Yep, apparently I was correct. It was I.

Nice.

Off topic (if that's possible): Anyone know why Phil Hughes has left the game after 2 innings?

Off topic (if that's possible): Anyone know why Phil Hughes has left the game after 2 innings?

There's been (so far) an hour long rain delay after the top of the third, and they didn't want to risk anything. He's looked very sharp through the first two, and considering what he's been like before tonight, that's major progress. If this game somehow gets completed, it'll be well after midnight. When they stopped it you could barely see the ball on the TV.

I guess Girardi didn't want a repeat of that Florida rain-delay incident.

Ok, my last two posts were pretty lame. Here's an attempt at a slightly more relevant contribution:

David (et al.), you seem to be advocating a "let the buyer beware" system wherein consumers are responsible for knowing what is good/bad for them and purchasing as fits their own criteria. To what extent? What responsibility would you leave to the seller? I'd assume he cannot lie directly ("This tuna does not contain mercury" when it actually does). Would you fault a seller for lies of omission (" " being all they say about mercury in the tuna)? Or do you suggest that so long as the seller does not directly say something s/he knows to be untrue, does all remaining responsibility lie with the buyer?

EDITED for clarity

What makes it a "flaw"? Was the failure to put airbags in the Pinto a "flaw"? Was the fact that the Pinto, being a subcompact, was inherently less crashworthy than a larger car a "flaw"? Was the fact that they didn't put $500 of additional work into the safety of the car a "flaw"?

What makes it a flaw is that Ford engineers knew that the low-speed collisions would rupture the gas tank. From MoJo, 1977:

Internal company documents in our possession show that Ford has crash-tested the Pinto at a top-secret site more than 40 times and that every test made at over 25 mph without special structural alteration of the car has resulted in a ruptured fuel tank. Despite this, Ford officials denied under oath having crash-tested the Pinto.

Dr. Leslie Ball, the retired safety chief for the NASA manned space program and a founder of the International Society of Reliability Engineers, recently made a careful study of the Pinto. "The release to production of the Pinto was the most reprehensible decision in the history of American engineering," he said. Ball can name more than 40 European and Japanese models in the Pinto price and weight range with safer gas-tank positioning. Ironically, many of them, like the Ford Capri, contain a "saddle-type" gas tank riding over the back axle. The patent on the saddle-type tank is owned by the Ford Motor Co.

Ford lied under oath about their knowledge of the Pinto's deficiencies. A third-party investigation found that over 40 other models in the Pinto's class were safer. One of the reasons the other cars were safer was because of existing technology Ford owned but refused to implement on the Pinto family. Moreover, the NHTSA report listed over 500 instances where the rear impact upon a Pinto resulted in vehicle fires in which the only injury to the passengers weren't from the actual impact, but only from the resulting fire -- in other words, the injuries and deaths in the report were unique to the Pinto's gas tank ruptures -- studies later replicated and verified by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Where's the cutoff?

In 1977, Ford made what came to be about a $1 per vehicle improvement on the fuel take of the Pinto, the only structural change from the 1976 model. That vehicle, with the $1 improvement, solved the problem. Nobody sued Ford because the Pinto was too small, or too slow, or too flimsy. The issues with the Pinto was specific, and it was known internally for years.

In any case, Ford was "accountable"; it got a reputation, only partly deserved, for building low quality products, and lost market share and billions as a result.

The Pinto was the best-selling American sub-compact of the 1970s, so I don't think Ford "lost billions" -- you're just guessing as to how much market share and money they actually lost, if any. Ford made the decision that it would be cheaper to let people burn and die rather than address a flaw on a very profitable vehicle.

"Addiction" is not a permanent situation; it's completely voluntary,...

This is a parody of something, yes?

I don't think you get it: Ray's family anecdotes about smoking trump all other evidence about addiction, about advertising, about adolescent psychology, about anything.

I generally disagree with Ray's conclusions, but I suspect, due to the nature of this site and whom it attracts, that we tend to underestimate the value of anecdotal evidence. And, after all, stats are just one way of contending with and compiling anecdotal evidence. What's a hitter's full season but 700 or so stories we choose to enumerate in ways that help us understand (and enjoy, or in Neifi's case, decry)?

arkitekton, at what point does someone need to accept responsibility for their actions? What behavior cannot be described as addictive? I'd love to have a conservative's answer...

I'd love to have a conservative's answer...

He'll consult the framed writings he has of William F. Buckley Jr. and get back to you.

I'd love to have a conservative's answer...

Don't get funny with me, RM ;)

To take your question seriously, someone is responsible for their actions whenever they are making an informed choice. My issue with Ray's assertion is the part where he claims that addiction is "completely voluntary", even as compulsion is an inextricable part of any definition of addiction. What about you--what's your position?

He'll consult the framed writings he has of William F. Buckley Jr. and get back to you.

[*gag*] Billy Boy Bucks was a drunken slut who thought we ought to tattoo people with AIDS, and was sympathetic to white violence meant to preserve white privilege. The cons who pay his alleged wit lip service do seem to have trouble finding actual, you know, examples.

Give me a guy like Barry Goldwater any day, who was able to evolve, keeping his conservative principles while becoming more richly, fully empathic and human, as he aged.

What makes it a flaw is that Ford engineers knew that the low-speed collisions would rupture the gas tank. From MoJo, 1977:

I'm hesitant to rely on factual representations from Mother Jones, given that it also provides "facts" like:

By conservative estimates Pinto crashes have caused 500 burn deaths to people who would not have been seriously injured if the car had not burst into flames. The figure could be as high as 900.

Even if the statements were true, they would be misleading; the relevant question was not the number of fire deaths, but the number of fire deaths due to the particular design choices in question. But the statements weren't true; the numbers were simply fabrications by Mother Jones.

But in any case, you didn't answer my question; you simply restated your premise. Every manufacturer today who doesn't provide side airbags has engineers that know that side impact collisions can kill passengers. Is it a "design flaw" to fail to provide side airbags in every car?

To take your question seriously, someone is responsible for their actions whenever they are making an informed choice.

But as Arkitekton has already stated (on the previous page of this thread), he doesn't believe it's possible to be fully informed, so IOW he's really ultimately saying that people aren't responsible for their actions. Besides being completely unconservative, what this analysis ignores is that the decision to act without full information is also a choice for which one is responsible.

To take your question seriously, someone is responsible for their actions whenever they are making an informed choice.

I suspect I'm greatly misunderstanding what you mean here. This seems to suggest that only an ignorant person can be addicted. Someone who is well-enough educated would be responsible for his/her actions, ergo not addicted, and vice versa. As I say, I suspect this is not what you mean, though it's how I read your words. Little help on this one?

My issue with Ray's assertion is the part where he claims that addiction is "completely voluntary", even as compulsion is an inextricable part of any definition of addiction. What about you--what's your position?

I can't say I know -- goodness knows I've avoided (both voluntarily and inadvertently) becoming well-educated on scientific matters -- but if I'm forced to choose between what I understand Ray's position to be and what I (mis-)understand your position to be, I'm much closer to agreeing with Ray than with you.

What is "compulsion?" (I don't know -- I continue to answer the question, but I answer out of ignorance). Some sort of chemical reaction in the brain that makes us do something we likely would not choose to do were it not for that chemical reaction. (Inevitably horribly worded, but a decent jumping-off place?) And humans don't "choose" to have that chemical reaction happen, so therefore we have no "choice" in our compulsion? That's the (ridiculously poorly worded version of) the real anti-Ray's-position position, yes?

