Letter to the Editor, to me.
In my school newspaper (The Advocate) this week there was a letter to the editor posted about my article last week on Mcbama. Since I will not be able to give a response to the individual who wrote this nor the readers who read our paper I thought I’d take the opportunity here to dispel some myths the majority of people seem to have, pertaining to socialized medicine.
First here is the LTE in the paper this week:
“Kirk Barbera is out of his mind. I’m sad to say that, contrary to Barbera’s column last week, neither candidate has proposed a truly universal healthcare plan. Kirk would do well to note, however, that developed countries with socialized medicine are healthier, happier, and live longer than American’s. Period.
Waiting lists to see a doctor in Canada are long? Wow. Have you been to an emergency room in the states lately? It’s a nightmare. And when it’s all over, you get a bill for thousands of dollars for the privilege of getting hurt or sick in America.
In an age of unprecedented technological and material wealth, denying anyone medical attention (or driving them to bankruptcy for the audacious desire to stave off dying for a while) is an atrocity. Barbera has it backwards. Socialization of healthcare would liberate rather than oppress. It would liberate us from a system in which life-saving technology is hoarded from the masses by a greedy few. Universal health care is socialism. So what? It couldn’t be any worse than what we have now.”
Weston Wilson,
Metro
The first thing I’d like to say is that writing an editorial as I did and writing a letter to the editor like Mr. Wilson did, are obviously entirely different. Writing an editorial is mainly about sifting through the facts to get the information to your readers. It is about garnering a “reasoned, well-informed, cogently argued stake into the larger community of perspective,” as my editor has said. Now an opinion piece is just that, opinion.
There still comes a time when logical fallacies; a technical flaw which makes an argument unsound or invalid, is something that needs to be watched and warned of. There are probably hundreds of logical fallacies, I’m sure you and I are guilty of them all the time. However, it must be fought against because a logical fallacy can make some people believe you, and your argument, even though you are incorrect.
When I write an editorial it is to inform based off hundreds of bits of information I have attained on a specific subject. I sift through it and come to conclusions for my readers and give them the facts with my view of the situation. LTE’s are just an argument, Wilsons’ argument is the same as most arguments deductive he wishes to dispute the fact that I made the claim Obama has said he will universalize (I.E. Socialize) medicine, and that this is a bad thing. Wilson has about 200 words to prove his point and I believe his rhetoric would make Obama proud. Now there are one or two logical fallacies that are seen more often than others. One of the most common of them is what is called a Red Herring. This occurs when someone brings up irrelevant material to the argument being discussed in order to divert our attention from the points being made. In essence they bring into the argument a totally different argument to hide the fact that their argument is weak. For example:
“Waiting lists to see a doctor in Canada are long? Wow. Have you been to an emergency room in the states lately? It’s a nightmare. And when it’s all over, you get a bill for thousands of dollars for the privilege of getting hurt or sick in America”
- Wilson
In my article I explained the waiting lists in Canada were very long and implied this leads to much suffering and death, I then cited a reliable source. For facts on this I refer you to a few places
1. My article on Socialized Medicine
2. Next is the article I quoted in my Mcbama; an article from Dr. Paul Hsieh and Lin Zinzer in the Objective Standard "Moral healthcare Vs Universal healthcare".
3. Lastly here is The Fraser Institutes (Canadian think tank) yearly “Waiting your turn” survey where they give the stats for waiting lists in Canada:
There are of course hundreds of other places to find stats about this and other things Mr. Wilson brought up, but for now I will just discuss this. The Red Herring in this case is when Wilson brings up the irrelevant information that American Emergency rooms are overcrowded and the waiting list in AMERICA is long. The main problem here is I have never disputed the fact that America has long waiting lines and overall not a very good health care system. This Red Herring allowed Wilson, and unfortunately many like him, to agree with a logical fallacy that perpetuates the myth of how great socialism is.
Also he has made the claim that developed countries are healthier, happier and live longer than American’s, assuming they have socialized medicine of course. There are a couple of problems here, the first is that once again he brings up the fact that America’s health care system isn’t working, which is something entirely different then the point I made of Obama bringing in socialized medicine and how this creates problems, the main one being long waiting lines. Now however, he is using it in a different way to try and persuade people that his point is right based merely off the fact that America’s mainly socialist and partly capitalist system isn’t work. Once again I have never disputed this fact. A second problem with this is that proving that a country has citizens who overall are healthier is hard to prove, and if they are happier it can easily be a subjective idea they have. The only claim he made which can be proven is life span. Which again is not something I’m debating here all I’m saying is that Obama is advocating Socialized medicine and that this is bad, one reason being that it causes such long waiting lines people die waiting.
