How Can Lies be so Blatant?

On monday Paul Krugman published an op-ed article in the times entitled "Hurray for Health Reform." In addition to being the author of an economics text book I study, Krugman is a Nobel Prize winning economist, a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a centenary professor at the London School of Economics, to name a few of his accolades. This, I believe, makes him an authority which can be trusted.

In his article he defends "The Affordable Healthcare Act" which was, after many concessions from both sides of the house, signed in to law two years ago. He says, in no uncertain terms, that it is essential for the health and well being of the American people and highlights the problems with current systems, as well as telling us that, under Mitt Romney, Massachusetts enacted very similar healthcare reforms to great success.

He goes on to say, that in order to oppose the reforms, opponents have to resort to "make(ing) stuff up." What is hard to understand is how, in what Americans would claim is the preeminent democracy in the world, this is possible. How can a properly functioning democracy allow voters to be mislead in such a way. To vote for someone based on their lies rather than their policies will be good for no one but the politician who is allowed to feed misinformation to the public.

Why is it the sole responsibility of op-ed columnists to point out such lies? Why can such information not be considered within the scope of news? If it is true (and as I pointed out above, it comes from a very trustworthy source), is not a matter of political view point or a matter of opinion, it is a matter of national importance. Politicians apparently know they can lie without fearing significant retribution.

One such untruth is that the act would lead to the creation of "death panels" that would decide wether it was economical for a patient to be administered certain treatment. This is not how such a system would work. We have in England an organization called "The National Institute for Health Clinical Excellence" or NICE. This is not a "death panel," rather NICE is tasked with evaluating new treatments. That is how effective it is with a regard to how much it costs. A particular drug, for instance, that is only marginally effective in just a few cases should not be a burden on a healthcare system when the money could be better spent elsewhere. NICE works on the assumption that doctors should be left to treat patients and not be troubled with evaluating economic viability and effectiveness of treatment. A doctor can look up the NICE guidelines for a treatment and make an informed decision as to the likelihood that it will improve a patients standard of living with regards to the cost of the treatment to the healthcare system.

It may be hard to accept, but no healthcare system has unlimited resources. Organizations similar to NICE are essential in preventing the use of treatments that have little benefit and that could cost the healthcare system dearly. The aim of any healthcare developed health care system is to provide high standards of care to all patients. Evaluating new treatments to see if they will be beneficial is integral to achieving this aim.

Politicians are not properly serving the electorate if they lie to gain power. Especially if those lies have an adverse effect on the nation's health. Newspapers and other news outlets are also not serving the public if they do not hold politicians to account for their lies. We can (almost) not blame politicians for lying if they know they can get away with it.

Krugman's article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/opinion/krugman-hurray-for-health-reform.html?_r=1&sq=krugman&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=4&adxnnlx=1332424925-oxxT8E6oS1VmCV86RB4FNg#

A Small Argument Against the US' Sentencing of Children to Life Without Parole

According to a paper published in 2008 at the University of San Francisco School of Law by Constance De la Vega and Michelle T. Leighton, the US is alone in the world in handing out Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentences to juveniles. The paper also argues "the LWOP sentence condemns a child to die in prison (and) is cruel and ineffective as a punishment." The United States is one of only two countries, the other country being Somalia, that has not ratified The United Nations "Convention of Human Rights of a Child" which states in article 37a:

 “No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age”

The case against the US continuing this practice is strong. There is the fact that, through the medium of the UN, almost all countries have agreed that children have a fundamental right not to be treated in this way. In of it’s self, this lends a huge amount of credibility to the argument. The US holds democracy in very high regard; it represents the very foundation of the nation. It may be because if this strong belief in the democratic process that the US holds it’s self as a moral leader of the world projecting an image of the freest and the fairest society. How is it then that every other developed democracy, not to mention governments that are not held in such high regard, have recognized that this practice is not in keeping with current human rights values. It is very hard to argue that the US is right and that the rest of the world is wrong.

            The legal mechanism that allows a child to be condemned to die in prison is that for a severe enough crime a child may be tried as an adult, thus exposing the child to adult punishments. This highlights a double standard in the US justice system. It follows that because a juvenile justice system exists in the US, it is recognized that juveniles need different treatment than do adults. We can assume that the motivations of the juvenile system are that children are easily influenced, prone to not thinking things through and not making as rational judgments as adults do. Thus they are not wholly responsible for their actions. It does not follow that because a child is accused of a particularly severe crime that they have somehow gained the thinking skills that we expect an adult to have.

            So, whilst the rest of the world has decided locking up children and throwing away the key is wrong, the US continues to carry out this adult punishment. Despite recognizing that children should be dealt with in a different way to adults, the US justice system seems to be of the belief that a child is thinking like an adult when he/she commits a certain crime. That then enables the child to be sentenced to what is arguably the worst punishment imaginable.  

A Slight Misrepresentation in the NYT Yesterday

Britain is, like much of the world, in a bit of an economic slump. The governments generous welfare system has had to be quite dramatically cut, and, as a result, lots of people who had been living comfortably with the help of the state have had to cut back on their standard of living. There is a lot of sympathy for the people who want to work but can't. There is little sympathy for those who have made it their careers to get money from the government handouts that are now in short supply. This, I'm sure, is a familiar feeling in many developed economies with such welfare systems, I know I have heard similar sentiment here in the US.