I don't completely buy it. I feel a "draw" towards doing all the same things to which an "addicted" person is typically drawn. The (metaphoric) voices in my head want me to drink, even when it's not practical to do so; they want me to eat out of boredom; they want me to have sex with available supermodels outside of chosen relationships; they want me to shop when I'm low on money, they want me to drive recklessly, they want me to watch tv or play videogames, they want me to follow the Red Sox online at all hours of the day. The (metaphoric) voices in my head want me to do all the same things that an addict is drawn to do: namely, things which might give immediate pleasure but the doing of which would be detrimental long-term. (And in the case of alcohol consumption, for one, I can even point to relations on both sides of my family who have and/or continue to have difficulty with these voices to drink to excess. If one can inherit one's alcoholism from one's parents and grandparents, then I would certainly be "at risk"). So why am I not considered an "addict?" My draws are the same. (The chemical reaction in my brain is the same, yes? Certainly I want to do all the same things). The only difference (as I see it) is that I "choose" not to engage in these activities (most of the time). I feel the draw and yet am still able to say "No," therefore, I'm not an addict, right? Because an addict wouldn't be able to say "No," in these situations? But that can't be right, because people DO get treated for their addictions -- these people (the ones we label as "addicts") aren't incapable of saying "No," because otherwise no addict would ever be able to overcome their addictions (at least not without the help of substances which overcome the chemical reaction in their brains). I submit that these people are just bad at resisting. Is there more of a chemical reaction in their brain than in mine? (Do they feel MORE of a draw than I do)? Quite possibly (though also possibly not), but unless addiction is an impossible thing to overcome (unless addiction is something people cannot choose to try to overcome), then their ability to say no is the same in kind (if not in quality) as my own. They can say "no," they choose not to do so. That they have a heavier draw to say "Yes," does not mean they cannot say "No." They have choice.

You disagree?

In general, I think that when people use terms like "addict" and (in this context) "disease," they're basically making excuses for people who make (what are viewed as) poor choices. They're downplaying personal responsibility and blaming the choices of individuals on other people, on other things, on structures like "society."

Poor choice(s) lead to the use addictive substances. Once the addiction kicks in, it becomes a disease. Once it's a disease, it takes great strength to choose to get well. Not everyone has that strength.

You could predict with great accuracy what the attitudes of all the participants in this discussion would be towards those addicts too weak to get well.

I'm hesitant to rely on factual representations from Mother Jones, given that it also provides "facts" like:

Mother Jones didn't come up with those numbers. Those numbers were drawn from the NHTSA report that was later confirmed by the IIHS.

But in any case, you didn't answer my question; you simply restated your premise. Every manufacturer today who doesn't provide side airbags has engineers that know that side impact collisions can kill passengers. Is it a "design flaw" to fail to provide side airbags in every car?

I DID answer the question: Nobody in 1976 was demanding air bags or armor or anything beyond what was a simple, low cost change to the car. After Ford made their very minor change to the Pinto line in 1977, there were no other suits against the car, not from consumers, not from third party testers, not from the government.

Reasonable basic safety is the baseline; fender benders at 25 MPH happen all the time. Everyone except for David Nieporent believes that a car shouldn't burst into flames if that happens. Even Ford believed this, or else why would they lie under oath about their own testing data? Why else would their own engineers refer to the fuel tank problem as a "flaw"? Consumers should reasonably expect to go through such an accident without their cars bursting into flames and maiming or killing them, and they certainly should expect that the car manufacturer be honest about such things. Only you would argue that companies don't have such obligations, and at this point I think you're just playing devil's advocate.

Ford proves the point on body count vs. profit margin with the internal memos that appeared in court, where they put a dollar tag on lives lost vs. the cost to repair the line. They explicitly chose to accept a body count for the sake of higher profits.

Only you would argue that companies don't have such obligations


You are wrong.

You could predict with great accuracy what the attitudes of all the participants in this discussion would be towards those addicts too weak to get well.

Sympathy and compassion. I don't consider addictions as diseases, but the effects they have on people are real.

ANY car can be unsafe, and clothes can be unsafe, too...

Irwin Mainway: This happens to be a favorite of mine, because it's a low-price Halloween costume. [ tears it open ] It's really one of the more exciting ones. You take the rags, you just pin 'em on there like a hobo, you know? And then flame on, lights up the night! It's a beautiful costume, I think.

Joan Face: Mr. Mainway, I am shocked at your irresponsible attitude! I think we can all see that your Halloween costumes are unsafe and should rightfully be banned from the market!

Irwin Mainway: Now, wait a second, hold it! You're picking on these because you're saying these costumes are unsafe! Well, I'm gonna tell you something - any item of clothing can be proven unsafe! Anything! What you're wearing, what I'm wearing! I've got this tie on - nice tie, nice thin tie.. alright, I'm driving along in my convertible, a nice gust of wind comes up.. [ he lifts his tie, shoves it into his face and feigns choking ] I could choke to death, you know? I mean, really! I could put it in my mouth - I could swallow my whole shirt!

There are three ways of looking at cigarettes, cigarette companies and risk.

1. People are wholly responsible for their own consumption choices, and the cigarette companies are merely filling a demand that they bear no moral responsibility for creating in the first place, in spite of over a century's worth of advertising whose sole purpose is to create that demand.

2. The tobacco companies are wholly responsible for creating new smokers, and smokers are merely innocent victims, in spite of 44 years worth of widespread dissemination of the facts about the negative relationship between smoking and health. In this view, such factors as peer pressure, the desire to be cool, and general stupidity don't even come into the picture. It's all the tobacco companies' fault if down the road the smoker's lungs turn black.

3. People do have free will, and are indeed responsible for making rational choices about their health, and if they choose to smoke, you can't blame the tobacco companies for supplying them with cigarettes. But at the same time, there remains the unchallenged fact that smoking is a severe detriment to public health, and that there is at the very least a great deal of contributory negligence on the part of the tobacco companies, both in advertising in such a way as to create demand for smoking*, above and beyond trying to steer existing smokers towards your own particular brand; and in "enhancing" your product with chemicals whose sole purpose is to increase the addictive quality of your product.

This third explanation doesn't let smokers off the hook. More and more Americans each year choose not to begin smoking, and other Americans manage to quit in spite of it all. And if insurance companies want to jack up the premiums for smokers, especially those who came of age after 1964, I can't say that I blame them.

But this third explanation also recognizes that the public health problem is real, and that the role of the tobacco companies in both creating and maintaining cigarette addiction can't be ignored, or rationalized away by "free market" ideology. It's the only one of these three explanations that expresses the concept that all people---smokers and tobacco company executives alike---should know that their actions have consequences. It's the only explanation that doesn't read like a press release from either the trial lawyers or the tobacco companies themselves.

*This advertising has been severely curtailed throughout much of the developed world---and good for that---but goes unabated in almost all of the developing world.

You're right; there's no comparison. Colin Ferguson was insane.

Back when Curtis and Kuby were on the air, a caller brought up Ferguson who Kuby [tried] to represent, asking Kuby something along the lines of, "come on, why did Ferguson really do it"

and Kuby said something along the lines of, "ordinarily I couldn't tell you do to atty-client privilege, but in this case I'll make an exception, Colin really believes that some white guy did it and he was framed".

Any way, da Judge found Ferguson competent to stand trial, and he was convicted...
As a general rule whether a murderer gets "off" on the insanity defense hinges more on the financial wealth the perp's parents have and the stupidity of the jury- I read the trial transcript for the Hinckley trial- his parents had quite a bit of money and hired very competent legal help + the jury was dumb, Hinckley was emotionally disturbed, but he clearly came nowhere close to meeting the legal definition of insanity.

Ferguson is a textbook example of someone for whom the legal definition of insanity was meant- but that brings up the question of whether we as a society want such a legal defense- The Ferguson's of the world are clearly more dangerous to society than the Hinckey's

1909. The Good Face Posted: April 24, 2008 at 12:33 PM (#2757293)


Do beer ads make you believe hot chicks will come frolic, bikini-clad, in your front lawn if you crack open a cold one?

YES

yes i do. i'll be picking up dog poop in the back yard, make the terrible mistake of opening a beer and then suddenly out of nowheres will appear a dozen of my husband's idea of the hottest chicks EVAH and they will pour into the living room like a lake bustin through a dam wall and will swarm upon my astonished, helpless husband sitting there in his Chair, pounce on him like dogsss on burger and ravish his body right THERE in front of my horrified children

which is why i don't allow no beer in my house

Ferguson is a textbook example of someone for whom the legal definition of insanity was meant- but that brings up the question of whether we as a society want such a legal defense- The Ferguson's of the world are clearly more dangerous to society than the Hinckey's

I won't argue with that, but my original point was that going by the numbers, Ferguson isn't nearly the mass murderer that the tobacco company executives are. The TCExecs / Ferguson kill ratio would have made General Westmoreland himself green with envy---and the argument holds even if you consider Ferguson solely responsible for his actions, in spite of his obvious insanity.

