The 28 November 2009 issue of The Economist (TE) includes an opinion column by an unnamed source, titled: “Heated debate“, denying conclusive evidence for global warming. Nothing new from a conservative magazine principally concerned with wealth management and financial advice aimed at the upper crust. The argument ran three parts deceit, with a smidgen of truth.
The initial attack turns scientific methodology upside-down, suggesting that “the majority of the world’s climate scientists have convinced themselves -sic- that the Earth’s climate is changing -sic- for the worse”, while “a minority, though, are sceptical”. Coincidentally, skepticism — a critical mindset with no preconceived beliefs — is usual fare for the natural sciences, not some aberrant practice of those at odds with a majority viewpoint. TE’s co-opting of the scientific process allows their writer to question the validity of any historical data which suggests global warming, by characterizing as sufficient, any empirical evidence still deemed inconclusive. This is a purely colloquial use of the term skeptical, defined as a lack of conviction for any and all process. The reasoning employed by TE is circular, providing a convenient refutation against any convincing argument.
The TE author acknowledges but does not concur with the current scientific consensus; that evidence strongly suggests human activity as a major contributing factor in unwanted climate change. Rather, the columnist accuses most scientists of bias, alleging conclusions drawn based largely on political expediency, using fallacious arguments; while a skeptical minority of experts, holds out for “longer-term evidence”. In the words of TE, current data is “actually too flaky to be meaningful”. (No doubt “flaky” is an industry-specific term here, though “anomalous” or “irregular” might have offered a more statistically nuanced definition. However, I am not an economist.)
TE wishes us to call foul on existing evidence, and refute that which a majority of climate scientists have concluded. The author implies that the antithesis of scientific procedure has occurred — a disingenuous conceit at best — offered under a callous assumption that human nature will always fix-the-game when the price is right, science being no exception to this rule. That is, scientists remain bound by empirical data only when the stakes are low, but will cook-the-books for issues on the scale of global warming.
What justifies such a preposterous assumption? What begets comparable disregard for scientific investigation? We must recall the periodical hosting this assessment and examine the values of its author for sufficient answer. The writer states — “the stakes in the global-warming debate could scarcely be higher.” What are these enormous stakes? Perhaps survival of the species? Not hardly. What constitutes jeopardy for an opinion editorial from TE (for no evidence is forthcoming in support of such pessimistic appraisal), is simply that “a lot of money and many reputations are involved”. You just cannot make this stuff up.
It certainly solves a puzzling equation, knowing that which a columnist for TE values above all else — wealth and prestige. Yet when did we agree upon the precedent that a lot of money and fame equals truth?
Tags: conclusive evidence, consensus, global warming, scientific methodology
A headline in the local rag by AP writer Stephen Ohlemacher on Aug. 23, 2009: “Millions face shrinking Social Security payments”. Sounds ominous, doesn’t it? Of course, a bit of digging, a bit of figuring — why simply reading the article in its entirety — shrinks this catastrophe from biblical proportions, down to a ho-hum situation; something most right-wingers and occasional thinkers cannot be bothered to do. So. Ring the bell of doom once more, since fear sells, and sells well.
Parsing the evidence reveals that Social Security is not slated to receive a cost of living raise over the next two years (the first time since 1975). Mostly, this event follows an unprecedented Social Security rate increase recorded this past January — a 5.8% boost on average, the largest since 1982. However, energy prices have lately fallen from record highs in 2008, which has dampened inflationary tendencies. Bucking energy trends, health care costs (no surprise), continue to rise.
Consequently, Medicare costs to subscribers will increase $2 (from $28 to $30), while Social Security pegged to inflation (unable to fall by law) remains constant. Thus, of the 32 million participants in Medicare, 6 million folks who have their Medicare payments deducted from their SS payout, will realize a net drop of $2. This statement ignores the fact that average SS premiums increased last January by about $66, during the energy boom.
Of course today, with gas prices down significantly and seniors and others on Social Security, locked into an average $66 increase thanks to the energy spike of 2008, the AP chooses to post the headline: “Millions face shrinking Social Security payments”. Accurate, yes. Relevant to something more than selling newspapers and hyping conservative anxiety, no. This is the dumbing of America. Hand the average reader a copy of this Ohlemacher post and watch them arrive at the titled conclusion to the AP story.
More portentous is the thrust of such fear mongering. A herding of public opinion toward notions of privatizing Social Security in the name of efficiency and tax relief. Lobbyists for Wall Street are counting on an attention deficit citizenry to forget recent investment abuses exposed during last year’s housing bust. Denouncing government policy seems fashionable of late. Vapid argument coupled with emotional outburst is the hallmark stratagem promoted by private sector interests in the health care reform debate. Similar schemes directed toward the Social Security Administration, could corrode public sentiment to the delight of private investment bankers.
