Newmark's Door

Review of Leo Fender, Les Paul, and the Guitar-Pioneering Rivalry That Shaped Rock ’n’ Roll.

This appears online at Mother Jones(!)--no, make that "!!" It's a review of a recent book by Alex Berenson, former investigative reporter for the New York Times(!), Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence. The review summarizes what Berenson found: a lot of research about marijuana's possible harm that was ". . . hardly Reagan-esque, drug warrior hysteria."

But what about reverse causality--some people with mental health issues use marijuana to self-medicate? There is research that at least purports to address that and it still concludes there is evidence of serious health risk.

But what about all the high school and college kids who smoked pot in the '60s and '70s seemingly without ill effects except for the now cliché hunger for munchies and a bit of sleepiness? To me, the most arresting paragraph of the piece is this:

Before talking to Berenson, I didn’t realize it was possible to smoke your way to the ER. I smoked plenty of weed in high school and so did all my friends, and none of us jumped off a balcony or killed anyone—we could barely get off the couch. But the marijuana sold today is not what we smoked, which at 1 percent to 2 percent THC was the equivalent of smoking oregano. Today’s weed is insanely more potent, as are products like “wax” and “shatter”—forms of butane hash oil designed to be vaped or dabbed that come pretty close to 100 percent THC. And these high-potency products usually contain very little CBD oil, the ingredient in cannabis that’s supposed to account for many of its supposed health benefits.

Very much related: another review of Berenson's book by Malcolm Gladwell in the New Yorker (!!!): "Is Marijuana As Safe As We Think?" (Summary: maybe not, but a whole lot more research should be done.)

(Links via Powerline.)

As I write, the reviews of the book on Amazon are 60% five-star and 37% one-star. I read all the one-star reviews and except for two they are hundreds of miles away from being serious attempts to refute the book's argument. The two semi-serious reviews both accuse the author of cherry-picking the research while providing absolutely zero references to support that accusation. 

Vicious buy funny review of Ray Dalio's recent book.

On the first page of his best-selling memoir, Ray Dalio unburdens himself of the opinion that he is “a dumb shit.” Nothing in the ensuing six hundred or so pages convinced me that I should dissent from this verdict. 

Yet another modern problem I had been completely unaware of.

I haven't read it, but several reviews I've seen really like Daltrey's new book.

Kyle Smith reviews Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt's The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting Up a Generation for Failure. The book strongly endorses Cognitive Behavioral Therapy to treat mild-to-moderate depression.

Related: "The Idioms of Non-Argument: What happens when reviewers spend more time focusing on the motives of authors than the merits of their claims?"

I haven't read it yet, but it's definitely on the list.

Review by Amity Shlaes of a new book . (If it doesn't come up right away, click refresh on your browser.) I learned some things about Mr. Willkie.

But the power of Willkie’s arguments forced the Republican Party away from isolationism, and the Willkie movement shamed Roosevelt into softening his anti-business stance.

Maybe because non "brainy" content is now so dirt cheap?

I'm a little late to hear about this, but it's quite welcome news. (Link via Economics Job Market Rumors.)

Universal Economics is a new work that builds on the foundation of its two predecessors, University Economics (1964, 1967, 1972) and Exchange and Production (1969, 1977, 1983). Collaborating again, Professors Alchian and Allen have written a fresh, final presentation of the analytical tools employed in the economic way of thinking.