By SETH BORENSTEIN
WASHINGTON (AP) —
It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be.
The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.
The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.
Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences.
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.
Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.
Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules — a charge the EPA denies.
More after the click ...
Friday, July 11, 2008
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Geting Shot Down
By Bill Press on The Cagle Post
It's only July, but already we know the rules of this year's presidential campaign. Actually, they're the same rules that apply every election: You can say anything you want about the Democratic candidate, but you have to treat the Republican candidate with kid gloves.
In 2000, for example, you could accuse Al Gore of taking bribes from China, but you could not question George Bush's use of cocaine. In 2004, it was fine to smear John Kerry's war record, but forbidden to wonder why George Bush never showed up for National Guard duty.
Here we go again. In 2008, it's OK to suggest, as conservative bloggers do daily, that Barack Obama is a gay, American-hating, chain-smoking Muslim. But not OK to suggest that just because John McCain was shot down and spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton does not, in itself, qualify him to be president. Unfortunately, Gen. Wesley Clark learned that lesson the hard way.
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Clark began by praising McCain's military service, calling him a "hero" for the courage he showed as a prisoner of war. However, Clark correctly pointed out, donning
the uniform alone does not make the wearer presidential timber. In choosing a president, what's important is the judgment that a candidate has shown and his experience in making executive decisions.
Host Bob Schieffer persisted. Didn't his being shot down give McCain an advantage over Obama? Whereupon General Clark gave his now-famous answer: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Ironically, Clark didn't say anything John McCain hadn't already said himself. I've heard him, several times, entertain audiences with the same self-deprecating, joke: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane."
More after the click ...
It's only July, but already we know the rules of this year's presidential campaign. Actually, they're the same rules that apply every election: You can say anything you want about the Democratic candidate, but you have to treat the Republican candidate with kid gloves.
In 2000, for example, you could accuse Al Gore of taking bribes from China, but you could not question George Bush's use of cocaine. In 2004, it was fine to smear John Kerry's war record, but forbidden to wonder why George Bush never showed up for National Guard duty.
Here we go again. In 2008, it's OK to suggest, as conservative bloggers do daily, that Barack Obama is a gay, American-hating, chain-smoking Muslim. But not OK to suggest that just because John McCain was shot down and spent six years in the Hanoi Hilton does not, in itself, qualify him to be president. Unfortunately, Gen. Wesley Clark learned that lesson the hard way.
Appearing on CBS's "Face the Nation," Clark began by praising McCain's military service, calling him a "hero" for the courage he showed as a prisoner of war. However, Clark correctly pointed out, donning
the uniform alone does not make the wearer presidential timber. In choosing a president, what's important is the judgment that a candidate has shown and his experience in making executive decisions.
Host Bob Schieffer persisted. Didn't his being shot down give McCain an advantage over Obama? Whereupon General Clark gave his now-famous answer: "Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."
Ironically, Clark didn't say anything John McCain hadn't already said himself. I've heard him, several times, entertain audiences with the same self-deprecating, joke: "It doesn't take a lot of talent to get shot down. I was able to intercept a surface-to-air missile with my own airplane."
More after the click ...
Monday, July 07, 2008
Origin of the Novel Species Noodleous doubleous: Evidence for Intelligent Design
Thomas D. Schneider, Ph.D.
Frederick, MD
Abstract
Penne Rigate will spontaneously insert itself into Rigatoni (order pasta) under liquid to gas transition conditions of H2O to create the previously unobserved species Noodleous doubleous. The estimated probability of this spontaneous generation event is too low to be explained by thermodynamics and therefore apparently represents intelligent design.
Introduction
It has been claimed by Intelligent Design advocates* that patterns observed in nature with a sufficiently low probability provide direct evidence for intelligent design, i.e., God. Here I report evidence for the spontaneous formation of a new life form in a prebiotic pasta soup.
Read the rest of the proof of God here ...
Frederick, MD
Abstract
Penne Rigate will spontaneously insert itself into Rigatoni (order pasta) under liquid to gas transition conditions of H2O to create the previously unobserved species Noodleous doubleous. The estimated probability of this spontaneous generation event is too low to be explained by thermodynamics and therefore apparently represents intelligent design.
Introduction
It has been claimed by Intelligent Design advocates* that patterns observed in nature with a sufficiently low probability provide direct evidence for intelligent design, i.e., God. Here I report evidence for the spontaneous formation of a new life form in a prebiotic pasta soup.
