Link to new site additions. Volume 33, Issue No. 5, Week of June 29, 2008

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

Dear Habermas

Home - About Us - Announcements -What's NEW?

MIRROR SITES: CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
SECTIONS: Issues - Visual Sociology - Sources
SEARCH: Site Index - Topics Index - Archival Index by Volume
DOUBLE-CLICK any word for definition.

Google

Current Issue: Volume 33, Issue No. 5, Week of June 28, 2008
Previous Issue: Volume 33, Issue No. 4, Week of June 15, 2008

 

Left? Right? Left? Right?

Image of marching men and women. Wait A Minute. This Doesn't Make Any Sense.- jeanne

Wait A Minute. This Doesn't Make Any Sense.

 

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: June 28, 2008
Latest Update: June 30, 2008
E-Mail Icon jeannecurran@habermas.org
takata@uwp.edu
patriciaacone@yahoo.com

Topic of the Week:

Left and Right Lead Straight to
Hirschman's Rhetoric of Reaction or
Shouting at Each Other at the Top of Our Lungs

Looking at how left and right interpret issues: Paul Krugman's (leftward-leaning) article on the FDA Fear of Eating By Paul Krugman. Published: May 21, 2007. Compare Glen Whitman's blog on Krugman's article, published on Monday, June 16, 2008. But that's not what I got from Krugman's article, Bad Cow Disease on June 13, 2008.

I'm still trying to figure out why Whitman's "kvetching" (Yiddish for "complaining.") remark is linked to a 2007 Krugman article. Duh! jeanne

And so far, in the midst of trying to get out this week's issue, I'm stumped at Whitman's argument. The problem with our food is distribution; not how innovative the FDA regulations are. We're transporting food over huge distances at a cost of oil and chemicals to gain shelf life. What's wrong with local food???? I would see Krugman as leftward-leaning because of his demand for regulation. I would see Whitman as rightward-leaning because of his apparent horror of regulation.

One of the reason that the left/right dichotomy no longer makes sense is that few issues are simple enough for one side to be right and the other wrong, even within any given ideology. For example, I would have to agree with Whitman that there are times when regulation is overdone, especially when agency "experts" hold to rules that prevent innovation and creativity in responding to new problems. We need to control the arrogance of administrative experts who try to regulate practicing experts, especially when the guide is bottom line cost instead of effective response to situations. That problem is real for both left and right. Whitman's argument contains no specific contextual information that would let me decide whether I agree or disagree in this instance.

Paul Krugman, on the other hand, in his 2008 article gives a very specific context - the adequate testing of foods grown in parts of the world that have less regulation than our own agricultural production. This is a recent recurring problem, brought on largely by the turning of agriculture into a global commodity market that is difficult, if not impossible, to regulate, particularly with no central governing body to enforce or legislate regulation for safety. In that context, I wholly support the need for regulation, as well as the need to rethink and realign the pattern of food distribution. Local markets would eliminate some of the problem.

Precisely because I can agree with some aspects of an argument, while disagreeing vehemently with other aspects, the choice of which spokesperson holds the forum I turn to, and how that spokesperson balances his/her reading of the context, has much to do with the eventual choice I make on my own attitude towards regulation. At least three analyses are needed:

  • An understanding of the persuasion technique used
  • An understanding of whether an actual argument with context and factual information is offered
  • A balancing of the human costs and benefits of the different perspectives of the many arguments

I say "human costs and benefits" because part of every cost/benefit analysis must include how humans, in the reality we presently live in, are affected by the different solutions proposed. To focus on financial cost/benefit alone is to fail completely to recognize the community as well as the individual. Even in an ideological position such as libertarianism, which emphasizes the importance of leaving individuals free to explore, experiment, create, and use their successes freely to promote such activity, it is possible to miss the costs of impact on the community, if we ignore the community as one of the factors in the new paths we seek.

Consider the cost to human lives of the innovative use of asbestos in building materials. Much good came of the building. But much harm also came from the impact of the use of asbestos on workers and in our homes and places of work. For some, that was considered the "cost of doing business." But we are left with the need to decide how the community can best recover from that harm, unknown and perhaps unknowable, at the point the innovation was introduced. Devastating consequences can occur if industry is forced to bear all the cost of the harm. But so also have devastating consequences been suffered by many people who died or were disabled by the asbestos. Complex issues. No easy answers.

