15 Political Issues Americans Should know

[Dardedar]

An important article, succinct and to the point:

***
15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media

1. Where the jobs went.

Outsourcing (or offshoring) is a bigger contributor to unemployment in the U.S. than laziness.

Since 2000, U.S. multinationals have cut 2.9 million jobs here while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg as multinational corporations account for only about 20% of the labor force.

When was the last time you saw a front-page headline about outsourcing?



2. Upward wealth redistribution and/or inequality.

In 2010, 20% of the people held approximately 88% of the net worth in the U.S. The top 1% alone held 35% of all net worth.

The bottom 80% of people held only 12% of net worth in 2010. In 1983, the bottom 80% held 18% of net worth.

These statistics are not Democrat or Republican. They are widely available to reporters. Why aren't they discussed in the "liberal" media?



3. ALEC.

If there was a corporate organization that drafted laws and then passed them on to legislators to implement, wouldn't you think the "liberal" media would report on them?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is such an organization. Need legislation drafted? No need to go through a lobbyist to reach state legislatures anymore. Just contact ALEC. Among other things, ALEC is responsible for:

Stand Your Ground laws
Voter ID laws
Right to Work laws
Privatizing schools
Health savings account bills which benefit health care companies
Tobacco industry legislation
Many legislators don’t even change the proposals handed to them by this group of corporations. They simply take the corporate bills and bring them to the legislative floor.

This is the primary reason for so much similar bad legislation in different states.
Hello ... "liberal media" ... over here!!!
They're meeting in Chicago this weekend. Maybe the "liberal media" will send some reporters.

4. The number of people in prison.

5. The number of black people in prison.

6. U.S. health care costs are the highest in the world.

The expenditure per person in the U.S. is $8,233. Norway is second with $5,388.
Total amount of GDP spent on health care is also the highest of any country in the world at 17.6 percent. The next closest country is the Netherlands at 12%.

As a liberal, I’d like to ask why the market isn’t bringing down costs. I’d think a "liberal" media might too."

7. Glass-Steagall.

8. Gerrymandering.

9. The number of bills blocked by Republicans in Congress.

10. The Citizens' United Supreme Court decision

11. Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

12. Tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy.

13. What's happening to the bees?

14. The impact of temporary workers on our economy.

15. Media consolidation

The rest here...

[Indium Flappers]

Neat article.

Question though, what news sources would you recommend for politics and economics? And what sources would you recommend for someone doing research in these areas?

[David Franks]

Question though, what news sources would you recommend for politics and economics? And what sources would you recommend for someone doing research in these areas?

All of them.

[Indium Flappers]

Question though, what news sources would you recommend for politics and economics? And what sources would you recommend for someone doing research in these areas?

All of them.

Heh, that's mostly what I've thought myself so far, and perhaps for my own knowledge that's the best way to go, but what about times when you're discussing an issue with someone who has significantly different views than yours? For example, this forum appears to have a liberal bias, if I came and gave a link to an article from Fox News most people here would likely expect it, prima facie, to be inaccurate or heavily spun. Using such a source could potentially also color me in their minds, they would drop me into the same box as other Fox News fans they knew, and may end up trusting anything I say less from then on. I would have crippled my ability to converse with them.

[David Franks]

but what about times when you're discussing an issue with someone who has significantly different views than yours? For example, this forum appears to have a liberal bias, if I came and gave a link to an article from Fox News most people here would likely expect it, prima facie, to be inaccurate or heavily spun. Using such a source could potentially also color me in their minds, they would drop me into the same box as other Fox News fans they knew, and may end up trusting anything I say less from then on. I would have crippled my ability to converse with them.

That depends on how well you argue in respects other than the source you cite: logic, moderate tone, ability to articulate the issue, your other sources, and so on. (In some venues, logic and moderate tone are as objectionable as the perceived bias of your source. But I digress.) On the other hand, if you are familiar with Fox News, and even show yourself to be more knowledgeable about a Fox News story than your opponent is, then he has no choices other than to acknowledge your point or hate himself as much as he hates you.