Do beer ads make you believe hot chicks will come frolic, bikini-clad, in your front lawn if you crack open a cold one?

YES

yes i do. i'll be picking up dog poop in the back yard, make the terrible mistake of opening a beer and then suddenly out of nowheres will appear a dozen of my husband's idea of the hottest chicks EVAH and they will pour into the living room like a lake bustin through a dam wall and will swarm upon my astonished, helpless husband sitting there in his Chair, pounce on him like dogsss on burger and ravish his body right THERE in front of my horrified children

which is why i don't allow no beer in my house

BBC, you live close enough to the Mexican border, maybe you should sashay on over to Nuevo Laredo and see if you can grab you a nice piece of one of those good old border fences. It'll work even better against any hot chicks with Mexican accents.

Once it's a disease, it takes great strength to choose to get well. Not everyone has that strength.

Putting aside what I think to be the drawbacks of calling it a disease (and also putting aside the fact that medical professionals call it one), I...

Well, shoot, I was going to say that I wholeheartedly agree that it takes great strength to choose health over addiction and that not everyone has that strength (because look at all the people who don't make that choice), but then I became less certain I agreed totally...

Let me put it this way: people (likely) need to choose to be healthy in order to overcome their addiction. Despite the obvious rational benefits to the choice, some succeed, some fail. I agree with all this. And if some people fail to overcome their addiction, does this mean that those people lacked the strength? I can certainly understand an argument that says, "Yes -- by definition"... But that's defining "strength" after the fact. It's guaranteed to be correct since it defines itself based on whether or not a person was successful. We look at the success stories and say they had the strength (until they fall off the wagon), we look at the failures and say they lacked it (until they sober up). I find that problematic.

Moreover, "strength" is too loaded a word. There's a distinct difference between the "strength" it takes to lift a 500-pound object and the "strength" it takes to say the word "No." Most human beings can't lift the 500-pound object. Most human beings can form the word "No." I'm not sure that using the same word for both situations is appropriate (although I'm not sure I have a better word for the ability to overcome the self-destructive chemical reactions in one's brain to say "no" in a situation in which your whole body is screaming "say 'yes'").

I'm currently resisting the temptation to say more for now, mostly because I feel the arguments I'm not -- yet -- bringing up are possibly even weaker or more offensive than the weak/offensive ones I've already brought up. But, again, I hear the scream of the (metaphoric) voices telling me to type more, type more -- even though there are plenty of better uses of my time...

nuevo laredo is some 6-7 hours away driving like i like to drive without no kidsss in the car. it is probably 2-3 days away if i take kidssss

just easier to keep beer out of the house

dependency (sex, food, video games) does not equal addiction (tobacco, caffeine, heroin)

The chemical dependency processes are different. Cocaine, for example, is known (in the scientific sense - i.e., recent experiments have shown) to actually "disconnect" the cost/benefit system in your brain.

an excerpt from Nature, Medicine (2001, so it's even old)

An examination of brain activity in 12 men playing a game of chance showed increased activity in the sublenticular extended amygdala, the nucleus acumbens and the hypothalamus when the volunteers anticipated winning money, mimicking the normal response to drugs like cocaine. The results indicate that addictive drugs target the processing of information about reward and loss—a powerful mechanism believed to be responsible for most human behavior (Neuron 30, 619; 2001).

Besides providing a strong neurochemical reward, cocaine also seems to usurp normal learning and memory processes, further inspiring users to seek the drug. Recent studies on rats yielded the surprising result that stimulating the dopamine-rich medial forebrain bundle, the brain region responsible for cocaine's 'high', does not cause previously cocaine-addicted rats to resume self-administration of the drug (Science 292, 1178; 2001). In contrast, stimulating the glutamate-rich ventral subiculum of the hippocampus strongly motivates the rats to seek the drug again. The signal from the ventral subiculum requires glutamate in the ventral tegmental area, indicating that glutamate might be a useful target for drugs to treat cocaine addiction.

As the hippocampus is involved in contextual learning, the response of the rats seems to represent an association between the cocaine high and the context of the earlier cocaine experience. The phenomenon is similar to the behavior of human addicts who kick the habit, but then return to using cocaine when they encounter 'triggers' that cause them to remember previous highs. The relapse behavior of the rats indicates that addiction involves two distinct processes: the initial changes in neural circuitry induced by drug consumption, and the establishment of contextual memory traces in the hippocampus.

Of course, the initial decisions to become a cocaine (or tobacco) user are voluntary. But effectively, addictive drugs cause (reversable?) "brain damage" that literally prevents addicts from making rational decisions in the future.

Note that anecdotes about addiction and recovery are pretty useless given the well known genetic variation among humans and their responses to drugs (legal, illegal, prescription, OTC...) , addiction, and dependency in general.

I am lumping cocaine addiction here with tobacco - possibly unwarrented - but it's well documented that nicotine is a very difficult addiction to break.

robert

not enough talk about why someone CHOOSES to use a substance he/she KNOWS for absolute certain is dangerous and addictive in the first place. all that - well everybody does it - it cuts no ice with me

as for why too many people don't/won't/can't stop - as my uncle told me, life is too horrible to live sober

i don't know exactly what each chemical does to each individual brain but whatever effect it does have must seem to deal with whatever part of life its user can't deal with sober

i also know that many addictive substances are used by the user to help deal with undiagnosed and untreated psychiatric problems

Can anyone explain to me how libertarianism (at least as expressed on BTF!) will not degenerate into Oligarchy? Or "Utility Feudalism" (as opposed to land-based)

Excellent post 2014, RM. Extremely thoughtful, and deserves a like reply. Today's a busy day for me, but I'll get to it as I can.

nuevo laredo is some 6-7 hours away driving like i like to drive without no kidsss in the car. it is probably 2-3 days away if i take kidssss

just easier to keep beer out of the house

Yeah, either that or counter it with a grlzzzz beer that makes men pop out of the bottle and take all of your husband's fantasy chicks back to the beach with them. You can have your own little arms race right there in the hearta Yewston.

Robert, in this example "strength" refers to the individual's ability to make the decision to stop using, and then, to weather the physical pain of withdrawal. Both actions take strength. (Strength...the only 8 letter word in the English language with only one vowel.)

Yeah, either that or counter it with a grlzzzz beer that makes men pop out of the bottle

Perhaps something (though probably not exactly for BBC's taste) like this...

I understand to what strength refers. I'm just not sure (low percentage of vowels notwithstanding) that it should be used in both contexts -- I think the connotations of the one word blurs what I think are some important distinctions between the two situations.

Oh, and I think "Mytzlplk" should be added to dictionaries (but then again, I think "detritus" should be pronounced "DEH-tre-tus" rather than "de-TRI-tus," showing I'm just perverse sometimes).

1. People are wholly responsible for their own consumption choices, and the cigarette companies are merely filling a demand that they bear no moral responsibility for creating in the first place, in spite of over a century's worth of advertising whose sole purpose is to create that demand.

This is the correct answer. What do I win?

By the way, Andy, as you well know, smoking goes back far beyond just the last century or so. So I don't know why you're pretending that nobody smoked before Philip Morris came along.

And - "moral responsibility" for creating demand for a product that people use voluntarily with (for the last several decades) awareness that the product carries health risks? No.

But at the same time, there remains the unchallenged fact that smoking is a severe detriment to public health,

I'm not sure what you mean by "public health," since smoking affects individuals, and "secondhand smoke" is junk science.

and that there is at the very least a great deal of contributory negligence on the part of the tobacco companies, both in advertising in such a way as to create demand for smoking*, above and beyond trying to steer existing smokers towards your own particular brand;

First, the notion of "contributory negligence on the part of the tobacco companies" doesn't make any sense. In general, contributory negligence is a doctrine which prevents a plaintiff from recovering any damages in a lawsuit if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed, even slightly, to the harm. Since tobacco companies are not the plaintiffs, the idea of contributory negligence makes no sense as applied to the tobacco companies. It would only make sense as applied to smokers, and would operate to prevent smokers from recovering.

