It's an interesting lesson showing why the conventional methods of human health risk assessment used by government are so flawed.

Only 7 census tracts in Washington, DC are identified as "food deserts." In one case, the reason is not a lack of access so much as the government's cramped definition of an acceptable grocery store. In one other case, the reason is the government's definition disregards large grocery stores in adjacent census tracts that lie within one mile of where people actually live. For the remaining five census tracts, no large grocery stores appear to be nearby under any reasonable definition of the term. But these census tracts are predominantly industrial. 

A closer look shows that there is yet another reason why this particular "food desert" is a mirage. Soldiers who live within this census tract actually do live within one mile of a second, large grocery store--albeit one that is in an adjacent census tract.

The data are interesting, but perhaps not for the intended reason.

Neither Regulatory Checkbook nor Neutral Source take positions on or advocate the passage or defeat of substantive legislation.

The full oral testimony is reproduced below the jump.

The full written testimony is here.

Neither Regulatory Checkbook nor Neutral Source take positions on or advocate the passage or defeat of substantive legislation.

The full written testimony is reproduced below the jump.

The full oral testimony is here.

What is the bill supposed to do? What is it likely to do?

An alternative approach is to look at what the Egyptian constitution requires. Fortunately, the Egyptian government has published an English language translation of the constitution. It's a very long document, but on matters relevant to presidential succession, it seems to be quite clear.

The three tables below provide a side-by-side comparison of the new text with the text of Executive Order 12,866, issued by President Clinton in 1993. To guide readers in making comparisons, text that is underlined is the same in both documents.

Interpreting such texts requires close attention to detail. For this reason, we have color-coded both texts as follows:

GREEN HIGHLIGHT: Directive language (e.g., "shall", "must") with tightly defined verbs (e.g., "identify", "assess", "design", "maximize", "promulgate") often applied to concrete objects (e.g., "net benefits", "duplicative", "burdensome", "least burdensome", "most cost-effective") sometimes comprehensively (e.g., "only").

Objective performance evaluation generally is possible.

YELLOW HIGHLIGHT: Hortatory language (e.g., "should", "may") with loosely defined verbs (e.g., "consider", "promote", "endeavor to provide", "harmonize"), or used to modify directive language ambiguously (e.g., "where feasible and appropriate", "to the extent feasible").

Objective performance evaluation typically is impossible.

Where GREEN text is preceded or followed by YELLOW text, the result is always weaker. 

Schoenfeld and Noonan are opposed for at least two reasons:

1. They have different perspectives about the tolerable risk of terrorism via aircraft. Noonan would tolerate higher risks than Schoenfeld.
2. They have different perceptions of the intangible costs of enhanced screening. Noonan believes public support for TSA is declining (and will continue to do so) because invasive screening is humiliating and undignified. Schoenfeld believes these are acceptable costs to achieve better security.

Travelers electing to opt-out face mandatory, invasive pat-downs. Should the number of opt-outers be substantial, the queue for invasive pat-downs could stretch TSA resources beyond their capacity. This is the result organizers intend. They hope to persuade TSA to relent on its one-size-fits-all approach to airport security. TSA Administrator John Pistole first said he would not budge and criticized proponents of the opt-out campaign for causing massive delays and missed flights, then appeared to give ground after his position was undermined by Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama. According to Pistole, the new, invasive pat-down procedure is needed to prevent threats such as the so-called Christmas Day bombing attempt 11 months ago. (The implied 11-month delay in TSA's response is not explained.)

Pistole displays a tone of bureaucratic defensiveness that suggests he's primarily concerned with how he would be treated in the event that an aircraft is successfully targeted by a terrorist:

"I would hate to think what happens if the government caves in on this and relaxes these procedures and someone manages to get on board a plane and causes harm," Pistole said Monday in an interview on NBC's "TODAY" show. "Imagine what you will be asked."

A closer look suggests suggests that TSA's screening procedures are illogical even if Pistole's position is taken at face value. This reinforces the hypothesis we previously suggested, but considered very unlikely, that the reason TSA is forcing invasive pat-downs is to overcome travelers' objections to advanced imaging. If travelers object strenuously enough to invasive pat-downs, they will begin to prefer advanced imaging technology as the lesser of two evils. This is a sensible strategy if TSA intends to replace all metal detectors with advanced imaging devices but recognizes that travelers will agree to it only if they have no other option.