Read the rest of the proof of God here ...
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Rove’s Third Term
By: Nicole Belle / Crooks and Liars
Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn’t scream. Hillary Clinton didn’t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn’t impugn John McCain’s military service.
Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, titled his tell-all memoir “What Happened.” But a true account of modern American politics should be titled “What Didn’t Happen.” Again and again we’ve had media firestorms over supposedly revealing incidents that never actually took place.
The latest fake scandal fit the usual pattern as an awkwardly phrased remark, lifted out of context and willfully misinterpreted, exploded across the airwaves.
What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCain’s war service, though heroic, didn’t necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous - especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.
The rest after the click ...
Al Gore never claimed that he invented the Internet. Howard Dean didn’t scream. Hillary Clinton didn’t say she was staying in the race because Barack Obama might be assassinated. And Wesley Clark didn’t impugn John McCain’s military service.
Scott McClellan, the former White House press secretary, titled his tell-all memoir “What Happened.” But a true account of modern American politics should be titled “What Didn’t Happen.” Again and again we’ve had media firestorms over supposedly revealing incidents that never actually took place.
The latest fake scandal fit the usual pattern as an awkwardly phrased remark, lifted out of context and willfully misinterpreted, exploded across the airwaves.
What General Clark actually said was that Mr. McCain’s war service, though heroic, didn’t necessarily constitute a qualification for the presidency. It was a blunt but truthful remark, and not at all outrageous - especially given the fact that General Clark is himself a bona fide war hero.
The rest after the click ...
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Why a Terrorist Attack + Election = Republican Victory
TA + E = R
“Why is it that a terror attack helps Republicans? Well, it’s quite simple. A terror attack, when added to an election, equals Republican. Why is that? Let’s show our work. First we have to solve for ‘R.’ Now, if you add 7 1/2 years of Republican administration, times the five years we’ve been at war, which has divided the nation, add in the government’s incompetent response to the domestic disaster of Katrina, minus the equity in your home thats disappeared, plus the price of oil squared, over the boon that the Iraq war has been to terrorist recruiting, times tortue, minus the resoucres we could have been using in Afghanistan, plus the resources we could have been using to catch bin Laden, carry the Cheney and….”
Jon Stewart / Daily Show
“Why is it that a terror attack helps Republicans? Well, it’s quite simple. A terror attack, when added to an election, equals Republican. Why is that? Let’s show our work. First we have to solve for ‘R.’ Now, if you add 7 1/2 years of Republican administration, times the five years we’ve been at war, which has divided the nation, add in the government’s incompetent response to the domestic disaster of Katrina, minus the equity in your home thats disappeared, plus the price of oil squared, over the boon that the Iraq war has been to terrorist recruiting, times tortue, minus the resoucres we could have been using in Afghanistan, plus the resources we could have been using to catch bin Laden, carry the Cheney and….”
Jon Stewart / Daily Show
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Darwinmania!
Olivia Judson / The New York Times
The party is about to begin.
In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, “On the Origin of Species” (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.
But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn’t, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn’t have a plausible mechanism — he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn’t know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.
Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin’s big idea. Yet he wasn’t the first to discover that, either. At least two others — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five-year voyage around the world.
It was a few months after returning from this voyage that Darwin first began to consider seriously the possibility of evolution, or the “transmutation of species.” At this time he knew nothing of Wells’s and Matthew’s accounts of natural selection; indeed, both accounts languished in obscurity until after the “Origin” was published. (After the “Origin” appeared, Matthew wrote to a magazine to draw attention to his statements on the subject; he then proceeded to put “Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection” on the title pages of his books. This annoyed Darwin.)
More after the click ...
The party is about to begin.
In a week or so, the trumpets will sound, heralding the start of 18 months of non-stop festivities in honor of Charles Darwin. July 1, 2008, is the 150th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery of natural selection, the main driving force of evolution. Since 2009 is the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birth (Feb. 12), as well as being the 150th anniversary of the publication of his masterpiece, “On the Origin of Species” (Nov. 24), the extravaganza is set to continue until the end of next year. Get ready for Darwin hats, t-shirts, action figures, naturally selected fireworks and evolving chocolates. Oh, and lots of books and speeches.