What you mean to say is "comparative negligence," which apportions the responsibility and reduces the plaintiff's damages by the percentage he was at fault. (This is a defense raised by the defendant.) But what is your basis for citing "negligence" here? Is it something like failure to warn, or are you holding the tobacco companies responsible simply for making/advertising the product? From what I can tell, it appears to be the latter. (It's my understanding that most of these cases have proceeded on products liability/consumer fraud/RICO grounds.)

(I also don't know what "both in advertising in such a way as to create demand for smoking*, above and beyond trying to steer existing smokers towards your own particular brand" even means.)

not a bad idea robert - but me i'd rather see morris chestnut and grady sizemore and jody gerut and brad ausmus come to give me a TOTAL body massage because nothing worse then workin up a GOOD head of lust (shall we say) - no, RIVER of lust, then finding out they'd rather do your husband/brother you know what i'm sayin

record for thread with most posts on BTF is.... ?

This is the correct answer. What do I win?

If there were any justice, a serious nicotine addiction.

If there were any justice, a serious nicotine addiction.

:-)

That won't happen, since I choose not to smoke.

See how this works?

That won't happen, since I choose not to smoke. See how that works?

Yeah. It's a useful world view that absolves any industry of any dishonesty whatsoever. Your kid gets addicted to X, Y, or Z? Kids are stupid and get what's coming to them. Buddy buys a cheap car that explodes? He got what he paid for. Those companies lying about the safety of their product? That's just the marketplace.

You'll excuse me while I go throw up. It's a disgusting paradigm.

But effectively, addictive drugs cause (reversable?) "brain damage" that literally prevents addicts from making rational decisions in the future.

Prevents? Or hinders? The distinction is an important one, I think. And I would suggest that if it IS possible for addicts to decide to try to beat their addiction, then it's "hinders" more than "prevents." But if it's "hinders," then we're admitting that there is a possibility to beat the addiction through a choice to be sober. But then it's a choice to be made. Timshel, thank goodness: life is not predetermined even if it's going to be harder for some people to make some decisions than it is for others to make them.

Yeah. It's a useful world view that absolves any industry of any dishonesty whatsoever.

Nope. The problem I have with the tobacco issue is that, no matter what dishonesty the companies engaged in, people knew the risks anyway. The pinto issue is a matter of tradeoffs, which are perfectly rational.

Your kid gets addicted to X, Y, or Z? Kids are stupid and get what's coming to them.

Don't forget about the parents, who deserve a share of the blame depending on how old the kid is.

1. People are wholly responsible for their own consumption choices, and the cigarette companies are merely filling a demand that they bear no moral responsibility for creating in the first place, in spite of over a century's worth of advertising whose sole purpose is to create that demand.

This is the correct answer. What do I win?

By the way, Andy, as you well know, smoking goes back far beyond just the last century or so. So I don't know why you're pretending that nobody smoked before Philip Morris came along.

Smoking goes back to Sir Walter Raleigh, and perhaps even well beyond that. Who denies that? What I wrote above had to do with advertising, not consumption, and in particular the sort of advertising that utilized the techniques of psychological suggestion and came up with campaigns like this famous Lucky Strike one, which has been credited with almost singlehandedly creating an entire generation of women smokers. This particular ad campaign began in the early 1920's, and was only the most pernicious of them. Mass advertising of cigarettes began around the time of World War One; prior to that, and prior to the invention of machine-rolled cigarettes in the 1880's, tobacco was treated more like a commodity than as a consumer product in the modern sense.

But at the same time, there remains the unchallenged fact that smoking is a severe detriment to public health,

I'm not sure what you mean by "public health," since smoking affects individuals, and "secondhand smoke" is junk science.

By that standard, questions of "public health" can arise only from general environmental pollution. You could just as easily dismiss concerns about the health risks of contaminated meat, since meat is only consumed by "individuals."

But of course there is a difference between meat and cigarettes. In the case of meat the contamination is accidental.

I'll leave your throwaway line about secondhand smoke alone, since to me that's a side issue, and is best addressed by simply requiring proper ventilation than by general bans on smoking.

and that there is at the very least a great deal of contributory negligence on the part of the tobacco companies, both in advertising in such a way as to create demand for smoking*, above and beyond trying to steer existing smokers towards your own particular brand;

First, the notion of "contributory negligence on the part of the tobacco companies" doesn't make any sense. In general, contributory negligence is a doctrine which prevents a plaintiff from recovering any damages in a lawsuit if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed, even slightly, to the harm. Since tobacco companies are not the plaintiffs, the idea of contributory negligence makes no sense as applied to the tobacco companies. It would only make sense as applied to smokers, and would operate to prevent smokers from recovering.

What you mean to say is "comparative negligence," which apportions the responsibility and reduces the plaintiff's damages by the percentage he was at fault.

Point about "comparative" vs. "contributory" taken, and there's no question about the role of smokers themselves in their own physical downfall---a concession I've not only made put emphasized several times already. As in "smokers are f*ck*ng idiots."

But if we see a serious decline in life expectancy caused by a product; and if that product is marketed (by subliminal suggestion and by chemical enhancement) in such a way as to create and maintain addiction to that same product---then whether you call it "contributory" or "comparative" negligence on the part of people who write those ad campaigns and "enhance" those cigarettes, it's a moral crime of the highest degree. You can fight about the legal culpability on a case by case basis, since many other factors go into that sort of calculation. But my general view on this is that legal responsibility should be contingent on the (a) the degree of addictive additives put into any particular brand, and (b) the extent to which information about that "enhancement" was kept from the public. IOW it might vary on a case by case basis.

But what is your basis for citing "negligence" here? Is it something like failure to warn,

Not just "failure to warn" in the abstract, but deliberately withholding information about those chemical additives that were put into their cigarettes in order to enhance their addictive qualities. "Failure to warn" is far too general a term, since that concept can theoretically go hand and hand with the company's not knowing itself about the dangers of its product. Such was not exactly the case here.

or are you holding the tobacco companies responsible simply for making/advertising the product?

For making it? No. For advertising it in the manner that they have? Absolutely.

(I also don't know what "both in advertising in such a way as to create demand for smoking*, above and beyond trying to steer existing smokers towards your own particular brand" even means.)

See that link to the Lucky Strike ad above. It isn't merely the particular brand of cigarettes that those companies promoted (and still promote wherever they're allowed to), it's the whole lifestyle of smoking itself. Expanding the talent pool, so to speak.

The pinto issue is a matter of tradeoffs, which are perfectly rational.

This, of course, contradicts your initial statement that companies will avoid body counts. You were wrong. They won't if they don't have to.

Beyond that, it's not just about trade-offs. Ford lied under oath about their initial vehicle tests for the Pinto. They lied about the cost for repairs. They lied about their internal memos concerning the trade-offs. They lied, and lied, and lied to their customers and the general public for years. It's breathtaking how far over some people will bend to excuse companies or blind themsleves to this type of action, while giving no consideration to the people these companies lie to.

The problem I have with the tobacco issue is that, no matter what dishonesty the companies engaged in, people knew the risks anyway.

Knew? Or believed they knew? Until the results of a lot of scientific tests come out, any purported ill health from smoking is based on unscientific anecdotes, right? (Lots of people "know" that Roger Clemens used steroids/HGH in the exact same way that people, before any tests became public knowledge, "knew" that cigarettes are bad for them). Unless you're claiming that we can "know" something from anecdotal evidence, then alleged dishonesty DOES matter since it's unfair to expect people to "know" without the science to back it up.

Knew, from at least the point in time at which the warning labels were put on the packaging.

Andy's complaints about "pernicious advertising" fall on deaf ears with me. That's exactly the point of marketing: to try to get people to buy your product. I don't see what's contemptible about that. And people knew that the product was dangerous. As a hypothetical, let's assume that cars are precisely 100% as safe as manufacturers can possibly make them (thus getting away from the pinto debate). People would still buy them anyway, even though they know that there is an inherent risk in driving. Does Andy think advertising for these as-safe-as-can-be cars would be "pernicious"?

record for thread with most posts on BTF is.... ?

BTW, thanks for keeping things on such a high level.