And I would never suggest that "winning" a discussion is as important as getting correct information and good arguments out there to people who might otherwise be swayed by bad information and poor arguments. Discuss for the masses, not for the obstinate individual.

[Indium Flappers]

but what about times when you're discussing an issue with someone who has significantly different views than yours? For example, this forum appears to have a liberal bias, if I came and gave a link to an article from Fox News most people here would likely expect it, prima facie, to be inaccurate or heavily spun. Using such a source could potentially also color me in their minds, they would drop me into the same box as other Fox News fans they knew, and may end up trusting anything I say less from then on. I would have crippled my ability to converse with them.

That depends on how well you argue in respects other than the source you cite: logic, moderate tone, ability to articulate the issue, your other sources, and so on. (In some venues, logic and moderate tone are as objectionable as the perceived bias of your source. But I digress.) On the other hand, if you are familiar with Fox News, and even show yourself to be more knowledgeable about a Fox News story than your opponent is, then he has no choices other than to acknowledge your point or hate himself as much as he hates you.

Hmm. In general, it seems to me that in most debates neither side ends up acknowledging the other's point, nor hating themselves.

And I would never suggest that "winning" a discussion is as important as getting correct information and good arguments out there to people who might otherwise be swayed by bad information and poor arguments. Discuss for the masses, not for the obstinate individual.

Ok, I can pretty much agree with that.

[Dardedar]

For example, this forum appears to have a liberal bias,..."

It appears to because that's who shows up. With almost 21,000 posts we've never deleted a post (other than obvious porn spam). So think of this forum as a blank slate. It appears to have a liberal bias because it's crawling with liberals (esp. a busy body like me who uses it as a data dump) but it could just as easily be crawling with religious conservatives or political conservatives. Since we don't censor (SAV has locked a few threads when they've become a little silly), it is what it is. Lot's of people have migrated to Facebook. I've tried to lure conservatives here for years. I've even thought of paying them to be here. I guess we spank them a little too hard. Oh well.

if I came and gave a link to an article from Fox News most people here would likely expect it, prima facie, to be inaccurate or heavily spun.

Not me, unless it was a controversial topic which Fox was particularly famous for lying about such as climate change. But even then, I never dismiss a claim merely because of its source. I've cited Fox News many times on this forum and others. In fact, I prefer to respond to conservatives with those on their own team, and it's rather easy to do. If someone cites something from Fox or someone goofy like Glenn Beck, I don't reach for the genetic fallacy and smear their source, I take their claim and investigate it and respond to it directly. This is quite important. Best to ignore the source and look at and respond to the claims directly.

[Indium Flappers]

For example, this forum appears to have a liberal bias,..."

It appears to because that's who shows up. With almost 21,000 posts we've never deleted a post (other than obvious porn spam). So think of this forum as a blank slate. It appears to have a liberal bias because it's crawling with liberals (esp. a busy body like me who uses it as a data dump) but it could just as easily be crawling with religious conservatives or political conservatives. Since we don't censor (SAV has locked a few threads when they've become a little silly), it is what it is. Lot's of people have migrated to Facebook. I've tried to lure conservatives here for years. I've even thought of paying them to be here. I guess we spank them a little too hard. Oh well.

Hmm, alright. I personally prefer not to use facebook, (paranoid privacy-rights advocate in me speaking), but I like forums like this. Could use more activity.

if I came and gave a link to an article from Fox News most people here would likely expect it, prima facie, to be inaccurate or heavily spun.

Not me, unless it was a controversial topic which Fox was particularly famous for lying about such as climate change. But even then, I never dismiss a claim merely because of its source. I've cited Fox News many times on this forum and others. In fact, I prefer to respond to conservatives with those on their own team, and it's rather easy to do. If someone cites something from Fox or someone goofy like Glenn Beck, I don't reach for the genetic fallacy and smear their source, I take their claim and investigate it and respond to it directly. This is quite important. Best to ignore the source and look at and respond to the claims directly.

