Archive for March, 2011
DK Elections Daily Digest: 3/31
Thursday, March 31st, 2011Senate:
• HI-Sen: Charles Djou reiterated that he’d wait until fellow GOPer Linda Lingle decides whether to run, which he expects by this summer. (So does that mean until Sept. 21st?)
• MA-Sen: This is some… creative spin from the DSCC. Dems, both named and un-named, are saying that the failure of a Democratic challenger to emerge against Scott Brown is all part of a plan, one that involves attacking Brown (by various proxies, it would seem) while giving the Republicans no Dem to attack in response. This plan is so super-genious, it ought to continue right up until November 6th, 2012.
• NV-Sen: The Lahontan Valley News, covering a Jeff-Jack dinner up north that Rep. Shelley Berkley just attended, says that the congresswoman ” confirmed she wants to run” for Senate—but those are their words, not hers. Please hold the microphone closer to the horse’s mouth!
• VA-Sen: President Obama showered some praise on Tim Kaine at a couple of fundraisers in NYC on Tuesday night. Is this part of a lengthy marketing campaign, or an attempted kick in the pants?
Gubernatorial:
• CA-Gov: A lone unnamed source tells Phillip Matier and Andrew Ross of the SF Chronicle that newly-elected Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is planning to run for governor… in 2014. That would mean he either expects the Hon. Gov Jerry Brown, who will be 76 by then, to not run again, or he thinks it would be a good idea to challenge Brown in a primary. Given that it’s Newsom we’re talking about, I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s the latter.
• WV-Gov: Rick Thompson has another ad out. I’m told that several other Dems are on the air, but I checked all of their YouTube accounts and found no other ads.
House:
• CA-36: The League of Conservation Voters just came out for Debra Bowen, while Rep. Linda Sanchez threw her support behind Janice Hahn.
• NY-26: Dem Kathy Hochul is out with her first ad (NWOTSOTB), in which she touts her accomplishments as a politician… all of which seem to have to do with cars, in one way or another.
• WI-07: Sean Duffy is just a total asshole, but my heart really goes out to the guy who questioned him at a town hall. Said the questioner:
I’m a builder. I haven’t been building too many things in the last couple years with the economy down. My wife is a teacher. I’m fortunate enough to take a bus driving job. Love it. Just love it. But it’s not very much money of course. It’s working for us.
He drives a bus, and still considers himself lucky. Sean Duffy earns 4,000 a year as a member of Congress and complains that “I struggle to meet my bills.” He also declared that the benefits the builder/bus driver’s wife gets as a state employee are “gold-plated” and are better than those he gets as a federal employee. As Steve archly notes: “What, they don’t have an Office of the Attending Physician in Marinette or Eau Claire?”
Other Races:
• Suffolk Co. Lege: It’s some good news… for John McCain! It may also be further down into the weeds than we’ve ever gone at SSP. A Democrat, Sarah Anker, appears to have won a special election in a deeply Republican seat in the Suffolk County Legislature. Republicans are trying to claim that County Exec. Steve Levy’s very high-profile troubles with the law (see SSP Amazing Digest #325) weighed them down in this race… but Levy’s only been a Republican for less than a year!
Remainders:
• Farm Subsidies: An organization called the Environmental Working Group has a fascinating look at the 23 members of Congress (17 Republicans, 6 Democrats) who have received farm subsidies since 1995. Over the last fifteen years, this group of Republicans has pulled in over ten times as much (.3 million vs. 0K) than the Dems. Farm subsidies have been a campaign trail issue—they enrage teabaggers, who savaged the #1 recipient, TN-08 Rep. and agribusiness kingpin Stephen Fincher, in the GOP primary last year over the .4 million in federal largesse he’s received over the years. The piece also notes that Dems tried to protect rural members by preserving the status quo back in 2008, but that of course has completely failed. With most of those big-age pols now washed out to the hog lagoon, maybe, just maybe, official Democratic policy toward these awful subsidies will change.
• Voter Suppression: The AP has a good roundup on the stepped-up Republican efforts to pass voter ID laws—despite the expense caused by these laws, and by the fact that pretty much no one nowhere has ever proven a single one of these overblown charges of “VOTER FRAUD!!!!!!!!111111111″. States on the list include Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Fortunately, in Democratic-controlled Arkansas, the idea died in the Senate after it passed the House.
• Fundraising: Today is the first day of the rest of your life. It’s also the last day of the first fundraising quarter of the year, so time to start thinking about donations to your favorite Democrats.
