I may be a democrat, but facts are decidedly independant
One of my biggest pet peeves in life is people who run around yelling "the sky is falling" because of such-and-such study that found this-or-that shocking truth about some detail of our daily lives when they haven't actually gone through the trouble of actually reading the study themselves. It's true of any number of subjects from the respiratory and reproductive dangers of brown apple moth spraying in California (there are none), and the 'growing consensus' that global warming is questionable (only among conservative non-scientists), and even the dangers of phthalates in plastic bottles (it's real, but under very specific circumstances). This is why when I come across it in myself, I find it particularly notable and humbling. I submit to you the following from Fox News regarding the status of our healthcare system and public opinion related to it:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/01/obamas-health-care-myths/
I will certainly admit that I don't often look to Fox for balanced reporting, but this one is based on the numbers from the studies involved. And it reveals many issues with what is being said by the current administration. Ultimately, I still don't agree with the findings. Our system is failing a substantial portion of our population regardless of how you slice it and that needs addressing. But their fundamental point in the article that the discussion needs to be framed in fact and not hysteria is quite sound. While I am not a founding father worshipper (Jefferson and Frankline were certainly examples of their humanity), it is notable to point out that the one thing almost every single one of them agreed on at the time was reasoned civil discourse. Washington was opposed to political parties, in fact, because he felt they would cause unnecessary polarization and radicalization along party lines (sound familiar?). The key word is REASONED.
We, as a nation, have become very effective at the propaganda game. We've done it via our own aptitude for science. We've become so good at science that the studies our scientists are producing are often so nuanced that to a non-specialist, it could be read several ways. This is key to a deeper understanding of science, which lies in that nuance. Furthermore, science itself benefits greatly from the back and forth discourse of competing ideas. As a result by necessity there are dissenters, even on fundementals. But it also leaves an open opportunity for biased reporting that covers only selected studies or misrepresents the findings, or omits critical details in how the study was performed. And in that our politicians can, knowingly or not, deceive us in nearly any direction they desire and tack a name with associated degrees to their argument.
So I humbly admit my own shortcomings in that area in this particular case and submit that perhaps there is a more moderated view, as always.
As a matter of full disclosure, I will point out one major issue with their conclusions. They say that opinion polls show that the majority of americans are concerned with the uninsured, but don't want to foot the bill for the solution to the problem. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't wash. If you care, you help. If you help, you sacrifice, even if only a little. So, just as California has now rejected both spending cuts and tax hikes because neither option alone appears palattable, we also will put ourselves in a very problematic position if we want to provide for our citizens, but are unwilling to follow through.
That is all.
Meep
PS As a side note, I've decided to embrace my overly parenthetical writing style. I know it's bad form, but that's how my head works so ::raspberries:: to you if you don't like it.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/01/obamas-health-care-myths/
I will certainly admit that I don't often look to Fox for balanced reporting, but this one is based on the numbers from the studies involved. And it reveals many issues with what is being said by the current administration. Ultimately, I still don't agree with the findings. Our system is failing a substantial portion of our population regardless of how you slice it and that needs addressing. But their fundamental point in the article that the discussion needs to be framed in fact and not hysteria is quite sound. While I am not a founding father worshipper (Jefferson and Frankline were certainly examples of their humanity), it is notable to point out that the one thing almost every single one of them agreed on at the time was reasoned civil discourse. Washington was opposed to political parties, in fact, because he felt they would cause unnecessary polarization and radicalization along party lines (sound familiar?). The key word is REASONED.
We, as a nation, have become very effective at the propaganda game. We've done it via our own aptitude for science. We've become so good at science that the studies our scientists are producing are often so nuanced that to a non-specialist, it could be read several ways. This is key to a deeper understanding of science, which lies in that nuance. Furthermore, science itself benefits greatly from the back and forth discourse of competing ideas. As a result by necessity there are dissenters, even on fundementals. But it also leaves an open opportunity for biased reporting that covers only selected studies or misrepresents the findings, or omits critical details in how the study was performed. And in that our politicians can, knowingly or not, deceive us in nearly any direction they desire and tack a name with associated degrees to their argument.
So I humbly admit my own shortcomings in that area in this particular case and submit that perhaps there is a more moderated view, as always.
As a matter of full disclosure, I will point out one major issue with their conclusions. They say that opinion polls show that the majority of americans are concerned with the uninsured, but don't want to foot the bill for the solution to the problem. It's a nice theory, but it doesn't wash. If you care, you help. If you help, you sacrifice, even if only a little. So, just as California has now rejected both spending cuts and tax hikes because neither option alone appears palattable, we also will put ourselves in a very problematic position if we want to provide for our citizens, but are unwilling to follow through.
That is all.
Meep
PS As a side note, I've decided to embrace my overly parenthetical writing style. I know it's bad form, but that's how my head works so ::raspberries:: to you if you don't like it.