assembling her first pie crust in the pan like a jigsaw puzzle. My first pie crust was tough, about an inch thick, and nonetheless leaked filling everywhere. Maybe you will be the exception, but don't go in expecting it to be so.
    We will revisit her mother's legendary skills in a minute.
    The easiest, not-quite-foolproof-but-close crust recipe is the Cook's Illustrated Vodka Crust. Water binds with gluten, which can make your crust tough; adding alcohol gives you more liquid but fewer troublesome protein bonds. And what do you put into the crust? Well, the possibilities are endless: savory or sweet, fruit or custard, baked or chilled. On pie, I'm basically a purist. I tend to prefer a single ingredient rather than "mixed berry" or "pumpkin chocolate," and I don't like flavors that are overpowering, such as peanut butter. Nor anything that's so sweet it sets my teeth on edge; I prefer pecan bars to ooey, gooey pecan pie. And I have a dark horror of evaporated or condensed milk, which I find disgusting to look at and unpleasant to eat. Yes, they make it easier to get a custard to set properly, but I can't stand them, so the exciting world of icebox pies is largely beyond my ken.
    ::eyeroll::

    I'm not criticizing other folks who like their pies drenched in molasses or towering with strongly flavored mousse or filled with condensed milk; as I've said time and time again, what you like is what you like, not a reflection on your character. But my taste is for a simple, old-fashioned pie that lets one ingredient shine.


    Ha! I do believe she read my post on her mother's pumpkin pie. Of course I said a lacing of molasses, not a drenching, but it's not McArdle unless she's lying/exaggerating/mincing to make herself look better when she screws up.
    The last thing I'll note is that if you can't get absolutely fresh fruit -- which is to say it came out of a farmer's market, roadside stand or your garden -- then in most cases, the best thing to do is use frozen. This is not true of apples or pears. But most other fruit is actually better frozen than from the produce section because the stuff in the produce section was picked green and shipped, while the fruit in the freezer case was picked ripe and immediately flash-frozen. Now, freezing fruit, especially berries, means it will release more liquid when it cooks, which can make your pie runny. But you can compensate for this by adding a little more of your thickener. (The recipes below use flour or cornstarch, but there are any number of exciting options once you get the hang of the basics).
    Flour gives pie filling a pasty taste. There are plenty of alternatives, as she says.
    Oh, and I promised to tell you the principles of making pie crust, didn't I? They are simple: •Freeze your butter. •Don't overhandle it. Don't overhandle it. Don't overhandle it. Stop! I see you there, tempted to give it just a few more pats. Let it be. Social interaction makes it very grumpy. Do the absolute minimum of work needed to get the butter and the liquid incorporated into the flour, then form it up and put it in the fridge. Do not fold, fondle, spindle or mutilate. Yes, you in the back, there is a technique where you smooth out small bits of dough with the heel of your hand and then pat the result into a ball in order to increase flakiness, but I am not going to tell you about it because frankly I don't trust you. Mix it up and leave it alone.
    You would think that she were a pastry chef instead of someone who can't make pie, the way she lectures her kindergartners audience.
    •Use as little flour as possible when rolling it out. •Always work with it cold. Pie crust is like a polar bear: It's antisocial, and it gets very uncomfortable when it gets warm. If you are having trouble getting the knack, and the crust is starting to get soft, pop it back in the fridge and try again in 15 minutes when it has firmed up.
    After you make the crust you should put it in the refrigerator for at least half an hour for the fat to cool and the flour to absorb water. I have found that when you are making hand pies it's necessary to put the finished unbaked pies in the refrigerator for about 15 minutes as well but it shouldn't be necessary for one quick pie.
    Now, on to the recipes. Because the person who asked is not an experienced pie baker, I'm going to stick to simple things: all baked pies, which require a minimum of custard- or curd-making skills and which don't have second steps where you top with meringue or try to spread chocolate onto your custard without breaking it. To my great sadness, I have also excluded the many delicious pies that can be made with uncooked eggs. I'll lead off with my family's recipe for pumpkin pie, which is about the easiest filling you can make. It's a simple custard that you pour straight into an unbaked crust: two eggs, some milk and a can of pumpkin.
    We've met Mom's Pumpkin Pie before. It was pretty darn funny. I explain the problem with her mother's perfect pie in that post and in the comments I note McArdle's recipe retconning via Twitter.

    Like I said, this post is largely a rehash of old material. You can skeddle over to her post if you want the additional recipes she offers.

    Ah, but how do you roll out a pie crust? I hear you cry. That is what YouTube videos are for. There is no written description I can give you that will beat watching someone else do it. But watching will only get you so far. You're going to need to start rolling yourself as soon as possible.


    But...but...didn't she just say you can't learn by watching? Ah, well. Those who can, do. Those who can't tell you to watch a video.