Tags: conservative anxiety, health care reform, public opinion
This past Saturday, our dear-leader of the Arizona GOP opined in the state’s largest daily paper, concerning the reckless speed with which the liberal majority; ie., the Democratic Party has sought to implement a National Health Plan. Least we forget, the top two primary candidates for the Democratic nomination for President slapped each other around claiming he or she had the best notion for overhauling our ever more costly for-profit, private health system. Then in November of last year, Democrats stomped Republicans decidedly and decisively — voters allowing Democratic majority for both the legislative and executive branches. Can you say mandate?
Yet red state Randy cries,
“While we all agree that something must be done to control health-care’s rising costs, we cannot accept a proposal that puts federal bureaucrats in charge of health-care decisions and not our families or our doctors.”
Anyone who as ever read health coverage statements from their insurance provider (if you are fortunate enough to be employed and covered), understand that it’s not the doctors or the patients who set price for medical procedures. And who says that our national health insurance companies are not bureaucracies?
So first Randy admits a public proscribed health plan is about limiting cost, then he spins about the “staggering” price of a public option for health care. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black? Wasn’t his first admission that health care — as it stands — is a cost overrun? And what of the claim, that proposed changes to health care insurance and administration (not medical procedure), is “too much, too fast, way too soon”. Are you kidding? The United States is the last of the industrialized nations to refuse mandated health care as a civilized right. Since when does losing the race, imply moving too fast?
As usual, Republicans — they who create their own reality — find common sense a touch too logical, a tad too boring, and not nearly profitable enough. Let other countries promote the general welfare of its citizenry at a lesser overall cost with as good or better health care provision. Here in America we have something better, good old-fashioned capitalism. And states Randy, Republicans believe (now that they are in the minority) that “we must do more to streamline our health-care system and reduce the number of uninsured Americans.” Isn’t that an oxymoron — cut back, yet include more? In fact, even though countries with guaranteed health coverage have lower general costs, Randy knows with certainty that it is “burdensome bureaucratic red tape” (oh no, not the red tape) which has escalated health care costs. No supporting figures, just all-abiding faith. Is that just nonsense slogan, designed to dull the attention-deficit prone Republican base — followers who prefer drama over change, as they willingly suffer by the efforts of their jingoist leaders.
And though he earlier states that “our families” should be “in charge of health care decisions”, he also believes that a patient’s redress for medical malpractice must fall victim before “restraining frivolous lawsuits”. This non-sequitur expresses the wish to have your cake and eat it too. As always, the Republican rhyme for a broken system — remove regulation. That canard allowed the financial sector to thoroughly fleece us recently, as you recall.
While the doddering American health insurance industry wheezes across the finish line in dead last among nations, isn’t it time we recognize private health plans for their self-serving nature? With an increasing number of Americans left with little or no coverage for themselves or their families, and the rest of us paying dearly, we must certainly do better than this.
Tags: health care reform, insurance industry, mandated health care, medical malpractice, nonsense slogan
It’s so lovely to quote our dear Senator from Arizona, Jon Kyl.
From the WSJ,
“The health insurance industry is one of the most regulated industries in America,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) on the Senate floor Monday. “They don’t need to be ‘kept honest’ by the government.”
While the Los Angeles Times, reporting on Congressional hearings last month:
The documents show, for instance, that one Blue Cross employee earned a perfect score of “5” for “exceptional performance” on an evaluation that noted the employee’s role in dropping thousands of policyholders and avoiding nearly $10 million worth of medical care.
Well Point’s Blue Cross of California subsidiary and two other insurers saved more than $300 million in medical claims by canceling more than 20,000 sick policyholders over a five-year period, the House committee said….
The committee investigation uncovered several rescission practices that one lawmaker called egregious, including targeting every policyholder diagnosed with leukemia, breast cancer and 1,400 other serious illnesses. Such investigations involve scouring the policyholder’s original application and years’ worth of medical and pharmacy records in search of any discrepancies.
To this a friend from the right argued in support of the status quo:
“Interesting! Sounds bad. How much government interference do we need is the question! Any official that has been in Washington for any period of time is subject to lobbyist influence on both sides of the isle. Any of them above the temptation to be swayed?”
To which I responded:
I agree, that is the question. But what does Kyl think the role of government, if not to “keep honest” industry. Perhaps he has befriended corporate sponsorship too long and views government as an impediment to big business. Maybe he should try representing the rest of us ordinary folk for a change.
If I can use a sports analogy, Government has the role of officials. Corporations are the players. We are the fans. Without a play book and referees, there would be chaos. Big business is no less cut-throat than pro football, so imagine the insurance game or the investment game without supervision.