You suck, Furtado!#!@$!@#$

/jk

As a hypothetical, let's assume that cars are precisely 100% as safe as manufacturers can possibly make them (thus getting away from the pinto debate). People would still buy them anyway, even though they know that there is an inherent risk in driving. Does Andy think advertising for these as-safe-as-can-be cars would be "pernicious"?

The whole point of the Pinto debate is that everyone understands there's an inherent risk in driving; nobody complains about that. The problem laid in Ford's deceptiveness in claiming that the Pinto did not suffer from the design flaws the company knew it had, thus increasing the dangers of driving far and above what anyone might reasonably expect. It's one thing to highlight a product's appeal, it's a whole other thing to outright lie about it, which is what Ford and the tobacco industry did for years and years. Blame the consumer all you want, but please stop excusing or ignoring the underhanded deception these companies stooped to for so long.

Again and again, we go back to the beginning: companies will accept a body count for profit. Ray can euphemistically call it a trade-off, but it is what it is.

10/1/2007 1654 San Diego Padres (89-73) @ Colorado Rockies (89-73), Monday, October 1, 2007, 7:37pm

Interesting. I would have thought a thread on a Yankees/Red Sox game, or a Mets game, would have more. Was it all about the game, or was it about other stuff? It was a hell of a game.

If I recall, it was mostly about the game but also about the playoffs generally, particuarly the NL playoffs. It helped that is was a very long game and of course the only one being played that night.

Robert, I don't quibble prevent vs. hinder. In fact, I believe different people are hindered to different extents.

However, I don't think it follows that

... then we're admitting that there is a possibility to beat the addiction through a choice to be sober. But then it's a choice to be made.

I think what you say is partially born out from what I learned from Dr. Drew - that you have to WANT to end the addiction. But I think that's (typically, and depends on the dependency as person, etc. etc.) a necessary but NOT SUFFICIENT condition.

Addicts are a burden on society. People (even reasonable people) differ on how much assistance "burdens" deserve. So are stupid people (who, for example, eat too much or buy Ford Pintos).

Do the smarter, healthier, more liquid individuals have an obligation to help those worse off? (Old, sick, lazy, stupid, unlucky?)

What it comes down to is that libertarians feel that no overreaching entity should be able to tell them whom they help and how much.

But the problem is, most people are meanies. They help only their friends, neighbors, children - their tribe. The tribe system breaks down in a modern society of 250+ million. My tribe wants to live in a gated community, fenced off from the other tribes.

"This is the correct answer. What do I win?"

200K.

Andy's complaints about "pernicious advertising" fall on deaf ears with me. That's exactly the point of marketing: to try to get people to buy your product. I don't see what's contemptible about that. And people knew that the product was dangerous. As a hypothetical, let's assume that cars are precisely 100% as safe as manufacturers can possibly make them (thus getting away from the pinto debate). People would still buy them anyway, even though they know that there is an inherent risk in driving. Does Andy think advertising for these as-safe-as-can-be cars would be "pernicious"?

I'll let Softball address the particulars of the Pinto case, but you're still avoiding making any judgment about the incontrovertible fact that cigarette companies, knowing that they were producing a product that was deadly to begin with, deliberately and secretly added chemicals to their product for the sole purpose of making them even more addictive than they already were.

And all with the deliberate and unquestionable effect of speeding up the death process---and let's not mince words here, for that's exactly what this is all about.

There is no other legal product on Earth, when consumed at an "average" rate, that is either as deadly or as addictive as the cigarette. The more addicted you are, the more you smoke. And unless you happen to be a rare genetic fluke, the more you smoke, the faster you die.

To you this whole sordid activity on the part of the tobacco companies, undertaken with the full knowledge of this inevitable "collateral damage," amounts to nothing more than "marketing." To you it could have been minute doses of rat poison that were being added, as long as it didn't kill people any faster than the chemicals that they did add. As long as it helps "create a demand" for the product (which is what chemically enhanced addiction is all about), it's apparently kosher by you.

Jesus, even Nieporent admits that "the tobacco companies acted dishonestly." I guess I should give you credit for being the last one standing.

Mother Jones didn't come up with those numbers. Those numbers were drawn from the NHTSA report that was later confirmed by the IIHS.

Huh? NHTSA never said that hundreds of people were killed in fires in the Pinto. That came solely from Mother Jones.

I DID answer the question: Nobody in 1976 was demanding air bags or armor or anything beyond what was a simple, low cost change to the car. After Ford made their very minor change to the Pinto line in 1977, there were no other suits against the car, not from consumers, not from third party testers, not from the government.

First, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from; I can't imagine what sort of cause of action "third party testers" would have against Ford, but how do you know there were no other suits against Ford regarding the car? (And Nader certainly was demanding airbags that early; he testified before Congress in 1975 that all cars should be required to have them.)

Second, I'm honestly not sure why you think that's responsive to my question. Whether there's a design flaw certainly can't turn on whether someone files a lawsuit.

Reasonable basic safety is the baseline;

And the Pinto was reasonably basically safe, as evidenced by the actual fatality data, in which it performed like other subcompact cars on the market.

Consumers should reasonably expect to go through such an accident without their cars bursting into flames and maiming or killing them, and they certainly should expect that the car manufacturer be honest about such things. Only you would argue that companies don't have such obligations, and at this point I think you're just playing devil's advocate.

Obligations to do what? Manufacturers can't have an obligation to make a product 100% safe, because there's no such thing. An obligation to make it not-unusually-dangerous? But the Pinto was not unusually dangerous, was not unusually likely to burst into flames and kill its occupants. As for "honest about such things," honest about what? The Pinto was, as I said, not unusually dangerous. Is Ford supposed to tell Pinto buyers, "This car could burst into flames if hit from behind?" But any car can burst into flames if hit in the wrong place/way; do all car manufacturers have to tell all car buyers that their cars might burst into flames? Do they all have to tell all buyers that their cars might roll over under certain conditions? Or that the brakes eventually wear out? Do all subcompact manufacturers have to tell all subcompact buyers that their cars are much more dangerous in a collision than larger cars?

Ford proves the point on body count vs. profit margin with the internal memos that appeared in court, where they put a dollar tag on lives lost vs. the cost to repair the line. They explicitly chose to accept a body count for the sake of higher profits.

As the Schwartz article points out, that narrative is the conventional wisdom, but it's wrong in a narrow sense -- the memos did NOT appear in court, nor were they about the Pinto per se -- and meaningless in a broad sense. There is no alternative but to "accept a body count for the sake of higher profits." That's not an issue with Ford, that's the universe. As long as there are finite resources, one must accept tradeoffs. If you give me an infinite amount of money, I can make a car with no body count; otherwise, there will be one, and the size of the count will depend upon my profitability.

(Yes, they could have spent tens of millions of dollars on $10 modifications and eliminated a few fire fatalities. But there would still have been a "body count." That body count could be reduced further if they made another $10 modification, or maybe $100 modification, or maybe $1,000. Why didn't they? Because nobody would buy a Pinto that cost that much. And they wouldn't make any money. IOW, a concern over profits.)

Is Ford supposed to tell Pinto buyers, "This car could burst into flames if hit from behind?" But any car can burst into flames if hit in the wrong place/way; do all car manufacturers have to tell all car buyers that their cars might burst into flames? Do they all have to tell all buyers that their cars might roll over under certain conditions?

If caused by a serious design flaw (as in the cases of the exploding Pintos), yes. No? Tell us why not, Irwin.

TR Irwin Mainway:

Irwin Mainway: Now, wait a second, hold it! You're picking on these because you're saying these costumes are unsafe! Well, I'm gonna tell you something - any item of clothing can be proven unsafe! Anything! What you're wearing, what I'm wearing! I've got this tie on - nice tie, nice thin tie.. alright, I'm driving along in my convertible, a nice gust of wind comes up.. [ he lifts his tie, shoves it into his face and feigns choking ] I could choke to death, you know? I mean, really! I could put it in my mouth - I could swallow my whole shirt!

BTF's Irwin Mainway: But any car can burst into flames if hit in the wrong place/way; do all car manufacturers have to tell all car buyers that their cars might burst into flames?

He's right! I just swallowed my whole shirt!

I'm a fan of Dr Drew as well (as I am of most Lord Jeffs not named Dan Brown). And it turned out I met him within a week of moving to LA -- a very cool guy in person as well, I was pleased to find out.

Anyway, I agree with the idea that "wanting it" isn't exactly sufficient - you've got to "want it more" (to use the sports cliche). I have wanted to lose weight at times in my life (for instance), but until I took responsibility to say "no" to most of the junk food that was available to me, my "wanting" it was cosmetic. It was lip service. Sure, I really did want to lose weight, but I didn't want it enough to let my desire for it overrule my desire for other more immediately-gained pleasures.

And weight-loss and weight-gain probably (I say out of ignorance) are probably pretty analogous. Anyone CAN lose weight if they want: just burn more calories than you take in. ("Just," ha! Except that it IS a just -- it's a hard choice to make, but it is one that almost all adults can make). Some people have a harder time doing this for various reasons: working out is hard/time-consuming, eating well is at times not as immediately gratifying as eating poorly, they've built up bad dietary habits wherein it becomes hard to break the ritual of always eating when their emotions feel a certain way, lack of patience for what has to be a long-term process, and so on. But if people really truly want to lose weight, so long as they are sensible (don't starve themselves, don't try to lose too much weight too quickly) they CAN do it. It may or may not be easy, and it may be harder for certain people to make the continual choice to abstain from poor eating habits, but it is possible for (just about) everyone.

Addicts are a burden on society. People (even reasonable people) differ on how much assistance "burdens" deserve.

Or what constitutes assistance. Sometimes you need to let someone discover for him/herself the poorness of their decisions (and sometimes not -- sometimes it's better to stop them before they find out -- but where the line is can be tough to say sometimes).

If caused by a serious design flaw (as in the cases of the exploding Pintos), yes. No? Tell us why not, Irwin.

I would, but I think this discussion is a little over your head. Perhaps you ought to go back to the kiddie table.

You still haven't established that there was a "serious design flaw," as opposed to a tradeoff.

Nor have you explained why the cause of the "problem" should have any bearing on whether a manufacturer should disclose it. The Pinto could catch fire because of a "flaw," so Ford has to say, "By the way, this car could catch fire," but even though the (e.g.) Gremlin catches fire at a similar rate, AMC didn't have to say, "By the way, this car could catch fire"? Why on earth not?

A tradeoff. I see.

And what other cars exploded on impact at a "similar rate" during the 70's? Why are we only familiar with exploding Pintos?

I'm a fan of Dr Drew as well

Is this the same Dr. Drew whose clinical diagnosis of Eliot Spitzer's hookerizing was that Spitzer was "subconciously trying to get caught," instead of the far more plausible -- but less psychobabble sounding -- answer of "He just wanted to get laid"?

Bill Maher explained it thusly: "Yes, the risks were great. But the need was great."

I want to know what David Pinto's opinion on the Pinto is.


And just because something sounds like psycho-babble doesn't make it inaccurate by default. Honestly, it sounds as plausible as anything else. If he just wanted to get laid, plenty of non-hooker poli-groupies would have done him, I'm sure.

If he just wanted to get laid, plenty of non-hooker poli-groupies would have done him, I'm sure.

You don't pay a prostitute for sex, you pay a prostitute for her to leave afterwards.

I would like to state, for the record, that I don't consider Dr. Drew a serious source! But it was funnier than "I heard on the radio".

The Pinto thing seems to come down to whether or not Pintos are more or less save than their competitors. David says they were no less safe, and I am not inclined to spelunk the interwebs to fact check him. Maybe they got lucky.

David's absolutely right in that these tradeoffs are the fundamental basis for capitalism.

BUT actually... part of the pinto story is that the early pintos were not going to meet the new government safety standards, and Ford lobbied to have these standards lowered. From a government standpoint - should the Federal government set safety standards for automobiles? Did Ray cut this in his budget?

If there are standards, and Ford violates them - they can be subject to criminal prosecution and/or negligigence.
If there are no standards, how do consumers take action against a manufacturer of something? Wait for statistical significance?

If there are no standards, how do consumers take action against a manufacturer of something? Wait for statistical significance?

And if worse comes to worst, do they allow lawsuits in Heaven? Or do they tell you that the statute of limitations has expired?

Hey, guys...did I miss anything?

Hey, guys...did I miss anything?

Well, actually, no, if you already know this crowd and where each of us is on the political spectrum.

Is this the same Dr. Drew whose clinical diagnosis of Eliot Spitzer's hookerizing was that Spitzer was "subconciously trying to get caught," instead of the far more plausible -- but less psychobabble sounding -- answer of "He just wanted to get laid"?

Dunno, could be. I just did a search on youtube and found this -- Dr Drew doesn't say what you say he said, but he also doesn't say "He just wanted to get laid" either. (And it should be noted that just about anything he said on the matter in the clip or elsewhere is as much a clinical evaluation as David's or Srul's posts in this thread constitute legal briefs on the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement).

Anyway, offhand, I think there's usually more to fooling around with a prostitute than a mere "wanting to get laid," so if that makes me a psychobabbler, so be it. He was married. Theoretically, if he wanted to get laid, he could... but with his wife. And yet he still chose to sleep with other women. (I grant that I'm assuming that his wife was willing to sleep with him before finding out about his transgressions -- possibly a big assumption, though possibly not). It seems to me that a man in a relationship who sleeps with other women is looking for something he's not finding in his marital bed (excitement, danger, someone better, someone different, etc.). I think almost all such plausible motivations go beyond mere "just wanting to get laid." Your mileage may vary (and fair enough -- for all I know of the situation, his wife was refusing to sleep with him or was out of the country for months at a time).

More to the point on Dr Drew, just as I don't agree with absolutely everything you've ever written here or on usenet but still can honestly say that I enjoy reading your posts, often agree with you, and respect you as a poster, so can I say the same thing about Dr Drew. My experience (both in person and watching/listening to him) suggests he's a smart, clever, sincere individual with an admirable enthusiasm towards helping others. If he also suffers from a bit of narcissism, well, I can certainly forgive that "flaw" amid all the other positive aspects of what I perceive to be his personality. Yeah, I've got no problem saying I'm a fan of him, even if you can find instances in which he may have said things with which I would disagree (I probably could too if I bothered to go back and look for them). I certainly didn't agree with everything he did or said on Celebrity Rehab while still liking what I saw of him on it.

First, I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from; I can't imagine what sort of cause of action "third party testers" would have against Ford, but how do you know there were no other suits against Ford regarding the car?

Every legal action i could find against Ford WRT the Pinto was based on models pre-1977. If there were suits based on models post '77 I don't know of them.

the Pinto was reasonably basically safe, as evidenced by the actual fatality data, in which it performed like other subcompact cars on the market.

The fatality data ignores the injury rate, which both the NHTSA and Schwartz note to be significantly higher. Beyond that, the NHTSA's report, later confirmed by the IISA, was that the injuries were unique to the fires.

Obligations to do what? Manufacturers can't have an obligation to make a product 100% safe, because there's no such thing.

No one's saying they do. However, when Ford's engineers noted the specific problems with the fuel tank in the Pinto during the testing stages — and when they specifically used the term "design flaw" to describe it — then, yes, Ford absolutely had an obligation to address it. Moreover, it wouldn't have cost them $121 million or whatever number people want to pull out of a hat; that change could have been instituted for a fraction of that amount before the first Pintos began rolling off the assembly line. Hell, even if they ignored it the first time around, they could have addressed it in the second generation Pintos going forward. That Ford later on lied about their own crash test data is pretty telling. This was a problem they could have nipped in the bud had they chosen to. They chose not to.

As the Schwartz article points out, that narrative is the conventional wisdom, but it's wrong in a narrow sense -- the memos did NOT appear in court, nor were they about the Pinto per se -- and meaningless in a broad sense. There is no alternative but to "accept a body count for the sake of higher profits."

The memos weren't about the Pinto, but the CBA involved in making the decision not to recall the Pinto. (The memos were presented, but deemed inadmissable.)

In the broad sense, everyone understands tradeoffs. Everyone accepts that small cars are necessarily more vulnerable than large cars. What they don't accept is when a manufacturer ignores its own engineers' data, brings to market a product that they know makes unnecesarily vulnerable in the course of normal operation, and then lie about it.