The purpose of this blog is that I want everyone to think for themselves and do the research to find the truth.
Rhetoric and logical fallacies should not be taken seriously and should be denounced, even ridiculed. When we have a man who is outright lying to each and every one of us who might become president these are the things we need to watch out for. Rhetoric will not save our health care system, rhetoric will not save us from a nuclear Iran, and rhetoric will not get America energy dependent. We need principles, not rhetoric.
Think for yourselves.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Editor of Rocky Mountain News Chooses NOT to endorse political candidate
Another article I did for the school newspaper. This one is about John Temple, Editor and Chief of the Rocky Mountain News (denver newspaper) and his decision to NOT endorse political candidates anymore. Endorsing political candidates is something that has been going on for a long time and there are many people who agree with newspapers decisions and many who disagree.
It’s curious to me that there are so many people threatening to cancel their subscription to The Rocky Mountain News, among others, simply because the editor refuses to support either candidate. Honestly, I can’t blame Mr. Temple for refusing to endorse a candidate this time around. Consider the options. Not since 1972 have we had such painfully inadequate candidates running for president. At the same time, to make accusations that endorsement is a tradition, that newspapers have a ‘duty’ to their readership is ludicrous. John Temple being the Editor, Publisher, and President of the Rocky Mountain News has every right to remain politically neutral, regardless of potential loss of readership.
In Temple’s judgment, rather than popular opinion in mass media, a newspaper’s job should focus on giving fair and balanced news, allowing the reader to decide, instead of telling them who to vote for. Temple has said:
“I don’t think fair-minded readers resent opinion per se. In fact, it’s clear that they value opinion writing a great deal. What they do resent is evidence that their newspaper is in the tank for one political party or the other. And too many reader’s tend to confuse endorsements – particularly if a majority happens to be for one party – as evidence that a newspaper is partisan as opposed to principled”
But it is the tradition for a newspaper to endorse a candidate some say. This is true, since the beginning of newspapers in America there has been endorsing of candidates. Since 1791 when the Bill of Rights took effect and newspapers jumped all over the opportunity to garner monies from political candidates to report their ‘opinions’ of their particular candidate. Newspapers were formed mainly for this purpose they were not trying to hide their opinions or endorsements, in fact the majority of readers purchased certain newspapers simply because the papers views were somewhat in line with their own. There was also a much different environment to work a newspaper in. Today readers of print papers are declining dramatically and hometown newspapers rarely have the chance to interview major candidates anymore. Whereas in the past the newspaper was the only source to get the information needed to decide. The internet, TV, and more have changed the political scene forever, as the saying goes Abraham Lincoln and FDR would never have been elected if they were interviewed on television. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, simply a different thing. What needs to be done now is to change with the times, sticking with something just because its tradition is crazy. Just imagine if we stuck with human sacrifices just because it was tradition.
Some people may choose to cancel subscriptions, as many comments to John Temples article “Input not Endorsements” have shown may happen. Temple obviously believes the loss will be minimal and the gain will be optimal. After all as he has said the papers motto is “Give light and the people will find their own way.” He will have to find out how correct he is.
John Temple is not alone; many newspapers large and small are deciding to not endorse political candidates. Jay Rosen, chair of the Journalism department at New York University says that using “the endorsement as a tool of power is just a display of institutional chest-thumping that proclaims the civic authority of the newspaper”.
Denverites are intelligent enough to garner the facts and make their own decision. We really don’t need someone to tell us who they think is the best person for the job, just give us the facts and let us think for ourselves.
It’s curious to me that there are so many people threatening to cancel their subscription to The Rocky Mountain News, among others, simply because the editor refuses to support either candidate. Honestly, I can’t blame Mr. Temple for refusing to endorse a candidate this time around. Consider the options. Not since 1972 have we had such painfully inadequate candidates running for president. At the same time, to make accusations that endorsement is a tradition, that newspapers have a ‘duty’ to their readership is ludicrous. John Temple being the Editor, Publisher, and President of the Rocky Mountain News has every right to remain politically neutral, regardless of potential loss of readership.