Redistricting Roundup:
• DC: The District of Columbia doesn’t often appear in the digest, but this fits our style: The site Greater Greater Washington has a Google Maps-based game of sorts where you can redistrict the city’s wards.
• Florida: Republican legislative leaders have forwarded on Florida’s redistricting ballot measures (passed last year) to the Dept. of Justice for pre-clearance—an application weirdo Gov. Rick Scott withdrew earlier this year. But Mike Haridopolos (oh, you know him) and Dean Cannon, his counterpart in the state House, drafted their request to the DoJ in a way deliberately designed to undermine the amendments. They claimed they would hurt minority voting rights, but I don’t really see how that’s possible, since the VRA would trump any state laws. Hopefully the DoJ will see through this charade and clear these amendments promptly.
• Iowa: Start hitting refresh! Iowa’s first-draft federal map will come out this morning.
• Louisiana: The state House voted to accept a new map on Tuesday, by a 70-28 margin. Most of the votes against were from black Democrats and also from Republicans from Jefferson Parish, which apparently loses a seat to Orleans Parish under this plan.
• Maine: Maine state law says that redistricting must be done in 2013—which of course would be after the next round of Congressional elections. Two Mainers have filed a lawsuit challenging this practice on “one person, one vote” grounds, pointing out that every other state (except Montana, where federal redistricting isn’t an issue) redraws their maps as soon as they get new Census data in.
• New York: Republican state Sen. Majority Leader Dean Skelos declared last night that redistricting reform is dead. He said the Senate would not take up legislation that would create an independent commission.
• Pennsylvania: Everyone seems to expect that Dems Jason Altmire and Mark Critz will get thrown into a single district by Republicans. Politico examines what the contours of such a mashup might look like.
• Texas: The Texas Tribune did a National Review-style poll of “insiders,” asking them what the state’s four new congressional districts will look like. 54% said they’ll be 3-1 Republican, while 37% said 2-2 Dem.
Alliance Online News: Alliance President Nan Roman to Receive NLIHC Award
Thursday, March 31st, 2011Alliance President Honored by National Low Income Housing Coalition
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Open thread for night owls: Enough already with giving Foxaganda the time of day
Wednesday, March 30th, 2011
Stop. Just stop. No more appearances on Foxaganda. We’ve been saying that for a long time here at Daily Kos. But some Democrats keep doing it anyway. I’m not talking about the President’s interview with Bill O at the Super Bowl. Even though O’Reilly is a despicable piece of work, the White House had zero to gain from turning down that 15-minute session. But that ought to be the last time for him, other Democrats and unaffiliated progressives.
It’s not because the channel airs the ravings of Glenn Beck, the fakery of Bill O’Reilly, the inanity of Sean Hannity and all the other twisted crapola of its all-star line-up. It’s not that these opinion-mongers at Fox are to the right of Genghis Khan. It’s because they and members of the news team are scam artists and liars. Not pathological liars. Pathological liars don’t know they’re lying. Foxagandists know full well. They’re media thugs who have as much in common with good journalism as Muammar’s Gaddafi’s state-run television. If you think “thug” is too strong a word, perhaps you’ve forgotten the threat of violence by Bill O’Reilly and Fox fixture Bernie Goldberg against an actual journalist. Just a joke, of course, uh-huh.
Fox’s internal memos demanding bias and adherence to right-wing talking points and pushing various wacko ideas like climate change denialism are well known.
You would think this would have long ago caused Democrats and sensible progressives to shun Foxaganda altogether. But since more evidence of their malevolent intent and lack of ethics and morals seems to be needed, today Media Matters brought it, as Jed Lewison explained earlier.
The condensed version: Foxaganda’s Washington News Managing Editor Bill Sammon, also a vice president for the “news” team, engaged in “mischievous speculation” that Barack Obama is an advocate of socialism. If it were true, that would indeed be news, especially to people who actually are socialists. But, of course, it’s a bald-faced lie, whether you call it “mischievous speculation” or a whiskey sour.
It’s no surprise that Bill Sammon is a right-wing liar. He did, after all, work for another propaganda outlet, the Washington Times, which, when he was there, was still owned by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. And, as KingOneEye pointed out earlier today, he’s got a pile of books filled with more lies illustrating his point of view in all its glory:
The Evangelical President: George Bush’s Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World
At Any Cost: How Al Gore Tried to Steal the Election
Strategery:How George W. Bush Is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats, and Confounding the Mainstream Media.
Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism from Inside the White House
Misunderestimated: The President Battles Terrorism, Media Bias and the Bush Haters The Evangelical President: George Bush’s Struggle to Spread a Moral Democracy Throughout the World
Foxaganda isn’t a news operation. It’s not an entertainment operation. It’s an insult. And that’s exactly how it should be responded to. No more legitimizing it.
The only reason any Democrat, any progressive or left-winger should ever willingly appear with any of its leading lights or answer any of its reporters’ questions is to yank their chains. Cornered by one of them in a hallway or a townhall or on the street, the appropriate response is to bring up the details of one or more of Foxaganda’s internal memos. Let them broadcast that to their heart’s content.
• • • • •
At Daily Kos on this date in 2008:
Once again, it seems we have to remind Mukasey and all the other Republicans who insist on tying retroactive amnesty for phone companies who spied on Americans to September 11 that it wasn’t weaknesses in our intelligence that failed us on September 11.
Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their “hair on fire,” warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President’s Daily Brief (by one of Tenet’s underlings), warning that this attack might take place “inside the United States.” For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission’s staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.
Well, at least not weaknesses in our intelligence system. Just in the intelligence of the people receiving the information.
Georgia-Pacific’s Response in Bostic
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
It really will be The End of Toxic Tort Litigation in Texas (at least for any case involving multiple sources of exposure) if the Texas Supreme Court adopts the position on substantial factor causation urged by Georgia-Pacific in its recently filed Response in Georgia-Pacific Corporation v. Bostic. Let’s hope the court begins and ends its analysis with exposure/risk as Bostic never proved more than a de minimis exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s product.
Georgia-Pacific first says about substantial factor causation that the court’s Flores opinion requires plaintiff to establish that "but for" his exposure to Georgia-Pacific’s product he would not have developed mesothelioma if he’s to carry his burden of proving substantial factor causation. To support this argument Georgia-Pacific says that the court adopted section 431 cmt. a (1965) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts when it decided the substantial factor causation issue in Flores. Georgia-Pacific quotes the comment emphasizing "it is not enough that the harm would not have occurred had the actor not been negligent … [T]his is necessary, but it is not of itself sufficient. The negligence must also be a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s harm." Georgia-Pacific argues then that "under Flores, to prove substantial factor causation, a plaintiff must prove that the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant’s conduct."
I think Georgia-Pacific has it wrong. "Substantial factor" causes are a subset of "but for" causes and not the other way around – a vital distinction when we get to what constitutes a "but for" cause in a toxic tort case.
Under the Restatement’s formulation (and that of every other court that has put some thought into it) causes that are substantial factors are clearly a subset of all "but for" causes. In essence, some "but for" causes are not "substantial factors" as they are, for whatever reason, beyond the limits of liability. Think for example of Ms Palsgraf’s case. If we make a set of all non-trivial "but for" causes of her injury we find within it (a) a running, stumbling passenger; (b) defective fireworks; (c) overly vigorous guards who jostle the passenger; and, (d) an unsecured scale. Remove any one of (a) – (d) and the accident would not have occurred. Each is thus a "but for" cause. However, we know that (c) at least is not a "substantial factor" or "legal cause" or "proximate cause" (depending on your jurisdiction) and thus not all "but for" causes are substantial causes.
Asbestos presents a very different problem. What, according to the parties in Bostic, are the non-trivial members of the set of "but for" causes of Mr. Bostic’s mesothelioma? There’s only one – (a) asbestos exposure. Asbestos exposure is the "but for" cause.
Now, since the identity of the fiber or group of fibers actually responsible for a plaintiff’s disease is unknowable, the questions to be answered are: (a) do you impose liability for every fiber; and, (b) if not, how do distinguish between those for which a jury can reasonably impose liability and those for which they cannot? Flores answered those questions (a) "no"; and, (b) not by requiring that a plaintiff do the impossible – i.e. prove which subset of his asbestos exposure was responsible and that without it he would not have become ill – but rather by requiring that a plaintiff merely prove that the exposure complained of was more than de minimis and to do so not by his expert’s ipse dixit but rather by some estimation of the range within which the particular dose fell along with evidence that exposure to such a dose posed more than a de minimis risk. A substantial factor in the toxic tort context in Texas is thus an exposure that was more than de minimis and so one that posed more than a de minimis risk.
