Applying analytical methods advanced at Oregon State University, researchers from the University of Washington, McGill University and OSU collected single-day samples from 96 municipalities across Oregon and tested the samples for evidence of methamphetamine, cocaine, and “ecstasy” or MDMA.
[ ]…They found that the index loads of BZE were significantly higher in urban areas and below the level of detection in some rural areas. Methamphetamine was present in all municipalities, rural and urban. MDMA was at quantifiable levels in less than half of the communities, with a significant trend toward higher index loads in more urban areas.
4th Amendment issues aside the researchers take on the localities where drug use is high does not seem to take into account population density. If the concentration of the drugs tested in rural areas was lower then that in more urban centers that does not directly relate to lower drug use in rural areas. Nor does it mean that the specified drugs are being used in higher frequency in urban areas. The effluent in rural areas is bound to be more dilute. There could be just as many drug users per capita in Seattle as their are in a small down 70 miles away. That small town could have 2 regular meth users per 1000 residents and Seattle could have the same per capita usage. Seattle is going to appear to have a rampant drug problem simply because of the significantly larger population. The researchers set out to prove this theory they had about methodology and finding a cost-effective way to measure community drug use. Maybe they’ve not seeing how their findings or gaps in implications of their findings could have been effected by enthusiasm for their concept.
They also state that methamphetamine was present in all community wastewater. They must be using some exceptionally good chemical analysis equipment. Since meth can be manufactured from over the counter products found at any drug or grocery store that contain levomethamphetamine.
Strict rules of logical discourse in play we’re supposed to believe this writer’s sole interest in “Mary Louise Parker Ass” is all about how Esquire has used a little search engine optimization to get people to said body curves. Thus Esquire is just like any horn dog pandering mag.
Or, in the case of Mary Louise Parker this month: In an apron. And nothing else. Our colleagues at Double X have already discussed the tush-baring photos. But I’m interested in something else: How the imperatives of “search engine optimization” have forced Esquire to drop its genteel mask and confess that—yes—it’s luring horny readers by snapping women naked, just like the laddie mags.
[ ]…But it does signal a certain unseemly desperation on the part of Esquire’s editors. They may love these women, but it appears they love the Web traffic more.
Said writer did not play by the rules of logic and added up some flimsy evidence to cast nefarious aspirations on Esquire’s motives. When did it become unseemly for a money making enterprise using the tools at its disposal to drive traffic to their site. Those pics will be all over the net by now. Isn’t it only fair that the producers of the original content reap the most credit. There is a comment section at the Slate link so anyone that wants to weigh in on the acute issue of M’s Parker’s ass, or site optimization or aprons can do so.
Or what a great country where one can actually get paid to write about such inconsequential news.
A Layman Attempts To Understand Wing-Nut Psychology – which contains another lesson in logic,
What effect does this have on the ideologue? Well, for one thing, they are never in danger of contradicting themselves. For example, if one day Obama does ‘x’ and the ideologue then calls ‘x’ a “socialist act,” he is correct, because Obama is doing it, therefore it IS socialist. Now, if Obama turns around and does the opposite the next day, the ideologue can safely call THAT “socialism,” as well. Why? Because,
Obama is a socialist, therefore
Socialism is whatever Obama does.
Circular arguments are neat. I do not mean neat as in the slang synonym for cool, but neat as in they do not require the messy sorting out and justification of facts.
Slightly scary to think that the same people that responded so expertly to Hurricane Katrina were also making plans to handle a nationwide breakdown and the ensuing panic, Paulson reveals US concerns of breakdown in law and order
The Bush administration and Congress discussed the possibility of a breakdown in law and order and the logistics of feeding US citizens if commerce and banking collapsed as a result of last autumn’s financial panic…
update: In the original part of the post on wastewater and drug residue I mistakenly implied that grants per se influence research findings. My bad.