jrtom: (Default)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/magazine/16Sunstein-t.html?pagewanted=print


Sunstein saw in the housing collapse, he told me, a “cascadelike process.” People thought they could handle more risk than they really could, and the regulatory system permitted too much systemic risk. Some of these errors were a result of legislation, but many were caused more quietly, by tiny rules issued by federal agencies — the kinds of regulations over which Sunstein now has some authority.

If you think about it — and Sunstein certainly has — you can see a similar problem in one of the fields OIRA deals with often: the environment. The small risks that people or companies take (in adding increments of carbon to the atmosphere or — as in the case of the recent Gulf Coast oil spill — maintaining drilling rigs) sometimes threaten to cascade into a catastrophe. So how can the government change the framework of choices that particular people are faced with so that their own small errors in risk perception don’t expose the whole of society?
jrtom: (Default)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/04/america/04interrogate.php

A few years ago, this would have been news.

Sadly, now it's to the point that a lot of people will say "it's all lies" or "it's irrelevant", and many more will say "yeah, we knew that already".

Where has our goddamned sense of outrage gone?
jrtom: (Default)
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/30/news/malaysia.php?page=1

The short version: Muslims in Malaysia are subject to a different set of laws than non-Muslims, so (e.g.) "Muslim" appears on their national IDs. Someone who had been raised as a Muslim tried to have her conversion recognized by the national government...and failed.

This is messed up on a couple of different levels, IMAO.
jrtom: (Default)
via http://boingboing.net : Loyalty Day

Somehow, this leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I don't even think that it really has much to do with Bush--although this does feel like a political ploy. I think that it has something to do with the implication that we need to be told to be loyal...and perhaps it does have something to do with Bush, as arguably some of the worst things in his administration could not have happened but for the loyalty of various people to him (which he is now repaying in kind by stubbornly refusing to admit that they might have engaged in any wrongdoing). Plus Bush, I think, does not define "loyalty" as I do.

On a not-exactly-related note, clicking on 'Executive Orders' in the sidebar turns this gem up which makes a whole raft of changes to how military courts-martial proceed:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/04/20070418-2.html

It allows for witnesses that aren't physically present...which may be reasonable in some cases...but then moves on to permitting the accused to not be physically present...and then makes it clear that such remote connections can be audio-only (all sorts of fun possibilities there).

Then it goes on (search for "119a") to, as far as I can tell, lay the groundwork for criminalizing abortion. (Essentially, it sets things up so that if a fetus is killed or harmed in the course of some other crime, some charge with code number I don't know is added to those of which the defendant is accused. To be fair, it does explicitly exempt legal abortions...and again, maybe it's just the known biases of Bush in this regard...but it makes me nervous.)

...

Profile

jrtom: (Default)
jrtom

May 2011

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
1516 1718192021
22232425262728
29 3031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated 8 July 2025 04:06
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios