Practicalities vs. Principles

I really hope you'll take the time to read this post by Glen Greenwald. It captures my sentiments precisely, in language I could only hope to summon.

Joe

Education vs. Experience

Education is what you get when you read the fine print.

Experience is what you get when you don't!

Anonymous

Joe H.

Health Care Reform and Euthanasia? UPDATE!

Opponents of health care reform have begun making the truly bizarre argument that health care reform is going to lead the government to coerce - or at least manipulate - vulnerable senior citizens into choosing less costly medical options at the end of their lives. They say that this is a form of "euthanasia."

The current House resolution for health care reform, H.R. 3200, contains a clause entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation” (Section 1233). The section mandates insurance coverage for senior citizens to meet with health professionals once every five years to discuss living wills and limits on end of life medical interventions.

The Bill does not require senior citizens to meet with a health professional every five years to update their living wills. It instead insures that elderly people can afford to do so if they wish! As everyone surely knows, the existence of an up to date "living will" can prevent a great deal of suffering, in addition to preserving valuable medical resources.

Forcing insurers to pay for such voluntary sessions is a fantastic idea - everyone, including the insurance company - benefits. Helping people clarify their wishes before they face a terminal illness will, in most cases, result in patients choosing less expensive palliative care over expensive medical interventions. But why would anyone oppose providing an incentive for people to clarify their wishes prior to becoming gravely ill?

This "liberals want to kill you to save money" crap is pretty hysterical. But I guess some people will believe anything.

Joe H.

UPDATE:

It is far worse than I thought. I stumbbled across this segment of the Rachel Maddow show which provides perfect (and numerous) examples of how far one political party will go to achieve its ends - tell old people that the government is going to kill you? Wow!

But then again, its not a lie if you really believe it! And I think most of the people on the segment do believe. Elected members of Congress no less.

Maddow's quoting Bill Maher was as accurate a description of the current political state of affairs as one could imagine. Maher said:

"[W]e don't have a left and a right party in this country any more. We have a center right party, and a crazy party. And over the last thirty odd years, Democrats have moved to the right, and the right has moved into a mental hospital."

Sarah Palin - Poet Extraordinaire

I got a pretty big kick out of this. William Shatner offers an interpretation of Sarah Palin's "so long" speech last Sunday afternoon. What makes it so funny - and revealing - is that Shatner is quoting Palin word for word.

Enjoy!

P.S. I know its been awhile since I've posted anything. I've been pretty sick over the last ten days. I hope to get back to a more regular schedule soon.

Republicans and Justice Sotomayor

There is a sweet irony here. The famed Republican "Southern Strategy" shoots itself in the head.

Good riddance!

Joe H.

The "C" Street Family

This was truly fascinating, and deeply troubling. Until recently, I had never heard of this organization.

Another reminder of how dangerous militant certainty can be.

Joe

The Experts

Sorry about my absence. I was wracked up with the flu for a few days.

About 20 years ago, Jonathan Rauch wrote a book called "Kindly Inquisitors," which I highly recommend. In that book, Rauch noted that we routinely threaten people with punitive sanctions to force them to take measures that we believe are appropriate. For example, we have tried, convicted and sentenced people for allowing their children to die from infections that ordinary antibiotics would have cured. Rauch then asked, what justifies our doing this? What can we say to someone who sincerely believes that prayer alone is the most promising treatment for their children? How can we justify forcing them to act as we think they should act regarding their children's health? Is our force a legitimate use of state power, or are these parents simply political prisoners?

Among other things - such as a plausible political theory - the answer to this question will hinge on what we can credibly claim to "know."

In my last post, I suggested that while I personally possessed knowledge in only a few limited areas, I am nonetheless justified in forming opinions in other areas, provided that the factual basis for my opinions are the consensus of the experts. I also criticized the practice of those lacking the relevant expertise of dismissing expert opinion, when what the experts say conflicts with the dismissers' ideologically based beliefs. I stand by these views, and offer a short summary of Rauch's explanation.