But hold on. Does he deserve all this? He wasn’t, after all, the first person to suggest that evolution happens. For example, his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, speculated about it towards the end of the 18th century; at the beginning of the 19th, the great French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck made a strong case for it. Lamarck, however, failed to be generally persuasive because he didn’t have a plausible mechanism — he could see that evolution takes place, but he didn’t know how. That had to wait until the discovery of natural selection.
Natural selection is what we normally think of as Darwin’s big idea. Yet he wasn’t the first to discover that, either. At least two others — a doctor called William Wells, and a writer called Patrick Matthew — discovered it years before Darwin did. Wells described it (admittedly briefly) in 1818, when Darwin was just 9; Matthew did so in 1831, the year that Darwin set off on board HMS Beagle for what became a five-year voyage around the world.
It was a few months after returning from this voyage that Darwin first began to consider seriously the possibility of evolution, or the “transmutation of species.” At this time he knew nothing of Wells’s and Matthew’s accounts of natural selection; indeed, both accounts languished in obscurity until after the “Origin” was published. (After the “Origin” appeared, Matthew wrote to a magazine to draw attention to his statements on the subject; he then proceeded to put “Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection” on the title pages of his books. This annoyed Darwin.)
More after the click ...
Monday, June 02, 2008
How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem
A new theory parses fair from unfair uses of personal criticism in rhetoric
By Yvonne Raley / in Scientific American
A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: "If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn't be so fat." A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor's advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual's character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor's advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor's lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
More after the click ...
By Yvonne Raley / in Scientific American
A doctor tells her patient to lose weight, and the patient thinks: "If my doctor really believed that, she wouldn't be so fat." A movie aficionado pans the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor's advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ... you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is rejected, or advanced, based on a personal characteristic of an individual rather than on reasons for or against the claim itself.
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being discussed can distract us from the issues that matter. Rather than concentrating on an individual's character, we should, in these cases, be asking ourselves questions such as, Is the doctor's advice medically sound? Is the Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor's lawn healthy? Meanwhile ad hominem attacks can also unfairly discredit an individual, especially because such critiques are often effective.
Although ad hominem arguments have long been considered errors in reasoning, a recent analysis suggests that this is not always the case. In his new book, Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric, University of Winnipeg philosopher Douglas Walton proposes that fallacies such as the ad hominem are better understood as perversions or corruptions of perfectly good arguments. Regarding the ad hominem, Walton contends that although such attacks are usually fallacious, they can be legitimate when a character critique is directly or indirectly related to the point being articulated.
If Walton is right, distinguishing clearly between these cases is important to evaluating the validity of statements people make to us about others. Good or fair uses of ad hominem critiques should, in fact, persuade us, whereas unwarranted uses should not.
More after the click ...
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Thought for the day
"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof."
-- Ashley Montague
-- Ashley Montague
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
Another "Uniter not a Divider"?
Sam Stein / Huffington Post
As the battle over Indiana progressed between Sens Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, a set of depressing polls numbers were finalized for John McCain.
In the GOP primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, the basically uncontested Republican nominee did not gain more than 80 percent of the vote.
In Indiana, McCain earned the backing of 78 percent of Republican primary voters, with exited candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney gaining 10 percent and five percent respectively. Congressman Ron Paul, who is still in the race, has received seven percent of the vote.
The numbers were even worse in North Carolina, where McCain won 74 percent of the vote, with Huckabee earning 12 percent, Paul earning seven percent, and four percent of Republican primary goers simply voting "no preference."
More after the click ...
My comment:
Having divided the country for eight years, the Republican Party now works to divide itself out of existence.
As the battle over Indiana progressed between Sens Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton late Tuesday night and into Wednesday morning, a set of depressing polls numbers were finalized for John McCain.
In the GOP primaries in North Carolina and Indiana, the basically uncontested Republican nominee did not gain more than 80 percent of the vote.
In Indiana, McCain earned the backing of 78 percent of Republican primary voters, with exited candidates Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney gaining 10 percent and five percent respectively. Congressman Ron Paul, who is still in the race, has received seven percent of the vote.
The numbers were even worse in North Carolina, where McCain won 74 percent of the vote, with Huckabee earning 12 percent, Paul earning seven percent, and four percent of Republican primary goers simply voting "no preference."
More after the click ...
My comment:
Having divided the country for eight years, the Republican Party now works to divide itself out of existence.
Thought for the day
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society."
-- Krishnamurti
-- Krishnamurti
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)