Georgia-Pacific then goes even further. It argues that "a plaintiff must show that his exposure to a defendant’s asbestos-containing product was sufficient to cause his injury …" A sufficient cause is a complete cause. In other words, Georgia-Pacific is taking the position that plaintiff must show not only that the dose was more than de minimis but also that the dose for which it was allegedly responsible was sufficient, without any other exposures, to have caused the illness complained of. Think of it this way, if it took 100 fibers to cause mesothelioma and three defendants each exposed a plaintiff to 99 fibers for a total of 297 fibers no defendant could be held accountable because none supplied at least 100 fibers. Combine that with Georgia-Pacific’s argument that all sufficient causes must also be "but for" causes and a plaintiff who could prove a defendant’s product was more likely than not the cause of his illness would never win so long as there was another sufficient cause of exposure within his set of all asbestos exposures. To so hold the Texas Supreme Court would have to overturn decades of precedent as it has for half a century held that such a rule would make it "impossible for a plaintiff, though gravely injured, to secure relief in the nature of damages through a joint and several judgment by joining in one suit as defendants all wrongdoers whose independent tortious acts have joined in producing an injury to the plaintiff, which, although theoretically divisible, as a practical matter and realistically considered is in fact but a single indivisible injury." Demanding an obviously wronged plaintiff do something that logically cannot be done in order to recover from those undoubtedly at fault doesn’t seem very fair and so I’m pretty sure the current Texas Supreme Court won’t be overturning Landers.
In the end Georgia-Pacific should prevail because Bostic never proved more than a de minimis risk from Georgia-Pacific’s products. That’s enough. I just hope the court doesn’t buy into those other arguments discussed above because if adopted they’d place insurmountable hurdles between many wrongly and preventably injured plaintiffs and the courtroom.
The Truth About Dental Crowns
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
Article by Olga Khevsurishvili
What are Dental Crowns?Dental crowns are shaped like teeth and act as caps in order to strengthen the tooth by covering the visible portion. There are numerous supplies that can be utilized in crowns, every with their advantages and disadvantages.
Purpose of Dental Crowns
Crowns are utilized in order to cover an area of the tooth which has been drilled and filled due to decay, to support a worn down or cracked tooth, or to support a bridge.
Creation Procedure
Before receiving the crowns, the dentist will do a consultation in order to choose what the optimum course of action is. The dentist will also discuss your prior dental and medical history as nicely as the present condition of your teeth in order to determine regardless of whether dental crowns are the very best selection.
X-rays will then be taken in order to analyze the condition of the teeth as nicely as the jaw. If there has been a considerable quantity of damage carried out to the roots of the teeth, a crown might not be possible without the presence of a root canal.
The dental crown dentist will then shape the tooth so that the crown can be applied. Just before the process is completed, the patient will generally be administered general anesthesia. A filling might be required in order to reshape the tooth prior to inserting the crown.
An impression of the tooth is then produced so that the crown can be appropriately shaped to accurately fit the tooth. A laboratory that crafts the necessary crowns then processes these molds. A temporary crown is generally used to protect the teeth until the permanent dental crown is inserted.
The Different Sorts of Dental Crowns
There are several options for the material that is utilised in the making of the crowns. These consist of:
* Gold Crowns: Gold crowns are typically composed of several diverse metals such as platinum, silver, palladium, tin, copper and, of course, gold. The mixture of metal depends upon the density of the existing tooth, its size, the material’s durability, as properly as the space present for the crown. This sort of crown is normally employed in the back of the mouth, as they are normally powerful sufficient to undergo frequent biting.
* Resin Crowns: The type of crown is a lot more inexpensive as properly as effective. Reinforced resin is used to construct the crown and, despite the fact that cheaper, this material needs a lot more upkeep as it is far more fragile than the metal alternatives.
* Porcelain Crowns: Maybe the most well-known of crown materials, porcelain allows for a very realistic look while still protecting the natural tooth inside. Unlike resin, porcelain is much more durable and resists the occurrence of both stains and breaks. The material can also be matched to the surrounding teeth so that the crown does not look artificial.
The objective of the crown is to produce a naturally looking cap that both covers existing damage on the tooth as nicely as protects that tooth from undergoing any further damage or infection. With the support of the dentist, you will be able to figure out no matter whether a crown is the finest option for you and for your teeth.