Hmm...

I confess I hadn't heard of this fallacy before you mentioned it. (A situation I have now remedied.)

I find it strange though, apparently I've been engaging in this fallacy myself for quite some time. I've also had people, in personal conversation, refuse outright to even read an article at a website that didn't look "reputable" to them. (They gave me some websites they trusted and I found an article from one of those to send them.)

It seems like the whole mainstream scientific community revolves in many ways around reputability though. Peer reviewed journals are considered more reputable than non-peer-reviewed ones, different prizes are handed out to people working in different areas, and there are organizations ranking different journals and articles by how "influential" they are or how many citations they get or what-have-you. Would using the fact that an article is published in a top-ranked journal to bolster an argument be an "appeal-to-authority" fallacy? What about the fact that a journal is peer-reviewed? Where do we draw the line? (If anywhere.)

Also, example I saw a while back online, what say ye to this exchange from a random blog on the interwebs:

Lib:
The best analysis I've seen of [a nation's economic strength] is the Economic Freedom Index. The way I found out about this web site was a few years back when it made headlines (at least in Europe) that the US was no longer in the top 10...
http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking.aspx

[Russell Glasser]:
That's interesting, but it is begging the question. The Heritage Foundation is a well known conservative economics think tank. Any standard they use for measuring "Economic Freedom" is bound to involve qualities which are in line with the goals of the Heritage Foundation. Such a concept is inherently subjective, and assumes that the things that you want out of a government (i.e., lack of public funding for health care) are for the best. You can probably see why I'm hesitant to accept this as a neutral measure of how good those countries are.

Source.

I'll confess that reading back through it, Professor Glasser actually points out that the reason he's unwilling to trust the source is because what they're measuring is subjective, so perhaps I misconstrued the source of his mistrust. But I've also seen him refer to "think-tanks" as "belief-tanks", which I kind of took to indicate he didn't consider anything that qualified as a "think-tank" as a trustworthy source. Would that be the genetic fallacy?

Forgive me if I've colored you with the same brush as other examples I've seen. Hopefully you'll have fun investigating and refuting some of the articles I have to post.

[Dardedar]

Would using the fact that an article is published in a top-ranked journal to bolster an argument be an "appeal-to-authority" fallacy?

Only if it is claimed that it follows that a claim is true, because it comes from an authority.

What about the fact that a journal is peer-reviewed?

That's very good. In fact in science, it's practically (or should be) a starting point requirement. As I've said sometimes, something isn't true because it's passed peer review, but it does make it worth considering. There are good sources and there are crap sources, obviously. Thing is, media, and I point to the FOX types in particular, love to be lazy and evade a problem by smearing the source and appealing to the genetic fallacy rather than actually doing the work of addressing the claim. This tactic is pandemic. It really is. There's a guy on NWA right now that I must have smacked 50 times. It's his only trick. Smear the source and run. It's pitiful.

apparently I've been engaging in this fallacy myself for quite some time.

It's quite acceptable to complain about a source and refer to its less than stellar record. That's okay, that's just using good judgement. The fallacy kicks in when that is the sole rebuttal. It doesn't follow that something is true or false due to its source. Truth is independent of it's source. A great portion of what Alex Jones says is complete rubbish and it's quite appropriate to say that it is. But you still have to deal with a claim and can't just dismiss it out of hand because it come from him. (Unless of course you are in a hurry and don't have time to deal with a person that actually looks to someone like Alex Jones for information).

I've also had people, in personal conversation, refuse outright to even read an article at a website that didn't look "reputable" to them.

Then they are cowardly resting upon this old hobby horse, the genetic fallacy. Tell them to get off their butts and address the data rather than smear the source.

[Russell Glasser]: ...Would that be the genetic fallacy?

I've cited that study before. As I remember, they selected (somewhat) objective criteria but deciding which criteria to select is rather subjective. Yes, I think Glasser is being lazy and ducking out by smearing the source. Probably. Dismissing something because it came from a think tank, is a little lazy.