In a nutshell, modern inquiry is conducted under the following set of rules:

1. No one has the authority to declare what is true or false;

2. No one has the authority to dismiss or otherwise declare a criticism of the prevailing wisdom inappropriate or off limits;

3. Anyone can criticize any opinion or belief - no belief is immune from criticism;

4. There is never a final say - all beliefs, no matter how well settled, can be challenged.

5. For the purpose of public action - i.e., for the purpose of determining which ideas we will publicly finance in our research, place into our laws, or state in our text books - only those propositions that gain a wide consensus among those qualified to state opinions on the particular issue in question, pursuant to a process of inquiry governed by the first four rules, will count as knowledge.

The basic idea is that a proposition constituting a wide scientific consensus, pursuant to a process by which that proposition has been subject to unfettered and unlimited scrutiny, has a greater claim on our epistemological allegiance than a proposition that has not been subjected to such scrutiny, or which has failed to garner widespread consensus.

Three things. First, "scientific" is defined very loosely in this argument. It covers all disciplines which apply rationally rigorous methods. Historians have established methods - I don't know what they are - I told you I was ignorant - for determining which historical explanations are plausible and which are not. Provided that historical inquiry is conducted pursuant to the same set of rules, historical interpretations that achieve widespread consensus among historians have a greater claim to our allegiance - we are justified in putting them in the text books.

Second, a widespread consensus of experts does not guarantee accuracy - hence rule no. 4.

Third, knowledge has traditionally been defined as "justified true belief." This meant that to know something, one had to have reasons sufficient to justify one's belief. Under our modern system of knowing, the justification has migrated from individual judgment to the collective judgment of those who have spent the time and energy necessary to master a particular area. This theory of knowledge combines expertise, unlimited criticism, and consensus. It is not perfect, but it is the best we can do in a world in which there is way too much knowledge for any one person to master.

So, it turns out that we have something to say to the parents who want to deny their children antibiotics. We can say to them, we have tested the hypothesis that "prayer only" works better than "prayer plus antibiotics," and the overwhelming consensus of the experts is that the latter is far more effective than the former. Given this overwhelming consensus, we cannot allow you place your childrens' lives at risk from an illness we have good reasons to believe is curable.

Why am I entitled to believe that human activity is warming the earth? Because that is the overwhelming consensus of the experts, achieved pursuant to a process of inquiry governed by the four rules. I am justified because I'm putting my trust in a very reliable (albeit imperfect) method.

But without the experts, I am as ignorant as a rock.

Those who dismiss such experts as "loons" are putting their trust in . . . ?

Joe H.

Militant Ignorance - Militant Certainty

"The rise of Idiot America ... is essentially a war on expertise ... In the new media age, everybody is a historian, or a scientist, or a preacher, or a sage. And if everyone is an expert, then nobody is, and the worst thing you can be in a society where everybody is an expert is, well, an actual expert."

-- Charles P. Pierce, from "Idiot America: How Stupidity Became a Virtue in the Land of the Free"

I couldn't agree more. I have had conversations with people who dismiss as "loons" Nobel Prize winners like Al Gore and Paul Krugman. And they do so despite the fact that they personally have no formal training in climate science or economics.

That takes some chutzpa, along with a serious dose of delusion. But truth be told, that's where many Americans are - including most Christians - when it comes to matters of public policy. Militant certainty about what is best, premised on complete and utter ignorance.

This means you Sarah Palin!

How could this state of affairs come to be?

In any field other than Philosophy and Law - and in most areas of Philosophy and law for that matter - I know little to nothing. I am personally qualified to opine on a very limited scope of things. And I have two doctoral level degrees.

How could so many of us, particularly my fellow Christians, fail to recognize how little we know? What does that say about us?

On the other hand . . . it might be pointed out that, while I have little formal training in climate science or economics, I still have opinions. Someone could say, "Joe, what entitles you to form opinions about issues like global warming and deficit spending?" "What entitles you to believe that climate change is real (Al Gore), or that deficit spending in a severe recession is absolutely essential to cover the gap between what we can produce and what market forces will demand (Krugman)?"

Good question. Opinions based on ignorance are opinions based on ignorance. How can I criticize my "know it all friends," if I'm really doing something similar?

The answer is . . . I'm not doing something similar. I'm relying on what I call "the concensus of the experts." My friends, to the contrary, are rejecting the counsel of experts, based on . . . oh, I don't know . . their own unearned sense of infallibility?

