Letters to the Editor
-
re: Mona - sorry
And you are entitled to your opinion, but LWM is a liar. That I voted for Bush in '04 -- which I have repeatedly acknowledged is the worst political mistake of my life -- was totally and openly known at Glenn's old blog, because I SAID SO. Further, I made arguments defending the Swift Boat Vets as to some of their claims there as well. (John Kerry did not spend a Xmas in Cambodia.) This is simply not news, I have never lied about or hid any of these views, and LWM knows it.
My reposting of this was only done since Bucko wanted to make an issue of my overall post, which then obviously gave the impression that I was either stupid (which I might very well be :-) or just didn't read your original explanation.
Not knowing the full history of what went down I really should have stayed out of it, I think. So please accept this apology for stirring up old soup when I really had no right to.
As for LWM, maybe some day he'll enlighten those of us who are curious as to what the whole hub-bub is all about. Maybe it is a simple misunderstanding?
-
czrpb00 more morality in law
Except it seems to me that our level of "tolerance" for a certain number of deaths by car accident -- which you say helps to set our speed limits -- is mostly based on our opinion on the value of life.
I'm not offended by nitpicks - it is often a good way to learn. I'll debate until I'm convinced or the cows come home, whichever happens first. ;-)
I think it has more to do with the human tolerance of risk, actually. If we tried to make the risk of fatality approach zero for all activity, we'd be cripples and never do anything. I recall some paleoanthropologist (if that isn't a contradiction in terms) saying we may have outcompeted the smarter, stronger Neandertal because we were willing to take more risks. They were too conservative. I would say that, aside from statistics, people will use their experience about how risky some activity is to determine how many safeguards to implement. Of course, being a risk-taking species, we tend to underestimate the level of risk. This means that in all our pursuits, we'll always have some fatalities. I don't think it is cold-heartedness, per se. I think it is just how our minds are wired.
Having worked in industry for several years, and been involved with safety people for much of that time, I notice that safeguards are put in place as a result of accident or statistical analyses. These are much more scientific than one's intuition. However, there are almost always people who willfully ignore the safeguards, deeming them excessive or patronizing. Why? Their perception is the risk doesn't warrant the extra effort to implement/use the recommended (mandatory sometimes!) safety procedures/equipment. Yes, there is likely an element of laziness, but consider most people will do a lot of work to save their own lives if they deem the danger to be clear and present.
-
KB4Hire re: Mozilla
Thanks for that tip - I already get good use out of the repagination add-on.
I think the issue was that czrpb00 tried to use an "a href=" tag which Salon doesn't even print as text IIRC. Mozilla/Firefox is sooo much better than Explorer. I don't have any choice at my daytime computer, though. They won't even let me turn the Start Menu icons small. :-/
-
Recommended reading
Bryan Hayward,
My current reading on this is Inviting Disaster by James R. Chiles, which goes into some detail on modern complex systems, and risks, and living with and mitigating them. I have the current paperback version, which talks about the engineering reasons for the collapse of the WTC. I have found it to be an excellent book.
-
Thanks, Fraud Guy
Inviting Disaster by James R. Chiles
I am guessing that my post will be somewhat corrected by the findings of this expert. I grant my experience is anecdotal.
-
Two weeks ago, were any commentators calling the Washington Post "immature" and "inexperienced"?
But that's what everybody's saying, today, about Barack Obama, who seems to be more or less in agreement with Fred Hiatt.
Two week ago :
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071802225.html
The Washington Post
Thursday, July 19, 2007; Page A18Facing al-Qaeda
With the terrorists growing stronger, their sanctuary in Pakistan must be eliminated.If Pakistani forces cannot -- or will not -- eliminate the sanctuary, President Bush must order targeted strikes or covert actions by American forces, as he has done several times in recent years.
- - Washington Post editorial, Thursday, July 19, 2007
There are lot of good reasons to be against the WaPo-Obama position, but how is it proof that Obama hasn't been in Washington long enough? ...Unless it's also proof that the WaPo hasn't been in Washington long enough.
On the contrary, Senator Obama's mistaking Fred Hiatt for a rational voice may be evidence that Obama's already been there (inside the beltway) too long.
-
Bryan on the perception of Risk
I think it has more to do with the human tolerance of risk, actually. ... Their perception is the risk doesn't warrant the extra effort to implement/use the recommended (mandatory sometimes!) safety procedures/equipment.
I agree with this also and I think it fits perfectly with what I am advocating: "Better"/"Stronger" inculcation of our morals making the risk calculation change. So, we have speed limit laws to enforce our value on life, we should also work more to teach the value of life to change people's everyday risk calculation so they speed less. (But, again it all comes down to values, morality, ethics! grin!)
-
Risk tolerance
The diversity of risk tolerance seems to me to be an argument against regulation rather than for it.
For instance, the FDA enforces, in effect, a single universal risk tolerance when it comes to drugs. But if you're a 40-year-old cancer patient with only weeks left to live, your tolerance for risky treatments is going to be much higher than if you are a parent getting a vaccine for your healthy toddler. People make trade-offs between risk and expense all the time (when they're shopping for insurance or deciding whether to drive to Miami or fly), so it seems to me that, in most cases, risk should be priced rather than regulated.