In Temple’s judgment, rather than popular opinion in mass media, a newspaper’s job should focus on giving fair and balanced news, allowing the reader to decide, instead of telling them who to vote for. Temple has said:
“I don’t think fair-minded readers resent opinion per se. In fact, it’s clear that they value opinion writing a great deal. What they do resent is evidence that their newspaper is in the tank for one political party or the other. And too many reader’s tend to confuse endorsements – particularly if a majority happens to be for one party – as evidence that a newspaper is partisan as opposed to principled”
But it is the tradition for a newspaper to endorse a candidate some say. This is true, since the beginning of newspapers in America there has been endorsing of candidates. Since 1791 when the Bill of Rights took effect and newspapers jumped all over the opportunity to garner monies from political candidates to report their ‘opinions’ of their particular candidate. Newspapers were formed mainly for this purpose they were not trying to hide their opinions or endorsements, in fact the majority of readers purchased certain newspapers simply because the papers views were somewhat in line with their own. There was also a much different environment to work a newspaper in. Today readers of print papers are declining dramatically and hometown newspapers rarely have the chance to interview major candidates anymore. Whereas in the past the newspaper was the only source to get the information needed to decide. The internet, TV, and more have changed the political scene forever, as the saying goes Abraham Lincoln and FDR would never have been elected if they were interviewed on television. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, simply a different thing. What needs to be done now is to change with the times, sticking with something just because its tradition is crazy. Just imagine if we stuck with human sacrifices just because it was tradition.
Some people may choose to cancel subscriptions, as many comments to John Temples article “Input not Endorsements” have shown may happen. Temple obviously believes the loss will be minimal and the gain will be optimal. After all as he has said the papers motto is “Give light and the people will find their own way.” He will have to find out how correct he is.
John Temple is not alone; many newspapers large and small are deciding to not endorse political candidates. Jay Rosen, chair of the Journalism department at New York University says that using “the endorsement as a tool of power is just a display of institutional chest-thumping that proclaims the civic authority of the newspaper”.
Denverites are intelligent enough to garner the facts and make their own decision. We really don’t need someone to tell us who they think is the best person for the job, just give us the facts and let us think for ourselves.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Amendment 48 (COLORADO)
A new amendment to the colorado constitution is being proposed for the upcomming vote. Here I wrote a short (200 word) article for the school newspaper The Advocate, in a section entitled "Grief, Relief, or Beyond Belief" where three writers write three different views, mine will be (if accepted) in the Beyond Belief section
ENJOY!
"Amendment 48 seeks to define a person at the point of fertilization. This is despite the biological facts that concur with the fact this doesn’t happen until birth. The consequences of this law are to enormous and ridiculous for most people even to consider. For instance, If a person is defined at the point of fertilization in Colorado law under sections 3 (Inalienable rights), 6 (Equality of justice), and 25 (Due Process of law) any woman or doctor involved in an abortion would be subject to criminal prosecution. Including and up to the death penalty, since an abortion would be a planned murder of a person and under statute 18-3-102 of Colorado Law this would equal murder in the first degree. The thought of such draconian views may be beyond the view of most proponents of amendment 48, but it is consistent with the laws of this state and nation. To do otherwise would undermine the very legal structure in America. Even things like the morning after pill and other such post fertilization procedures would be made illegal. Although we are protected under Roe vs. Wade, the proponents of A48 wish to overturn even that. Amendment 48 is ludicrous and beyond belief!"
ENJOY!
"Amendment 48 seeks to define a person at the point of fertilization. This is despite the biological facts that concur with the fact this doesn’t happen until birth. The consequences of this law are to enormous and ridiculous for most people even to consider. For instance, If a person is defined at the point of fertilization in Colorado law under sections 3 (Inalienable rights), 6 (Equality of justice), and 25 (Due Process of law) any woman or doctor involved in an abortion would be subject to criminal prosecution. Including and up to the death penalty, since an abortion would be a planned murder of a person and under statute 18-3-102 of Colorado Law this would equal murder in the first degree. The thought of such draconian views may be beyond the view of most proponents of amendment 48, but it is consistent with the laws of this state and nation. To do otherwise would undermine the very legal structure in America. Even things like the morning after pill and other such post fertilization procedures would be made illegal. Although we are protected under Roe vs. Wade, the proponents of A48 wish to overturn even that. Amendment 48 is ludicrous and beyond belief!"
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Mcbama
During the presidential debate on September, 26th the candidates tried once again to establish their distinctiveness and persuade us they offer fundamentally different paths, with each of the presidential hopeful trying desperately to distance himself from the other, and the pundits seem to be listening. All over the press these differences are annunciated, such as the last issue of Newsweek which has a section dedicated to how “fundamentally” different the two candidate’s worldview’s are. With all this talk of how different the two major presidential candidates are at a fundamental level we have to ask ourselves, what really are their differences?