I think Bevins has it right. It's Bag o' Glass time.

So now I know that there's an actual TV show called "Celebrity Rehab." I had to google it just to make sure.

Thanks for the information. My life is now complete.

BUT actually... part of the pinto story is that the early pintos were not going to meet the new government safety standards, and Ford lobbied to have these standards lowered. From a government standpoint - should the Federal government set safety standards for automobiles? Did Ray cut this in his budget?

Yup. All cut out.

Take the grounding of 3,000 American Airlines flights earlier this month by the FAA so that inspectors could determine whether AA was in compliance with federal maintenance guidelines. Totally unnecessary. Or is it good business practice for an airline to have a plane go down?

If there are no standards, how do consumers take action against a manufacturer of something? Wait for statistical significance?

Products liability. Consumer fraud. Breach of warranty. Etc. Whichever claims may have merit.

At least spell my name right when giving me credit.

At least spell my name right when giving me credit.

Sure, here you go:

Crazy Joe Bivens

Some questions for you Ray:

Do you think that a lawyers' skill influences court decisions?

Do you think that a laywers' compensation should reflect his or her skill?

Would you rather be on an airplane that went down, or a stockholder in said planes' carrier? CEO of an airline?

There are no libertarians in the foxholes of defective aircraft.

There are no libertarians in the foxholes of defective aircraft.

Nor, the last time I've noticed, have there been many airline CEO's.

Again and again, we go back to the beginning: companies will accept a body count for profit. Ray can euphemistically call it a trade-off, but it is what it is.

That's not a euphemism, it's the bottom line. Life is risk, and denial of that risk is absurd. Now, you can argue that Ford hid the risks their car had, and that's a legitimate argument, but to claim that there is any such thing as absolute safety — something the above comes very close to doing — is just ridiculous.

If there are standards, and Ford violates them - they can be subject to criminal prosecution and/or negligigence.
If there are no standards, how do consumers take action against a manufacturer of something? Wait for statistical significance?

IIRC one of the reasons the EPA got started was the carmakers were terrified that liability suits were starting to come out of southern California for pollution; had this practice spread through state courts, the country would have ended up with pollution regulations per state, and the carmakers had no desire to see that. Better a malleable federal agency with one set of regulations than many, or even several. Look how hard the carmakers are fighting the greenhouse gas emission standards California, New York, and several other states have combined to propose.

Do you think that a lawyers' skill influences court decisions?

Yes.

Do you think that a laywers' compensation should reflect his or her skill?

Sure, but it can't be a linear relationship because a lawyers' compensation also hinges on factors such as what kind of law he's practicing, where he's practicing, whether he's practicing at a large firm with large clients, whether he's in the public sector, etc.

Would you rather be on an airplane that went down, or a stockholder in said planes' carrier? CEO of an airline?

Are these trick questions? No, I wouldn't want to be on an airplane that went down.

That's not a euphemism, it's the bottom line. Life is risk, and denial of that risk is absurd. Now, you can argue that Ford hid the risks their car had, and that's a legitimate argument, but to claim that there is any such thing as absolute safety — something the above comes very close to doing — is just ridiculous.

No one's ever claimed that the Pinto needed to be 100% accident free; that's just a strawman argument DMN's been claiming. There's no arguing, though, that Ford's engineers did specifically identify the problem with the fuel tank as a design flaw, and that Ford did try to hide the crash test data they had compiled before rolling out the very first production Pinto.

Take the grounding of 3,000 American Airlines flights earlier this month by the FAA so that inspectors could determine whether AA was in compliance with federal maintenance guidelines. Totally unnecessary. Or is it good business practice for an airline to have a plane go down?

Isn't an industry that's currently making/losing money by overcharging people for shuttle tickets a bad example to use for this argument?

My 10th grade Latin teacher also made this terrible argument--Life is risk, so minimizing risk is stupid. She was partly deaf and partly blind--probably from playing with fireworks.

My 10th grade Latin teacher also made this terrible argument--Life is risk, so minimizing risk is stupid.

Did you get out of bed this morning, E-X? Did you leave your house? Did you drive? Did you walk on the street, leaving yourself vulnerable to being hit by a car? If so, then you didn't minimize risk.

None of us "minimizes risk," so arguing that it's stupid not to do so is kind of silly.

The airliner doesn't want their planes to crash. So they don't need the FAA to tell them to inspect their planes. And that's without even getting into the fact that what is considered "safety related" by the FAA (e.g., the direction a bolt is facing) might not be considered as such by someone having similar knowledge in the field.

The FAA also sets deadlines (18 months or what not) for the airlines to bring themselves into compliance with certain guidelines. Note that the changes required are so critical, so crucial to safety, that... the FAA lets the airlines fly anyway during that grace period. And some planes have been flying safely for decades operating under the pre-change conditions.

You might also notice that the FAA guidelines do not represent "minimum risk" themselves. For example, why 18 months instead of 12 months or 6 months, or just flat grounding the plane right away? Could it be that the FAA recognizes that there has to be <gasp!> tradeoffs?

You might also notice that the FAA is not a panacea, since planes crash despite the existence of the FAA.

To take your question seriously, someone is responsible for their actions whenever they are making an informed choice.

I suspect I'm greatly misunderstanding what you mean here. This seems to suggest that only an ignorant person can be addicted. Someone who is well-enough educated would be responsible for his/her actions, ergo not addicted, and vice versa. As I say, I suspect this is not what you mean, though it's how I read your words. Little help on this one?

I hate rushing this, given the thoughtfulness of your post, but it's been that kind of day, so apologies in advance for any lack. We do seem to be missing each other a little on this, so far. I didn't mean that someone thoroughly informed isn't capable of being addicted, but instead that the thoroughly informed addict is responsible for his addiction. I'm not sure how much good that does the addict, in the sense that, regardless of how one becomes addicted, it's my understanding that, in order to recover, the addict has to take responsibility for his recovery. I don't have much use for abstractions with regard to addiction, since it's such a complex phenomenon, and I found your personal reflection fascinating. My own experience with addiction is that both my parents chain-smoked. My older sister smoked. I didn't smoke while living at home. Within three weeks of moving out of my parent's house at 16 to start college, I was smoking two packs a day, probably in response to nicotine withdrawal, and then averaged three packs a day for the next twenty years. In order to quit, I had to decide to see that I was choosing to smoke. By making the decision to use that particular template, I was able to finally understand that I could choose not to smoke and, after a lot of practice, was able to quit.

As far as how or whether to assign responsibility, cases get interesting when we consider someone who, say, is involved in a car crash, is given morphine for weeks, and becomes addicted. Most would consider this an involuntary addiction but, again, for the sake of his recovery, I think the addict, voluntary or involuntary, has to take responsibility for doing what it takes to quit the addiction.

The binary stuff I hear too often, such as 'we all have a choice, addicts are weak', man, that's intellectually thin gruel. It's reducing the complexity of life to something a weaker mind can handle. What do we tell someone who started hitting the bottle to ease the pain because their child died, and wound up an alcoholic--get over it? That's not enough. What do we tell the guy who drinks four beers a day and develops a physical addiction to alcohol, while his best friend, with the same habit, doesn't? Do we tell him, because he had a different genetic predisposition, that he's somehow inferior? Is it helpful? Is it even accurate?

(Do they feel MORE of a draw than I do)? Quite possibly (though also possibly not), but unless addiction is an impossible thing to overcome (unless addiction is something people cannot choose to try to overcome), then their ability to say no is the same in kind (if not in quality) as my own. They can say "no," they choose not to do so. That they have a heavier draw to say "Yes," does not mean they cannot say "No." They have choice.

You disagree?

I tend, strongly, to agree. What prevents me from agreeing wholeheartedly is this part of my experience: I've known people who died from addictions that, despite their sitting through literally thousands of 12-step meetings, praying mightily for relief, and apparently doing everything they could to quit, and wanting desperately to quit, relapsed and died anyway. I was acquainted with a woman who said at a 12-step meeting that god would never give her more than she could handle only to go home and blow her brains out with a shotgun. I can't explain this aspect of things, and can't muster an opinion on whether the pull these people felt was greater than what others felt. I know the issue isn't simply one of mental "toughness", as a few posters (not you) would have it. That's the position of someone who finds life overly complex, and has to make it manageable through arbitary simplification, the way a child will do with phenomena it can't grasp.

