I’m Right, And Here’s An Article To Back Me Up

How many times have you done this when trying to write something or argue something that you believe is right? You have a given quandary on a topic, but you tend to lean to a certain angle, so you go out and find supportive evidence to back up that assumption. It’s not strictly the manner which you should be investigating or researching, but I think at certain times we all do it. That means that what is often chosen to be presented in an argument, or an article, or a blog post, is that which has been carefully selected by the writer, and one can assume that it generally supports or backs up the case being presented. There have also been times when, finding contradictory information, you steer ahead anyway, trying to ignore the mounting evidence against your personal bias.

An example of this might be the debate leading up to the Iraq war. There were people who presented a neutral appraisal of the situation by reading and reporting on the actions of the Iraqi government in regards to their cooperation with the IAEA and the subsequent threats by the United States in the United Nations and elsewhere. But most people ended up taking a side, and that meant finding supportive evidence to go along with it. As the intelligence agency for the United States began gathering up more and more intelligence that seemed to indicate that Iraq had a very advanced weapons program of mass destruction, many people chose to believe that it was true, despite whatever contradictory evidence was out there. And in the aftermath, even when the reality continued to contradict the statements made by the government, some people still believed.

Why is that? Well, an interesting study in the U.S. shows that people generally spend more time reading articles that agree with their political views than information that might challenge it. In fact we spend 36% more time in the “echo chambers” than we do in debate:

Study co-author Silvia Knobloch-Westerwick of Ohio State University in Columbus says the study found people generally chose media messages that reinforced their own pre-existing views.

“In general, they don’t want their views to be challenged by seriously considering other viewpoints,” Knobloch-Westerwick says in a statement.

Knobloch-Westerwick and former graduate student Jingbo Meng asked 156 undergraduate students about their views concerning four hot-button topics — gun ownership, abortion, healthcare regulation and the minimum wage — as well as 13 other issues.

In a second study six weeks later, the students were asked their impressions of a new online magazine.

The study, published in the journal Communication Research, found the participants had a 58 percent likelihood of picking an article that supported their viewpoint, vs. a 43 percent likelihood of choosing an article challenging their beliefs.

I had an argument recently with a reader who claimed that media organizations don’t have inherent “bias”, and I actually concurred that it’s generally true that many media organizations don’t have an all-encompassing message that overrides their journalistic obligations. A right-leaning newspaper has as much obligation to cover a Brian Mulroney inquiry as it does a Ruby Dhalla caregiver scandal. But because people tend to seek out information that confirms a worldview, news organizations tend to delineate toward that market. It’s rather a chicken-egg paradox in a way, since one can’t be sure whether an organization is shaped by the views of the viewership, or whether the viewership is drawn toward the editorial.

I think it’s rather human, actually, to seek out views that seem comfortable and harmonious to your own. It isn’t as though people willfully surround themselves with only one type of information, but many people originally sought out various sources for information, and wound up with a “brand” they accepted and liked the best. If that brand happens to present views in a way that seems more agreeable to one’s personal views, it should hardly be surprising. Having said that, I think this presents a basis for argument that there is bias in media organizations, and it’s something that goes hand in hand with the nature of “selling information”.

Divorce Is Hard On Our Taxes

I found this little article kicking around in the London Free Press after searching for a “disappeared” article in the Toronto Sun. The premise is simple enough: family breakdowns and divorce cost the Canadian taxpayers nearly $7 billion a year, according to a study by the Institute for Marriage and Family Canada. With a name like that, it’s little surprise that the findings are amenable to the organization, but it doesn’t negate the inherent merit of the claims.

As Andrea Mrozek, manager of research for the organization, says, divorce is “one pathway to poverty”. The report released today outlines the financial burden that single-parent families put on provincial welfare programs.

Before even looking at the study, it’s rather self-evident that divorce can have a harmful financial effect on society, as well as the anticipated social one. Two working parents who live under the same roof can consolidate their expenses and their income simultaneously, reducing their overall reliance on social security, and building their income toward things such as assets, equity, wealth, and stability. By separating, which is not to say that it isn’t often necessary, parents are still forced to pay all the same expenditures, but often double them by needing two separate homes, food for children supplied in both households, and a variety of other shared costs that become individual burdens. A single parent, even one who shares responsibilities with their separated partner, is still vulnerable to poverty. The median family income for two-adult households is more than double that of a single-parent.

What the report focuses on is the financial cost of family breakdown to Canadians for the fiscal year 2005-06. Funding directed at “poverty alleviation” costs $7 billion annually serving broken families. In their calculations the report looks at programs that fall under housing, child care and welfare. It even excludes associated financial burdens such as family courts, child service agencies, and child support enforcement. The study concludes that children fare better when raised in a married, two-parent home, and links divorce to poverty, and particularly child poverty, since when guardians fail to provide, the government needs to step in to ensure a level of social security. The social costs of family dysfunction and divorce are also evident, with children winding up in gangs or teenage pregnancies.

As Canada has strengthened social security for those in danger of “slipping through the cracks”, people affected by divorce and poverty have been partially cushioned. For instance, the report points to the fact that a century ago government spending per capita was 10% of income; today it is roughly 42%. But a century ago divorce and family breakdown was less common as it is today, with about one quarter of all families estimated to be single-parent households now. The study also looked at the cost burdens to other nations, such as the 6.3% of total government spending in the United Kingdom, and 2.1% in the United States [$140 billion in Canadian dollars].

The report has numerous charts and statistics, including regional breakdowns of costs, and it provides an FAQ at the end. In summary, it recommends ways in which family breakdown and divorce can be avoided: education in school; pre-marital counseling; tax breaks for families; and finally to incentivize marriage over cohabitation to create stronger bonds. It makes a compelling argument for the social and financial costs to governments that do not promote marriage as a basis for personal wealth and security.

The Kyoto Protocol Rolls In Its Shallow Grave

It’s articles like this one that remind me how much I love B.C.’s carbon tax because, hey, I know everybody else on the planet is ready to pull together, roll up their sleeves, and get ‘er done.

“Gas-guzzling Hummer becomes China’s new ride”

But hey, I’m sure an emerging middle class market in a nation of 1.3 billion people won’t be too bad. We can always buy carbon credits from Greenland.

You Can’t Fire Me! I Quit! And I’m Taking A Hefty Pension With Me.

Don’t be angry. $178,000 doesn’t buy what it used to:

An Ontario Superior Court judge who resigned before he could dismissed for misconduct has been awarded an annual pension of more than $178,000.

In a 16-page report, the Canadian Judicial Council recommended to Justice Minister Rob Nicholson that Paul Cosgrove be removed from the bench, based on his “pervasive” misconduct at a 1999 murder trial.

Cosgrove freed the accused after two years of legal arguments and ruled the Crown and police committed more than 150 charter rights violations.

The Ontario Court of Appeal later found most of Cosgrove’s conclusions were without merit and faulted him for misuse of his contempt powers.

Cosgrove had apologized but the report by 22 of Canada’s chief justices and senior judges, released in March, said that didn’t help his case.

Cosgrove, 74, resigned just days later — a resignation the federal government accepted in handing him the $178,133.33 lifetime pension.

Vindictive abusers of power almost found guilty in misconduct investigations need to eat too, you know.