This is how I see government. They establish the rules and regulations of play and pass out penalties for infractions. Too many rules makes for a slow game, but anyone who claims, players — without supervision — will hold to a sense of fair play; that laws of conduct are unnecessary, is either representing a vested interest angling for a position of gain (like Senator Kyl), or is fooling himself.
A case can be made, that while supporting for-profit health care business, right-wing politicians fear-monger expressly to frighten their constituency. The most vocal defenders of health insurance companies, rely on xenophobia — delivering a fact-free rhetoric, reinforced by conservative talk radio. Zero-content message redundancy as truth is the definition of propaganda.
As hate-mongers amp up the verbiage by comparing government regulation to Nazi fascist methodology; these corporate sponsored shills, disrupt town hall meetings. Intransigent and chaotic, these louts offer no meaningful solution to rising health care costs. Their goal is to impede without discourse — the antithesis of American democracy.
Ironically, these procedures epitomize brown-shirt Nazis tactics, in their efforts to curtail discussion among the more open-minded town hall attendees. This is not the finest hour for American politics. When will the Republican leadership disavow such thuggish behavior and despicable advocacy?
Tags: big business, corporate sponsorship, government interference, insurance industry, lobbyist influence
Perhaps we can generalize about lying in American politics. Not so much a cherry-picking of existing facts to lend credibility to a particular belief system, but a full-blown invention of events in the absence of evidence. Welcome to the Republican Party and the continuing saga over our President’s origin of birth. The “birther” phenomenon is at the center of what has gone wrong with the GOP meme.
For the rabid-right, change is not a linear function of reasonable decisions. Cultural norms evolve with shifting political climate, and bearable change might require a generation before acceptance; since for conservatives, civilization fundamentally is an embrace with the past. Good judgment demands rigorous correlation with historical precedence. Novel ideas find little purchase among those with a persistent past. Yet innuendo discovers fertile ground for insinuation and accusation of nonconformists. Wingers embrace gossip as a normalizing force. Fact-checking is a lesser influence.
Certainly, not all conservatives hold to such nonsense, yet these so-called “birthers” can hardly be relegated to the fringe when notable celebrities of the party and their media promoters insist on manufacturing controversy where none exists. If rabble-rousing remains the last resort for leaders of the GOP; has catering to the crazy core of the party distilled the energy of the conservative movement into wing-nut conspiracy theorem? Clinging to fabricated assumptions in light of contrary evidence can be attributed to several convictions within the modern conservative organization. Liberalism by definition embraces change, while conservative philosophy holds to custom. Call it the threat of the unknown or fear of what is different or new, but Barack Obama is certainly change some folks can not believe in.
Party leaders, in order to channel xenophobia, offer the panic-prone core of the GOP — concrete, non-philosophical instruction. This accounts for character attacks as substitute for issue analysis expressed by right-wing commentators. The base is informed of a threat to their cultural well-being. They express mob rage at unorthodox behavior. Complex issues are presented in easily-digested, one-dimensional caricature of a simpler time. Pressed, wingers reference life when they were children and others (parents) made hard decisions for them. Change comes hard for those unwilling to do more than a surface inspection of events. Decision-making is ceded to party elite in almost blind obedience. Celebrity commentators preach to the compliant, appealing to base prejudice. Until evidence becomes the foundation of judgment, hate-talk will continue unchallenged by party leaders willing to allow these pompous media analyzers of current events to shape public opinion.
Race and ethnic assimilation play important and contentious roles in the GOP platform, ever since Reagan captured southern voters in flux since the repudiation of racist themes by the Democratic party. When Lyndon Johnson enacted his “Great Society” and the modern welfare state, he predicted that the south would be lost to Democrats for a generation. Anyone who claims otherwise need only examine the demographics of the Republican party. Beyond the cultural diversity which extreme wealth promotes, the median GOP voter is white and of European lineage. Neither characteristic fits the description of our current President, increasing the cultural anxiety of those most perturbed by skin color.
Finally, faith cements conspiracy more effectively than logical thought. When evidence dashes belief to bits, it is irrational creed which not only remains, but is strengthened in proportion to the external assault. Ever since political conservatives, beginning with Reagan, sought support from social conservatives in the Christianist evangelical movement — critical thinking has eroded as an exercise among grassroots conservative voters. While the pulpit sermonizes, so does the common Republican voter accept preaching from the elites of the party, without question — no matter how nonsensical the claim — as long as the statement echoes established social order. Trust in the customary runs stronger than any testimony to the contrary.
Tags: absence of evidence, blind obedience, character attacks, cultural anxiety, historical precedence, rabid-right, wing-nut conspiracy