About the Author
Olga K has served the San Jose for a lot of years as a cosmetic dentist. She specializes in transformative cosmetic solutions such as dental crowns, veneers, teeth whitening, braces, and far more. To learn a lot more about dental crowns, visit http://www.dentistsanjose.biz.
The Nashua NH Dentist Resource
Funding could be available for renters at risk (Record, 03.27.2011)
Monday, March 28th, 2011A national program designed to prevent homelessness in Passaic County is sounding the word about available funding for qualified at-risk renters â 0,000 of which could be lost if not spent by June.
Although cities like Paterson are aware of this renter-assistance program, spreading the word in upper Passaic County has been more of a challenge, said Marsha Hook, project director for the Homelessness Prevention Rapid Rehousing Program, which offers the funding.
“I cannot imagine the need is not more expansive (in upper Passaic County),” said Hook, speaking of an area that includes Ringwood, West Milford and Pompton Lakes.
The difficulty spreading the news of this funding in upper Passaic County comes as the program nears the completion of its second year with one year left to go. While there is always the hope that new funding will fuel the program beyond its third year, Hook said thatâs uncertain. This means there is an urgency to making upper Passaic County residents aware of what funding is at hand.
Hook then went on to explain that the funding could assist renters in a variety of situations where they might be at risk of homelessness, ranging from flooding and fires to falling behind on the rent due to an unexpected hardship like unemployment.
It could be a family living paycheck to paycheck that suddenly has a major car repair or health expense that takes priority over the rent. Families should be no more than six months behind on their rent payment or they will exceed the reach of the program.
In most cases, renters will need to show proof that they are at risk, such as an eviction notice, according to Hook. But those “couch hopping” and staying with different friends or relatives for the lack of their own home can also seek assistance.
Not only do renters have to show need, they also have to show ability to sustain their rent payments from this point forward, namely a job or training that gives them hope of a job, said Hook.
Not sure if you qualify? Hook said itâs best just to call because candidates need not be referred by a social-service agency.
Since transportation may be an issue for those in need of rental aid, Hook stressed that the program is mobile, meaning that it will go out to where the people are.
Often Hook works with Ringwood area residents due to referrals from the Center for Family Resources, which has a Ringwood branch, but she thinks some of those at risk may not work with the center and therefore may be in the dark about this rental funding availability.
Beyond assistance with overdue rent, Hook said, families could also qualify for “assistance going forward.”
To find out more about the program, call 973-470-5967, 973-569-2159 or 973-279-7100, ext. 24.
Those interested should call as soon as possible because even though the program is titled Rapid Rehousing, receiving a grant “doesnât happen overnight,” Hook said.
National Alliance to End Homelessness
Paws in the Plaza
Monday, March 28th, 2011The first Thursday of every month is Paws in the Plaza in Downtown Olde Gahanna. From 4:30 p.m. – dusk, owners can take their dogs on a stroll through Olde Gahanna, Creekside, and Mill Street. Pet-friendly shops welcome your visit and may even have special treats. You will also find a pet psychic, free nail [...] [...]
Click on the post for more details!
Engine 2 Cooking Demo
Sunday, March 27th, 2011[ March 30, 2011; 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm. ] Whole Foods in Dublin will be holding an Engine 2 Cooking Demo to feature “cooking without oil” on Wednesday, March 30, 2011, from 12-2 p.m. Learn how to cook delicious Engine 2 dishes without the added fat and calories from oil at this free demo. 3670 W. Dublin-Granville Rd Columbus, Ohio 43235 Phone: 614.760.5556 [...]
Click on the post for more details!
Green diary rescue: Will a clean energy standard be a good thing?
Sunday, March 27th, 2011
Chances for climate change legislation for the next couple of years are next to nil. Chances for a decent energy bill for the next couple of years are slim to none. But Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, who won’t seek a sixth term next year, is determined, Elizabeth MacGowan reports, “not to exit Washington empty-handed”:
In his usual diplomatic and straightforward fashion, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee joined with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the top Republican on the panel, this week to solicit ideas from one and all about how to fashion a clean energy standard.
“The purpose of this document is to lay out some of the key questions and potential design elements of a CES,”Bingaman and Murkowski wrote, “and to ascertain whether or not consensus can be achieved.”
Contributors have until April 11 to submit proposals via forms available on the committee’s website.
While purists who don’t want Bingaman to stray from his roots of supporting solely a renewable energy standard (RES) are perhaps disappointed, centrists are elated at the opportunity for forward movement this year before the next election season paralyzes policymaking in both the House and the Senate.