Ah--the 3rd-ranking Democrat in the House is noting "many people" believe that Hillary is continuing in order to destroy Obama's general election chances and thereby pave the way for her own election in 2012.

It doesn't matter who wins the popular vote. In a democracy, whoever gets the most electoral collegiates wins the race. That's what democracyism is all about. -- GW Bush*

Obama 15,328,989 47.5%
Clinton 15,340,550 47.5%

* May or may not be a literal quote.

Obama 15,328,989 47.5%
Clinton 15,340,550 47.5%

Now now, every non-partisan observer with any integrity realizes those aren't the actual vote totals acknowledged by true neutral parties as the most accurate.

This is the accepted actual vote total to date, as detailed by the non-partisan Real Clear Politics site:

Obama 14,418,691 49.2%
Clinton 13,917,393 47.5%

That excludes all caucuses where the state party has not released individual vote totals, and (appropriately) Florida and Michigan.

Did you get out of bed this morning, E-X? Did you leave your house? Did you drive? Did you walk on the street, leaving yourself vulnerable to being hit by a car? If so, then you didn't minimize risk.

None of us "minimizes risk," so arguing that it's stupid not to do so is kind of silly.

Every action opens us to risk in some areas and not in others. Just because there is no way to truly minimize risk to 0%, doesn't mean that all actions are equal. You acknowledge this everyday when you don't drive drills into your eye or play chicken with semis.

If capitalism is working in an absolute state, "not killing your consumers" is by definition not the highest directive of corporate decision making. In actual practice, it is balanced imperfectly and inefficiently against other priorities.

To have a public organization that actually prioritizes that goal is absolutely vital. The current situation results from having a government that is not the least bit interested in that goal appointing people to various regulatory bodies. I would guess that it's far worse than having DN run everything--he probably would just defund such bodies.

In the status quo, the bodies are fully funding, but using fallacious arguments to justify not really doing anything. Kind of like if we had a gaggle of Rays running all government divisions.

None of us "minimizes risk," so arguing that it's stupid not to do so is kind of silly.

My m-i-l smokes. She acknowledges the risk, but says that she could get hit by a bus and killed while crossing the street, so why quit smoking?

If we were to set up a kangaroo court and try her for stupidity, I'd advise her to hire you to represent her. You two agree on "risk minimization".

It's not a bad article and obviously was more musing than analysis, but some of the things he ignores--anti-trust exemption, the long history of the reserve clause, and of course taxpayer-funded stadiums--were quite convenient.

Support of monopolies, underpaying workers, and welfare for the wealthy are all cornerstones of modern conservativism. What's your point?

No one's ever claimed that the Pinto needed to be 100% accident free; that's just a strawman argument DMN's been claiming.

It's not at all a strawman. To argue that considering the cost of an improvement is inherently wrong is to argue that it needs to be 100% accident (or injury) free. There is no distinction between arguing that one particular design choice is a "flaw" merely because it can result in deaths as a result of a certain type of accidents and arguing that any other particular design choice is a "flaw" for that reason. If it was "flawed" because of the gas tank, it was "flawed" because it didn't have airbags -- airbags that would have indisputedly saved lives.

(And no, airbags are not some modern invention that wasn't available and that nobody was clamoring for at the time. Mother Jones was complaining in the mid-70s that Ford and other auto manufacturers had been fighting Congress on the issue of mandatory airbags since at least 1970.)

There's no arguing, though, that Ford's engineers did specifically identify the problem with the fuel tank as a design flaw,

That's a trial lawyer trick: mining internal company memoranda to find some employee out of hundreds or thousands who said a particular word or phrase that, taken in or perhaps out of context, can inflame a jury. So what if an engineer (which has morphed into "engineers") happened to use the words "design flaw"? Perhaps the particular engineer that used this phrase did so to describe any design for which an alternative design existed that avoided a particular problem, regardless of the cost differential. But that an engineer wanted the car designed differently doesn't mean that this particular design was a "flaw" but the failure to include airbags wasn't. One could certainly describe the lack of airbags as a design flaw.

and that Ford did try to hide the crash test data they had compiled before rolling out the very first production Pinto.

Is there any evidence for this claim besides the suspiciously non-specific Mother Jones article?


The bottom line is this: you (or some people here) think Ford should have spent $20 million to save a few dozen lives. Perhaps that tradeoff is worth it -- perhaps Ford should have done so. I am not saying that the particular design choice Ford made was inherently correct or reasonable. Nor am I saying that a manufacturer should never be required to disclose information about a product's safety to consumers.

All I am saying is that this calculation must be made. One must determine the cost of a particular change, and balance that against the benefit of the change. Dismissing the very notion of cost-benefit analysis as immoral or "putting profits over people" or "placing a dollar value on human life" is either demagogic or illiterate or both. (And one thing is definitely isn't is "conservative.")

The bottom line is this: you (or some people here) think Ford should have spent $20 million to save a few dozen lives. Perhaps that tradeoff is worth it -- perhaps Ford should have done so. I am not saying that the particular design choice Ford made was inherently correct or reasonable. Nor am I saying that a manufacturer should never be required to disclose information about a product's safety to consumers.

All I am saying is that this calculation must be made. One must determine the cost of a particular change, and balance that against the benefit of the change. Dismissing the very notion of cost-benefit analysis as immoral or "putting profits over people" or "placing a dollar value on human life" is either demagogic or illiterate or both. (And one thing is definitely isn't is "conservative.")

Forget for a moment the cost of making the adjustments to the design. How much would it have cost Ford to put a small notice of their own test results in every advertisement? Probably not much at all, since there's usually enough white space to spare in those big display ads.

This question goes to the heart of the matter, and it isn't a demand for "perfect safety" or "no risk at all", but rather a simple request that if a company chooses to resolve its internal cost-benefit dilemma in favor of the "benefit," it should at least have the grace to let its potential customers know exactly what tradeoff was being made---so that they can make their own "cost-benefit analysis" with the same information that Ford had.

Obama 14,418,691 49.2%
Clinton 13,917,393 47.5%

That excludes all caucuses where the state party has not released individual vote totals, and (appropriately) Florida and Michigan.

It's obviously appropriate to exclude from individual vote totals places where the state party hasn't released individual vote totals, but it's not clear to me why it's appropriate to exclude Florida and Michigan.

If the question is "which candidate is more popular," then I don't know why we wouldn't just take surveys rather than adding up the vote totals at all. After all, the vote totals are at most a snapshot of different states at different points in time under different systems (primary v. caucus, open primary vs. closed) with different competitors on the ballot. Counting up the votes actually received in such a haphazard arrangement hardly seems like a good measure of who the voters would rather see as the nominee. Who knows, e.g., who the voters in Iowa or New Hampshire would prefer now? (*)

On the other hand, if the question is, "which candidate had more people vote for him/her," then why exclude those states? Certainly why exclude Florida, where both candidates were on the ballot? (Yes, you can argue that if the delegates were going to be seated, the candidates might have changed their strategic approaches towards Florida. But so what? That's relevant to the issue of popularity, but not to the issue of votes actually received. Superficially, it seems more reasonable to exclude Michigan, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot there. But Obama's failure to be on the ballot wasn't because he was kept off the ballot by Clinton cronies or something; rather, he wasn't on the ballot because of a strategic choice he made. He thought it would help him pander better to Iowa voters if he wasn't on the Michigan ballot. He'd have gotten more votes in Michigan if he were on that ballot -- but perhaps fewer in Iowa. So if you exclude Michigan in the name of "fairness," isn't it also required that you exclude Iowa as well?


(*) For the same reason, claiming that the superdelegates "shouldn't overturn the will of the people" or the like is also wrongheaded. The primary process doesn't reveal the will of the people, except in the loosest sense. (E.g., we can conclude that Clinton & Obama are more popular than Dodd or Kucinich.)

Ray, of course it's a trap... do you really need admiral ackbar icons?

Actually, the third question isn't a trap - just that saying that the calculus of life and death might not just wash out. If the price on an airplane death was equal to the compensation, why not changes places? (Or r