Moral blindness

Keith Humphreys is grateful to the public- and private-sector scientists who worked on Truvada. Doesn’t he understand that both corporations and government agencies are the works of the Devil?

I note that Keith, that squishy moderate, is giving thanks for the work of public-sector and private-sector scientists on Truvada. Doesn’t he understand that private-sector scientists are in the pay of eeeeeeeeevil drug companies, while public-sector scientists are paid out of taxation, which is the same thing as theft? If Keith spends more time in Blogistan, he will learn that hating is easier and more fun than thinking.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact:

4 thoughts on “Moral blindness”

  1. "If Keith spends more time in Blogistan, he will learn that hating is easier and more fun than thinking."


    The internet is the greatest hate-enabling machine ever created. Full Stop.

    It can turn the gentlest septuagenarian into a beast demanding liberal heads on pikes.

    Really, I am surprised the hate theme hasn't been made a best seller yet.

    Or for that matter showed up in 120-point Huffington Post capitals:


    (Subtitled: Ten nasty things it is doing to us.)

    But then again…

    The culture is only just now starting to question the Internet in a main stream type of way.

    The Internet bliss ninnies have had all the fun up til now.

    But that wave is ending…

    One of the best take downs I've see is this one:

    Here are a couple of paragraphs deep in the piece that hit home:

    We want to cultivate voters who are less susceptible to propaganda than Shirky’s beloved South Korean teenagers. Very little suggests that we are enjoying greater success in this quest than we did in the golden era of network television. The environment of media scarcity produced voters who, on average, were far less partisan and far better informed about politics than are today’s voters. Yes, this was an accident—viewers had nothing else to watch at 9 p.m.—but the byproducts were valuable.

    As Markus Prior points out in his excellent 2007 book Post-Broadcast Democracy, today’s environment of information abundance splits the public into a small cohort of news junkies, who know everything there is to know about politics, and a much larger contingent of entertainment fans, who know the names of the latest YouTube celebrities and their favorite lolcats, but not of their home senators. “Although it is comforting to know that [viewers] finally get to watch what they always wanted to watch,” Prior writes, “their newfound freedom may hurt both their own interests and the collective good.” That is the case of those South Korean Internet users, who helped to spread panic that harmed their country’s diplomatic standing.

    Great stuff.

    All of it.

  2. "The culture is only just now starting to question the Internet in a main stream type of way."

    Um, no. The political elites have started to notice that maintaining control is harder, with the internet routing around their choke points and gate keepers. So they're beginning to construct excuses for censoring the internet, so that they can reassert control.

    It's sure not the culture which is rejecting an unfettered internet.

  3. Unless I absolutely without a doubt have no choice, I will not take any medicine that is on the market for less than twenty years and even then I will not take one that has never had a double blind study for the effectiveness by totally independent professionals.

    Screwed up medicine prescriptions and unapproved uses probably kill between 100 thousand and 500 thousand americans a year.

Comments are closed.