Category: Current Affairs
Obamacare: Lawyers Win, Doctors Lose
Today's column by Dennis Prager is a must-read. Excerpt (emphasis added):
If the 1,990-page House Health Care Bill becomes law, the average American will receive worse health care, American physicians will decline in status and income, American medical innovation will dramatically slow down and pharmaceutical discoveries will decline in number and quality. And, of course, the economy of the United States will deteriorate, perhaps permanently.
However, we are also certain that there is one American group that will thrive — trial lawyers. The very existence of a 1,990-page law guarantees years of, if not more or less permanent, lawsuits. And the law actually specifies that states that do not limit attorneys' fees in cases of medical malpractice shall be financially rewarded.
Unbelievable if True: Illiteracy and Innumeracy
Palin Derangement Syndrome: Another Case
(Written 5 October 2008)
Here is how Richard Cohen begins a recent column:
Thank God for Sarah Palin. Without her jibes, her sarcasm, her exaggerations, her smug provincialism, her hypocrisy about family and government, her exploitation of mommyhood and her personal attacks on Barack Obama, the Democratic base might never be consolidated. This much is certain: Obama could never do it.
Global Warming: Some Questions
What can a philosopher say about global warming? The first thing he can and ought to say is that, although not all questions are empirical, at the heart of the global warming debate are a set of empirical questions. These are not questions for philosophers qua philosophers, let alone for political ideologues. For the resolution of these questions we must turn to reputable climatologists whose roster does not sport such names as 'Al Gore,' 'Barbra Streisand,' or 'Ann Coulter.' Unfortunately, the global warming question is one that is readily 'ideologized' and the ideological gas bags of both the Right and the Left have a lot to answer for in this regard.
Some Definitions of ‘Global Warming’ Examined
Just what is global warming anyway? On this page you will find a page of definitions. This post will examine some of them. This is important because one cannot intelligently discuss global warming, or anything else, until one knows exactly what one is talking about.
Now one thing that should be obvious is that a genus cannot be defined in terms of a species thereof. And yet that is precisely what some of the definitions on the linked page do. For example,
An increase in the Earth's temperature caused by human activities, such as burning coal, oil and natural gas.
This fails as a definition of 'global warming' because it is too specific. Not all global warming is anthropogenic (man-made). And even if all global warming were anthropogenic, it is not a matter of definition that this be so. The opposite mistake is committed by the following 'definition':
Also called climate change.
This is too general. All global warming is climate change, but not all climate change is global warming. There is also global cooling. And again, even if, contrary to fact, there never has been in the history of the earth any case of global cooling, this is not a question that ought to be decided at the level of a definition. Here is another defective definition:
the theoretical increase of global temperatures caused by the greenhouse effect.
Theoretical as opposed to what? What is the difference between a theoretical increase and an increase? What does 'theoretical' add? And why is a cause specified in the definition? Suppose something other than the greenhouse effect is the cause of global warming. Would it not still be global warming? The business of a definition is to isolate the phenomenon in question, to say what it is. The question as to what causes it is logically secondary and does not belong in the definition. Here is a real winner:
Increased levels of gases such as carbon dioxide that trap heat in the earth's lower atmosphere potentially causing global warming.
Where's my logic stick? First, causes should be left out of definitions. Second, global warming can occur without the build-up of gases like carbon dioxide. Third, the weasel word 'potentially.' Fourth, the definition is circular: the definiendum occurs in the definiens. The following definition seems adequate:
Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans.
I would delete the pleonastic 'over time.' How could there be an increase that was not 'over time'? More importantly, note the word 'average' which I think is essential to a good definition. The claim that global warming is taking place is not the claim that at every place at or near the surface of the earth the temperature is higher than it was at that place and on that date in the past. Dennis Prager, an AM talk jock whom I respect, seemed to fall into this fallacy recently. He cited a place at which there had been a record low temperature as evidence against global warming. But it is nothing of the sort. A record low at a particular place is consistent with a general warming trend.
It should be obvious that an average increase in some quantity need not be steady or ubiquitous. Suppose the average price of a house in some locality has increased over a ten year period from X to Y. This is consistent with (i) some houses losing value, and (ii) the average value being at some times during the period less than X.
The last definition strikes this layman as adequate. But it leaves wide open the question whther global warming is occurring, and if it is, how fast and from what causes. But these are empirical questions for the climatologist.
Liberal Values: Limbaugh Bad, Mao Good
Are we in Cloud Cuckoo Land yet?
Pessimistic Thoughts on Political Discourse in America
The following piece was written on 12 April 2006. I repost it, slightly emended, because events since then have led me to believe that the grounds for pessimism are even stronger now than they were before. It is becoming increasingly clear that conservatives and liberals/leftists live on 'different planets.' And it is becoming increasingly clear which planet bears the name 'Reality.' A return to federalism may help mitigate tensions, as I suggest here. But that is not likely to happen.
………………………….
A few nights ago on C-Span I listened to a talk by Mark Crispin Miller given at the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). His theme was that of a book he had authored alleging that the 2004 election was stolen by the Republicans and how democracy is dead in the USA. Not having read Crispin's book, I cannot comment on it. But I will offer a few remarks on his talk.
Miller, a tenured professor at New York University, is obviously intelligent and highly articulate and entertaining to listen to, his mannerisms and delivery reminiscent of Woody Allen. He takes himself to be a defender of the values of the Enlightenment. But then so do I. So here is the beginning of a 'disconnect.' From my point of view, Miller is an extremist motivated by the standard Leftist fear of, and hostility toward, religion. (Miller's NYU colleague, Thomas Nagel, owns up to his fear of religion, as I document here.) Miller's hostility was betrayed a dozen or so times during his speech by mocking turns of phrase. But of course he doesn't see himself as an extremist but as a sober defender of values he feels are threatened by Christian Reconstructionism, also know as Dominion Theology.