I'll probably transfer this to a separate file, with at least some paragraphs from the articles to illustrate the conundrum. Hard to do at this point because I want to break it into three levels of depth of study. jeanne

References:

  • Albert O. Hirschman. 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-76867-1 (cloth) and ISBN 0-674-76868-X (paper). An excellent practical discussion of how liberals and conservatives shout at one another without really saying anything. The one-sided argument, par excellence. Mature reading, but worth the effort to understand public discourse as it often takes place, especially in the seats of government. Susan and I used this in teaching. jeanne

  • 1967. Foundations of Social Psychology by Edward E. Jones and H.B. Gerard. John Wiley & Sons Inc. ISBN: 0471449067. This text is my original source on one-sided and two-sided arguments of persuasion. jeanne

  • The Fallacy Detective Touted by the Christian Logic site for homeschooling and classroom teachers, this book does cover lots of persuasive techniques in language that young people can readily pick up. jeanne

  • Separating the ideals of research from the methodology of research, either action research or science, can lead to better research. By Pam Swepson. She speaks of Aristotle's dichotomies, which is how I cam to her link. Not that she includes Habermas, Kuhn, Popper, Rorty in her references. Will review later. jeanne

  • Dichotomistic. Will review later. jeanne

  • The Social Security Fix-It Book on the Cenek Report site.

  • Looking Back, Looking Forward Forum in The Nation on what happened in the 2004 Presidential elections.

  • Having Some Fun with Stanley Fish on the NY Times Blog by Chris Boese. Fits into our discussion of left/right. jeanne

Announcements:

Issues

  • Health Care

    • Declining Federal Funding for Research

      The June 2008 Newsletter from the Tower Cancer Research Foundation in Los Angeles included this brief announcement by its President, Solomon Hamburg, MD, PhD:

      "Dr. Peter Rosen and I have just returned from the American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO] meetings held in Chicago this year. I am proud to say Tower Cancer Research Foundation presented three abstracts of our clinical research. Howeveer, I would like to describe the significant changes I have noticed in the meetings during the past 25 years.

      "Over 35,000 people attended this meeting. At one time the US was the major force in oncology, and greater than 80% of attendees were American physicians. Today, more than 70 % of those attending are foreign physicians and most important clinical studies are coming from Europe. In addition, many American physicians are now employed by private industry, including pharmaceutical and investment companies, looking either to sell or invest in potential new therapies. The remainder of American physicians are academicians, who attend this meeting in order to network with others or to present their research in a public forum. The community oncologist, once the mainstay of the meeting, is now a missing component.

      There are reasons for the transformation of this prestigious organization. One obviously is that cancer is a global problem. However, a more insidious rason is that our Federal government has decreased support of cancer research dollar for dollar over the past 25 years. Also, only 3% of eligible patients are enrolled in clinical trials, as compared to as many as 20% in some European countries. The changes I noted at ASCO this year are illustrative of the loss of America's leadership role in science and medicine, and it is time to reverse this trend. Our government needs to reconsider its priorities and again provide adequate funding for clinical cnacer research."

      Hard copy onsulted by jeanne on June 30, 2008. Newletter not yet up on Tower Cancer Research Center site.

      The funding of research as either a commodity for profit-making investments or as a major factor in providing affordable and effective healthcare to the population will be an important issue for consideration in the 2008 Presidential election. Rightward-leaning conservatives and libertarians tend to see research as best funded by the corporate sector, which is based on profit. Leftward-leaning progressives (liberals) tend to see research as best funded by government, based on communal needs of the populace for basic and effective health care. No one has a simple "right answer" to this dilemma. Probably we will end up with some mix of private and public funding, as we once had in the past, when 80% of the attendees at ASCO were American physicians.

      We, as individuals, in voting for legislators and representatives, will make major healthcare decisions in the near future. We need to talk about and consider what medical research, in all areas, not just in cancer, but in diabetes, heart disease, obesity, mean to our future. No one can tell you which choices are best. But talking to friends, colleagues, family, neighbors, can help us all sort out the issues as they will certainly affect our lives. jeanne

    • Weighing the Costs of a CT Scan’s Look Inside the Heart By Alex Berenson and Reed Abelson. New York Times. Sunday, June 29, 2008. At p. A 1. First in a series of articles on "The Evidence Gap: An Imperfect Picture. Articles in this series will explore medical treatments used despite scant proof they work and will consider steps toward medicine based on evidence."
      "Some medical experts say the American devotion to the newest, most expensive technology is an important reason that the United States spends much more on health care than other industrialized nations — more than $2.2 trillion in 2007, an estimated $7,500 a person, about twice the average in other countries — without providing better care.

      "No one knows exactly how much money is spent on unnecessary care. But a Rand Corporation study estimated that one-third or more of the care that patients in this country receive could be of little value. If that is so, hundreds of billions of dollars each year are being wasted on superfluous treatments.

      " . . . . The problem is not that newer treatments never work. It is that once they become available, they are often used indiscriminately, in the absence of studies to determine which patients they will benefit.

      Article consulted by jeanne on June 29, 2008.

    • As Their Use Soars, Heart Implants Raise Questions By Barry Meier. New York Times. Published: August 2, 2005.
      "The overuse or inappropriate use of medical treatments is a familiar theme. But defibrillators pose unique issues because they are increasingly being used as a standard piece of safety equipment, like an air bag in an automobile, in an ever-growing number of heart patients whose individual need for the device is not clear. Defibrillator prices are also like those found on a new car, ranging from about $20,000 to $35,000 each.