The issues involved with a CES are large. If clean coal and natural gas are part of the mix, it will be a tough sell among many environmental advocates. Nuclear may be easier to swallow, because some well-known environmentalists (although no major environmental organizations) have decided it’s crucial in any effort to get control over greenhouse gas emissions. Whether environmental advocates consider a CES to be a step in the right direction, even if not a big one, may well depend on whether it would supersede the renewable energy standards already being implemented in 27 states and the District of Columbia. If the final proposal does, we’ll likely see an eco-alliance in opposition.
As MacGowan has pointed out in the past, getting united support from environmental organizations would also require that it not be paired with legislation chopping the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, that the level of renewables in the CES be such that it would generate substantial amounts of growth and jobs, and that it bring rural electric cooperatives and municipal utilities on board.
Green Diary Rescue appears every Saturday afternoon. Inclusion of a particular diary does not indicate my agreement with it. The rescue begins below and continues in the jump:
In an on-going series, Phoenix Rising wrote Things to Know Before You Come to Olympic National Park: “The forests and mountains of Olympic National Park in Washington State have been protected in some manner by the Federal government since Grover Cleveland declared much of the region a National Forest Reserve in 1897. Teddy Roosevelt declared a smaller portion of the Reserve as the Mount Olympus National Monument in 1909, and FDR signed the act of Congress declaring Olympic a National Park in 1938. A long 72-mile portion of the Pacific coastline was added to the park in 1953, completing the current boundaries of this remarkably diverse set of ecosystems now recognized as both an International Biosphere Preserve and World Heritage Site. In recognition of the value of the land, in 1988 Congress designated more than 95% of the entire park as protected Wilderness.”
HoundDog reported that Markey Calls For Removal Of Billion For Nuclear Industry From Obama’s Budget: “Representative Ed Markey, D-MA, called on Congress to reject President Obama’s request for billion in loan guarentees for the US nuclear industry in an oversight hearing last week. Markey also said Congress should reject the billion in loan guarantees for more nuclear construction President Obama has asked for in this year’s budget, calling them just as ‘toxic’ as the billions in bailouts the government provided banks amid the economic crisis. If a catastrophic event took place in the U.S. like Japan is experiencing, Markey said, ‘industry would be okay, but the taxpayer would end up picking up the tab.’”
Why Most Experts Are Little Better Than Dart-Throwing Chimpanzees
Saturday, March 26th, 2011The measure of any theory is its ability to accurately predict some event that must follow if it is true. Experts, especially those with one big idea or theme, tend to do quite poorly when their predictions are put to the test. See "Why Most Predictions Are So Bad" ht: MarginalRevolution.
To avoid the problem, clever experts try to construct opinions that aren’t testable (at least not in their working lifetimes) so as to avoid the embarrassment (and financial loss) that would follow falsification of their ideas. Other experts, particularly those of the irrationalist school, deny that bad predictions undermine theories and may even argue that untestable theories can still be good science so long as an expert’s subjective judgment convinces him of its truth. The Milward court couldn’t find a problem with either approach.
So if henceforth our job will be to discover how firmly an expert is convinced of his opinion rather than the soundness of the foundations on which it rests how should we go about it? Immanuel Kant suggests the answer in "Critique of Pure Reason":
"The usual touchstone as to whether something asserted by someone is mere persuasion, or at least subjective conviction – i.e., firm belief – is betting. Often someone pronounces his propositions with such confident and intractable defiance that he seems to have entirely shed all worry about error. A bet startles him. Sometimes the persuasion which he owns turns out to be sufficient to be assessed at one ducat, but not at ten. For although he may indeed risk the first ducat, at ten ducats he first becomes aware of what he previously failed to notice, viz., that he might possibly have erred after all. If we conceive in our thoughts the possibility of betting our whole life’s happiness on something, then our triumphant judgment dwindles very much indeed; we then become extremely timid and thus discover for the first time that our belief does not reach this far, thus pragmatic belief has merely a degree, which according to the difference of the interest involved may be large but may also be small."
The answer then is clear, I think. Let’s put the fees of experts in escrow when they opine upon things not yet generally accepted. If they are proved correct, say within a decade (or at least not refuted – ties going to runners after all), then the expert claims his fees and all interest accrued. If on the other hand he is proved wrong he forfeits the fees and pays a 10% penalty with the total going to charity. Assuming the law retains some interest in the truth such a rule would undoubtedly work far better than any losing-party-pays rule.