Continue reading “Pessimistic Thoughts on Political Discourse in America”
Obama Fails To Win Nobel Prize in Economics
Yet More Evidence of a Lack of Common Sense Among Democrats
It is hard to believe, but then again, given how preternaturally stupid and politically correct Dems are, maybe it is not so hard to believe: a significant number of these jokers oppose photo ID when it comes to applying for Medicare and Medicaid benefits! Here is John Fund, Making the World Safe for Medicaid Fraud:
Americans expect to show a photo ID when they board a plane, enter many office buildings, cash a check or even rent a video — but rarely in voting or applying for government benefits such as Medicaid. Many Democrats seem to view asking citizens for proof of identity as an invasion of privacy — though what's really being protected is the right to commit identity fraud.
Exhibit A is Tuesday's 13 to 10 party-line vote in the Senate Finance Committee rejecting a proposal to require that immigrants prove their identity when signing up for federal health care programs. [. . .]
This shows that the Dems are not serious about health care reform. If they were serious they would begin by solving pressing and solvable problems such as the fraud and waste in existing programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. But they refuse to take the simplest steps toward this end.
Misplaced Moral Enthusiasm and Mel Gibson
The L. A. Times reports that Mel Gibson's 2006 drunk driving conviction has been expunged. Here is what I wrote about the case at the time (1 August 2006):
What's worse: Driving while legally drunk at 87 miles per hour in a 45 mph zone, or making stupid anti-Semitic remarks? The former, obviously. And yet a big stink is being made about Gibson's drunken rant. I call this misplaced moral enthusiasm. Calling a Jew a bad name won't kill him, but running him over in your speeding 2006 Lexus LS 430 will.
On the one hand, offensive words that no reasonable person could take seriously; on the other hand, a deed that could get people killed. Here is what Gibson said: "The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world," and, addressing the arresting officer, "Are you a Jew?"
Now compare Gibson with Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who repeatedly has called for the destruction of the State of Israel. Ahmadinejad's is speech that incites unspeakable violence, unlike Gibson's drunken rant which is no threat to anyone. So let's forget about Gibson, and concentrate on real threats.
The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care
This entire book, by Sally C. Pipes, is available here in pdf format.
The Bigger the Government, the More to Fight Over
Taking a page from Prager, I've already noted that big government makes for small citizens. Let us also note that government expansion exacerbates political divisions and sets citizen against citizen.
Suppose we get to the point where Washington bureaucrats dictate what types of cars and trucks will be manufactured. Then you can be sure that there will be more lobbying, more corruption and the buying of votes, more fighting. Or suppose the czars of Obamacare begin dictating how many cardiologists we need, how many gastroenterologists, etc. Do you think medical students, physicians, and their patients will take that lying down? Hell no, they will organize and fight and protest and lobby. They will be justified in doing so because of the constitutionally protected right to a redress of grievances.
Do you like contention and division? Then support bigger government. We are coming apart as a nation as Patrick J. Buchanan documents here. The rifts are deep and nasty. Polarization and demonization of the opponent are the order of the day. Do you want more of this? Then give government more say in your life. Do you want less? Then support limited government and federalism.
Federalism, roughly, is (i) a form of political organization in which governmental power is divided among a central government and various constituent governing entities such as states, counties, and cities; (ii) subject to the proviso that the central and constituent governments retain their separate identities and assigned duties. A government that is not a federation would allow for the central government to create and reorganize constituent governments at will and meddle in their affairs. Federalism is implied by the Tenth Amendment tothe U.S. Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Federalism would make for less contention, because people who love high taxes and liberal schemes could head for the People's Republic of Taxachusetts or the Left coast state of Californication, while the conservatively inclined who support gun rights and capital punishment could gravitate toward states like Texas.
The fact of the matter is that we do not agree on a large number of divisive, passion-inspiring issues (abortion, gun rights, capital punishment, wealth redistribution . . .) and we will never agree on them. These are not merely 'academic' issues since they directly affect the lives and livelihoods and liberties of people. And they are not easily resolved because they are rooted deep in fundamental worldview differences. When you violate a man's liberty, or mock his moral sense, or threaten to destroy his way of life, you are spoiling for a fight and you will get it.
Recognizing these facts, we must ask ourselves: How can we keep from tearing each other apart literally or figuratively? I am floating the suggestion that federalism and severe limitations on the reach of the central government are what we need. Example: Suppose Roe v. Wade is overturned and the question of the legality of abortion is returned to the states. Some states will make it legal, others illegal. This would be a modest step in the direction of mitigating the tensions between the warring camps. If abortion is a question for the states, then no federal monies could be allocated to the support of abortion. People who want to live in abortion states can move there; people who don't can move to states in which abortion is illegal.
A. C. Grayling on the Roman Polanski Statutory Rape Case
I find myself in complete agreement with Professor Grayling's commentary on the Polanski case. Read it carefully; he makes several important points. What is astonishing to me, however, is how this man can be so sane and judicious on this topic, and yet such a blithering gasbag of a lunatic when it comes to religion, as I document here. There is something I call topical insanity, and Grayling on religion is an example of it. Sometimes otherwise sane people simply 'lose it' when it comes to certain topics.
Barack Obama, College Administrator
Victor Davis Hanson scores again. (HT: KBJ)