      "They are expensive and in theory almost anyone in the country could benefit," said Dr. Mark Hlatky, a professor of health research and policy at Stanford University School of Medicine. "So where do you draw the line?"

      "The dilemma reflects a growing medical conundrum. Defibrillators were first used in the 1980's only in patients who had survived an episode of sudden cardiac arrest. But since then, studies largely funded by the industry have resulted in a steady expansion of the device's use to ever-broader pools of heart patients with varying degrees of risk of cardiac arrest.

      "The problem, however, is that medical researchers have not figured out how to tell which patients in these broader groups are at high risk and which ones are at low risk. The result: they all qualify for a unit.

      "The problem is no small matter. Experts agree that many, if not the majority, of defibrillator candidates are at a low risk of cardiac arrest. "We can identify groups at risk, but we cannot really identify the individuals in those groups who are at higher risk," said Dr. Douglas P. Zipes, a cardiology professor at Indiana University School of Medicine.

      "Meanwhile, physicians like Dr. Zipes and health policy experts say that manufacturers have used a variety of strategies to increase profits by keeping device prices high. For example, rather than offering a low-cost unit that does the basic job of stopping a bad heart rhythm, defibrillator makers are engaged in a sort of medical arms race in which producers turn over models by adding new features like different ways to measure heart rhythms. Some of these additions are valuable, while others are just "bells and whistles," experts say."

      Article consulted by jeanne on June 29, 2008.

    I hope these brief excerpts are making my point, that there's no simple "right" or "wrong" any more. These new technological innovations do help some people, do save their lives. But when they become a "commodity" for everyone who might be at some risk, they cost us billions, without improving our health care. Used in this manner, they may even do harm. This is one of the problems with "mandatory health coverage." Will that mandatory coverage include the industry's insistence on "commodity" innovations, or will the mandatory coverage demand an investment in the studies we need to understand the risks and benefits? No easy answers. jeanne

  • The Price of Oil and Accountability

    Blaming the Price of Oil on Speculators is a way of deflecting accountability, of saying why don't you and the speculators fight, so the legislators and industry barons can escape your anger?

  • The Iraq War

    Emerald City exposed Journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran pulls back the curtain on the Green Zone in Baghdad to reveal the flops and failures of the Bush war team. Review of the book on Salon.com. By Sidney Blumenthal.

  • "Things They Are A-Changin' "

  • Shift Happens Slide show. Good. Take the time to see it. jeanne

  • Social Security and Our Future

    The Social Security Fix-It Book on the Cenek Report. I'll start putting all the social security material together soon. jeanne

  • Site Map and Archives updates.

    • Ordered a new graphics tablet. Back to work on the sitemap as soon as it gets here. It's here but I haven't hooked it up yet. So images are still just graphics. Still haven't hooked it up. Working on voting materials. June 29, 2008. jeanne

Visual Sociology

  • Accountability Squirming

    jeanne's version of accountability squirming without a graphics tablet

    "Well, Mr. Congressman, WHY HASN'T ANYTHING BEEN DONE ABOUT . . . . medical research, provision of healthcare to all, alternative energy research to protect us from reliance on depleted oil reserves, protection from climate change that threatens us all, social security, in its broadest sense, adequate and affordable housing, help with building new patterns of work that fit the 21st Century, help in building financial security for our country. WHY, MR. CONGRESSMAN?"

    "Duh, well, it isn't simple; YOU VOTERS JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE HAVE TO DO TO GET OURSSELVES ELECTED. I mean speculators are driving the price of oil up; people are buying their medicine in Canada, doing anything about the climate could drive businesses away. You have to look at the whole picture. Look at how committed we are to the people: we learn to bowl and drink beer and do our best to understand your needs."
    (AND WHO FINANCES OUR CAMPAIGNS)

    Rightward-leaning voters tend to believe that those people who have been most successful at gaining power in our elected offices and in making lots of money are the ones best qualified to make our system strong and healthy. So they would be more sympathetic to the Congressman, even though they often share the displeasure most of us feel about greed and misdeeds in the gaining and maintaining of that power.

    Leftward-leaning voters tend to believe that profit-making tends to obscure the needs of all those who have little power and money, weakening and our nation and our communities by tearing us apart with the competitiveness to acquire more and more profit. So they would be more sympathetic to the voters challenging the congressman as to why he/she hasn't accomplished more to meet those needs.

    Again, no simple "right answers." There is always and has always been a problem with corruption. Power corrupts. But there is also a need to promote an entrepreneurial spirit of risk-taking and innovation in seeking new paths that will get us safely through today's problems. jeanne

SquiggleOnline Resources For Governance Discourse

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License.
Individual copyrights by other authors may apply.