McCain has said that he will fight big drug companies. In other words he will continue us on our road of government interference into the medical industry. Obama has allotted to universalize- that is, socialize- our medical industry, which is different from McCain, only the same. Maybe we should read up on the enormously long waiting lines. Dr. Paul Hsieh founder of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) gives statistics of Canadians having to wait an average of 18 weeks for most ordinary treatments, and much longer for more difficult procedures such as heart surgery. This time maybe it will be different, and Obama can get socialism right. McCain said in his debate with Obama we must reach for energy efficiency by building 45 new nuclear power plants. You have to wonder how he came up with that particular number. Why not 30 or 50 power plants? McCain must have some brilliant insight to know what the most efficient number of nuclear power plants would be. Obama has exclaimed he will fix our energy problems by pouring taxpayers money into “alternative energy” as if the government has the constitutional right to take monies from free citizens and subsidize tilting windmills.
Regarding the two major candidates Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard nicknamed them Mcbama. He explains that each of their views on the role of government is actually quite similar. As Biddle explains McBamas view is that “the purpose of government is to manage the economy, regulate businesses… to redistribute wealth.”
Is this really what our founders wanted and were trying to accomplish with America? The constitution and the framing of our country was set up for one purpose, to protect individuals’ negative rights. Most importantly however, the constitution was set up to bar the government from interfering in the lives of its citizens.
An act introduced into congress every year since 1995 by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz, called The Enumerated Powers Act would require that any bill introduced would have to explain where in the constitution it is allowed to spend that money. In the House of Representatives it has received 44 co-sponsors, in the senate not a single one, and this is a senate that includes both McCain and Obama. This is a clear example of Mcbama not wishing to be held accountable to the Constitution.
There really doesn’t seem to be much if any fundamental differences between the two presidential candidates. The lesser of two evils is still evil, so what is there to do when these are our only options? One thing everyone can impact is to take a closer look at what these two men stand for and attempt to change the status quo. We still live in a semi-free country of great men and women; there really isn’t any reason that by 2012 by broadening our knowledge we can’t see a swing away from where we are headed now, towards an ever larger government. And swing ourselves back to a free country.
McCain has said that he will fight big drug companies. In other words he will continue us on our road of government interference into the medical industry. Obama has allotted to universalize- that is, socialize- our medical industry, which is different from McCain, only the same. Maybe we should read up on the enormously long waiting lines. Dr. Paul Hsieh founder of FIRM (Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine) gives statistics of Canadians having to wait an average of 18 weeks for most ordinary treatments, and much longer for more difficult procedures such as heart surgery. This time maybe it will be different, and Obama can get socialism right. McCain said in his debate with Obama we must reach for energy efficiency by building 45 new nuclear power plants. You have to wonder how he came up with that particular number. Why not 30 or 50 power plants? McCain must have some brilliant insight to know what the most efficient number of nuclear power plants would be. Obama has exclaimed he will fix our energy problems by pouring taxpayers money into “alternative energy” as if the government has the constitutional right to take monies from free citizens and subsidize tilting windmills.
Regarding the two major candidates Craig Biddle of the Objective Standard nicknamed them Mcbama. He explains that each of their views on the role of government is actually quite similar. As Biddle explains McBamas view is that “the purpose of government is to manage the economy, regulate businesses… to redistribute wealth.”
Is this really what our founders wanted and were trying to accomplish with America? The constitution and the framing of our country was set up for one purpose, to protect individuals’ negative rights. Most importantly however, the constitution was set up to bar the government from interfering in the lives of its citizens.
An act introduced into congress every year since 1995 by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz, called The Enumerated Powers Act would require that any bill introduced would have to explain where in the constitution it is allowed to spend that money. In the House of Representatives it has received 44 co-sponsors, in the senate not a single one, and this is a senate that includes both McCain and Obama. This is a clear example of Mcbama not wishing to be held accountable to the Constitution.
There really doesn’t seem to be much if any fundamental differences between the two presidential candidates. The lesser of two evils is still evil, so what is there to do when these are our only options? One thing everyone can impact is to take a closer look at what these two men stand for and attempt to change the status quo. We still live in a semi-free country of great men and women; there really isn’t any reason that by 2012 by broadening our knowledge we can’t see a swing away from where we are headed now, towards an ever larger government. And swing ourselves back to a free country.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)