I'll say more about why we should trust the "real" experts tomorrow. And by "real" I don't mean the "real housewives" who would be more aptly named "the sur-real housewives."
Joe H

Interesting Take on Marriage

I can't promise that you'll appreciate this writer's take on marriage - warning, it is a but irreverent for the faint of heart. But I found it provacative and insightful.

Joe

Rationing Health Care

Every once in a while, a Philosopher pops up to say something sensible. Of course, lots of people say sensible things, so that trait alone fails to set them apart. What sets Philosophers apart is that they usually say whatever sensible thing the say as the conclusion of a clear and convincing argument. Sometimes the argument is so clear and so easy to grasp that even the most ardent philosophical foe is forced to change his mind.

In today's New York Times, Peter Singer makes just such an argument. He demonstrates, with unmistakable clairty, that everyone is in favor of rationing health care.

Don't believe me? Just read his initial argument.

Now that you've come to agree that we should ration health care, perhaps we can all tune out the conservative propaganda on this issue, and get on with figuring out how to ration health care. Singer offers a very interesting utilitarian analysis in the remainder of the article.

By the way, those of you who read Singer's entire piece should see the value of reading and/or studying philosophy. It provides the mind with powerful analytic tools by demonstrating those tools in use. If you're interested in ethical reasoning, the best writer/thinker I've ever encountered is the late James Rachels. Here's an example of his writing in which he convincingly demonstrates that there is no morally relevant distinction between passive and active euthanasia. It is short, fascinating, and accessible. And it also demonstrates how to use some of those analytical tools I was just talking about.

Joe H.

Statement by The President

Statement by the President
United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

Today, on the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, the United States declares its strong solidarity with torture victims across the world. Torture anywhere is an affront to human dignity everywhere. We are committed to building a world where human rights are respected and protected by the rule of law.

Freedom from torture is an inalienable human right. The Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, ratified by the United States and more than 130 other countries since 1984, forbids governments from deliberately inflicting severe physical or mental pain or suffering on those within their custody or control. Yet torture continues to be practiced around the world by rogue regimes whose cruel methods match their determination to crush the human spirit. Beating, burning, rape, and electric shock are some of the grisly tools such regimes use to terrorize their own citizens. These despicable crimes cannot be tolerated by a world committed to justice.

Notorious human rights abusers, including, among others, Burma, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe, have long sought to shield their abuses from the eyes of the world by staging elaborate deceptions and denying access to international human rights monitors. Until recently, Saddam Hussein used similar means to hide the crimes of his regime. With Iraq's liberation, the world is only now learning the enormity of the dictator's three decades of victimization of the Iraqi people. Across the country, evidence of Baathist atrocities is mounting, including scores of mass graves containing the remains of thousands of men, women, and children and torture chambers hidden inside palaces and ministries. The most compelling evidence of all lies in the stories told by torture survivors, who are recounting a vast array of sadistic acts perpetrated against the innocent. Their testimony reminds us of their great courage in outlasting one of history's most brutal regimes, and it reminds us that similar cruelties are taking place behind the closed doors of other prison states.

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.

No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.

George W. Bush, June 2003


Joe

Nothing to Say

I've been surprised that over the last few days I have had nothing to say. The news items that have come up have been pretty important. That Vice President Cheney's office ordered the CIA to keep information about an intelligence operation away from Congress should be truly shocking. That a vice president could get our nation's intelligence services to intentionally deceive Congress, the people's elected Representatives, is a truly remarkable thing. It demonstrates the tremendous disdain for our constitutional democracy that took hold within the Bush administration.

Even more remarkable was the fact that it was the Vice President, not the President, that ordered the CIA to lie. the Vice President has no constitutional authority whatsoever. He could not legally order the CIA to do anything. And yet, he was able to get the CIA to lie to Congress.

Unfortunately, we're all getting used to these sorts of revelations. They seem ordinary. And psychologically speaking, "ordinary" equates with "acceptable."

I hope I can snap out this growing ennui.

Joe

Teenage Canoodling

A friend just pointed me to a study in conducted in Britain in which a program that provided young girls with information about - and access to - birth control and condoms - resulted in the control group’s pregnancy rate being double the normal rate.