Landon Thomas Jr.'s article, titled "For London Youth, Down and Out is a Way of Life" makes real and valid points about the hardship that young people in Britain face in getting on the career ladder. He highlights the need for greater investment in apprenticeship programs and explains (but offers no solutions) that some young people have had to leave university because they could not afford to stay. This is fine and good journalism. People need to know these things so governments can be pressured to put things right.

The praise for the article stops there. In trying to reinforce his message he seems to try and use the hardships of the youth of Britain as justification for a spell of riots that occurred last summer. This completely misses the point of the riots. We're talking about good for nothing, lazy layabouts with no respect or consideration for anyone other than themselves. These are people who burnt out their neighbors cars and burned down their local shops. These are people who assaulted local shopkeepers so they could loot goods and threw petrol bombs at police. This might seem a little strong, a little one sided; and it is. But this is a reflection of the view taken by those not participating in the riots. This was the view taken by the press, the government and the courts. People generally think that however bad it is, behavior like the behavior that happened in these riots simply cannot be justified. I know people think this because I was there.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/business/global/for-london-youth-down-and-out-is-way-of-life.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=london%20youth&st=cse

Professor Wiseman asked me to post my journal 1 assignment for others to see:

Journal 1

1.      Consider the following cases.  What do you think about each?  What are the indicators that each person does not believe what he has reasoned out?  What are the barriers to thinking critically in each case?

¡  Michael reasons out the issue of capital punishment as a deterrent.  He gathers information and concludes that it does not significantly deter murder or other violent crimes.  But after his investigation, he feels angry.  He says, “Maybe that’s true, but I’m still in favor of capital punishment because you have to do something to stop criminals.”

Michael seems to have commendable research skills. He has managed to avoid confirmation bias by concluding from his research an opposing view to his own opinion. He falls victim to doublethink when, despite his research providing evidence to the contrary, he continues to favor capital punishment.  Although he shows curiosity through researching this topic, he seems to lack the openness inherent to a “beginner’s mind” which is crucial in order to think critically.

¡  Maria, taking a course in gender studies, reasons her way through the argument that there is no nonsexist reason why a woman should adopt her husband’s name at marriage.  Like Michael, Maria discovers that the more she follows the argument the angrier she gets.

Maria is stuck in stage one of Dr. Perry’s cognitive development: Dualism. She is so firmly stuck in her belief that she sees all other alternatives as wrong.  Maria lacks open-minded skepticism, as she seems to be struggling with overcoming personal prejudices and biases. In my experience, it is possible for a woman to want to take her husband’s name simply because it is shorter. Maria seems to be encountering people with opposing opinions and rather than using critical thinking skills in response, she is getting angry (a form of resistance).

¡  Pete believes that all cultures and all cultural practices are equally valid.  He believes people do not have a right to say that a particular culture’s practices are wrong.  But he also believes that it’s part of our Western culture to impose our ideas on others, and that it’s wrong for us to do that.  (Most of us believe that everyone should be treated equally, but that does not prevent us from thinking we deserve special breaks.)

Pete is engaging in doublethink. Whilst he believes we should not critique a particular culture and its practices, he is happy to say that western culture is wrong in imposing ideas on others. What Pete might be trying to get at is that the west is engaging in ethnocentrism, the belief that one’s own culture is superior to others (and thus needs imposing on others), and suspicion of other cultures.

¡  Some people think that eating dogs, cats, or seagulls is revolting, but that eating cows or chickens is quite reasonable. They believe this despite the fact that all their reasoning shows the cases are identical.  They find themselves trying to make up reasons that they know don’t work (such as “Dogs and cats are pets!  That’s why it is wrong to eat them.”)

In other cultures, it is reasonable to eat cats, dogs (or even humans). As a culture, we tend to personify our pets and we keep dogs and cats as pets. Thus, one of our culture’s rationalizations against eating cats and dogs could be that they are a little too close to us, analogous to us finding the idea of cannibalism revolting. I don’t think it is unreasonable for us to be revolted by the idea of eating cats and dogs ourselves. What could be seen as unreasonable is the belief that another culture is “wrong” for eating cats and dogs. As for seagulls, I’ve never met anyone who finds the idea of eating seagulls revolting. I think that they just probably don’t taste very nice.

My wife just pointed out that before coming to England she would never have considered eating pigeon. Thus, as a Brit, I think I’m missing the point about seagulls. 

2.  Consider the following situation.  Explain why the last step is difficult?

The teacher lowered my course grade because I missed too many classes.  I feel unfairly treated.  So I raise the question:  “Was my teacher being fair in giving me this grade?” 

• Collect information: 
• Check the syllabus about missed classes
• Ask the teacher
• Consider the teacher's point of view on the issue and purpose in lowering grades due to absences
• Conclusion:  the teacher was fair
• Therefore, I believe the results of my reasoning that my teacher’s actions in lowering my grade were fair.
• Why is this last step difficult?

The last step is difficult because it goes against one’s own personal belief (interpretation of the experience); accepting this belief is contrary to this person’s initial feelings. In accepting this belief, this person must change his/her feelings. He/she must overcome resistance in order to accept this new analysis of the experience

Here's my new critical thinking blog.