Aside from the problems with the causal inferences that many people draw from these studies - Event A is followed by Event B, therefore Event A caused Event B, these types of studies pose other problems.

One problem is that they tend to confuse two separate (but related) questions: (1) what is the best way to discourage young people from having sex; and (2) what is the best way to reduce teen pregnancy?

Social Conservatives generally believe that the best way to reduce teen pregnancy is to discourage teens from having sex. They also believe that the best way to discourage teens from having sex is to send an unequivocal "abstinence is virtuous" message accompanied with the requisite warnings about the potential ill consequences of sexual activity outside of marriage. They believe that providing teens with information about birth control and disease prevention devices - such as condoms - sends a mixed signal that undermines the effectiveness of the "virtue" and "danger” messages.

Social liberals, it would appear, agree that sending “virtue” and “danger” messages contribute to the goal of discouraging young people from having sex. But they disagree that providing information about birth-control and condoms undermines the “virtue” and “danger” messages - or does so to a problematic degree. They believe that providing this information affords those teens who decide to ignore the “virtue” and “danger” messages the opportunity to protect themselves from the problematic consequences of their canoodling.

Social liberals are actually trying to answer two questions regarding teen pregnancy prevention; (1) what is the best way to discourage young people from having sex - which eliminates all possibility of pregnancy; and (2) what is the best way to prevent pregnancy among teens that decide not to heed our call to virtue? For their part, social conservatives are only asking one question. They’re asking, what is the best way to discourage young people from having sex?

That’s telling. It indicates that social conservatives are willing to expose teens who succumb to temptation to the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease - which might be reduced if these teens had access to condoms - merely to keep those teens who can be deterred from having any sex at all, protected or otherwise.

Expose the libido challenged to mortal danger to keep sweet honey girl pure. That appears to be the posture of the abstinence only crowd.

Personally, I’d rather see a lot more teenage canoodling among the deterrable, if it reduced teenage pregnancy and disease over all.

But then again, I’m a Christian.

Joe H.

The Lipstick Pitbull Blinks - UPDATE

Recall Governor Sarah Palin explaining how she felt when John McCain offered her the Vice-Presidential spot:

“I answered him ‘Yes’ because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink. So I didn’t blink then even when asked to run as his running mate.”

And then she blinked?

I'm trying to generate some sympathy for Sarah Palin. She clearly wasn't ready for the national stage. Her family has been the subject of public ridicule, and very unflattering elements of her character have become the subject of media scrutiny.

However, its difficult for me to feel sympathy for her. She used her family as a political prop when it was advantageous. She had no problem insinuating that her political opponent was an unamerican friend of terrorists. She eagerly whooped it up with racist political crowds carrying water-melons and stuffed monkeys. She also told many, many lies - strike that, many bald faced whoppers that were refutable by reference to taped prior statements. These things make it hard for me to feel her pain.

By the way, this piece, written shortly after Sarah Palin accepted the Republican Vice-Presidential nomination, is still one of the funniest things I've ever read. I recommend that you all read it as a tribute to the non-blinking one.

Joe H.

UPDATE

Andrew Sullivan has created a list of the untruths told by Palin in the few short months we've known her. Hats off to Andrew -I just don't have time to keep up with the facts.

Torture Facts

One of the important things that professional bloggers like Glen Greenwald do is provide fact resources for understanding issues like torture.

In this recent post, Greenwald has assembled information regarding the over 100 terrorism detainees that the United States of America - God I hate to say it this way - Tortured to Death.

I'm sorry if some of you don't like hearing this - but it is true and I'm not going to sugar coat this truth to seem more patriotic. I think the Orwellian use of euphemisms on this issue is deeply immoral and unpatriotic. I refuse to participate.

Anyway, Greenwald's post is is highly worthwhile substantively, but it is also helpful to have specific information, and links to other blogs that have accumulated information, in one accessible place. People who defend the Bush administration's record on . . . what do they call them . . .oh yeah, "intense interrogations," try to dismiss our government's actions as effecting only a small number of hard core terrorists in "ticking time bomb" circumstances. Its very important that they be confronted with the facts. This information clearly proves otherwise.

Joe H.