The lie of the left wing/liberal media

[Vekseid]

And by lie, I mean the lie is calling any sort of major media organization left wing or liberal, much less the entirety of it.

I should implement a general policy that says if you are going to use terms like left wing, liberal, right wing, etc. then you should explicitly define them when asked. You should already, but I think it might be good to prompt people, in order to get people thinking about what words actually mean, rather than blindly accepting vague connotations given to them. But for this post, I'm specifically addressing the narrative of our media.

The most accurate term I've seen used is 'corporate media'. Comcast and General Electric own NBC. Disney owns ABC. Viacom, News Corporation, and CBS are media conglomerates each their own.

They are bound, if not by their corporate owners, by the corporate advertisers who sponsor them. When you see an advertising program for a company like Boeing or McDonnell Douglas, it's not because they're selling -you- something.

They are buying the media's silence.

At least if one of them was truly liberal - as in, valuing the concept of personal freedom - one of them might take a stance against the growing attempts to return copyright to its original function - as a tool for censorship. Which of them is up in arms about ACTA?

So, as a personal plea, kindly stop referring to modern major media as 'liberal' or 'left wing'. Ever. Certainly here. If you want to convey your derision of the modern media, call them corporate by all means - I've seen conservatives do that more than liberals, honestly. My only complaint about 'corporate media' is the implication that they provide some form of journalism rather than demagoguery, via the word 'media'.

There are of course liberal news outlets, and calling organizations like the Real News 'liberal' is fine, but since the term is so corrupt and blatantly false on its face, I would appreciate it if the phrase itself was simply not used. It is a lie, and every time it is uttered just gives that lie weight.

Stop it.

Thank you.



In addition, I am, personally, quite tired of this false equivalence being thrown about. Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC for making three political contributions.

And Fox?

MSNBC suspended one of its most popular hosts for making three political donations.

Fox has both raised millions for, and donated millions to, Republicans.

Fox used one of CBS's own photos of the Tea Party Rally, overlaying it with the claim "Where did CBS cover this?"

CBS's own photo.

Fox sued for, and won, the right to lie.
Edit: The specific ruling that the Fox station argued for and won on appeal is that the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation". If you consider this, with Fox's current political power, as separate from the 'right to lie', that is your decision, but I certainly feel that it is.

Like all media, Fox has that right to lie, and Fox exercises its right to lie, lying often and lying repeatedly. We joke about Fox's lies, and the liars they give voice to - highlighting, for example, when poll results add up to 110% and other amusing things. I pulled a video of Glenn Beck's at random and picked out one of his lies in another thread, here.

The truth of the matter is, calling the liars at Fox a 'news' organization insults even the portion of corporate media they claim to stand in opposition to.

The rest of the media, as the recent suspension of Olbermann indicates, still have some shred of integrity remaining. It isn't a great deal, and certainly, without Fox as an example of how low one could stoop, I'd be blasting Olbermann right now, myself, and consider what MSNBC did to be the bare minimum.

But we don't live in that world. We don't have a journalism-focused media, we have varying displays of demagoguery.

And pretending it is something that it is not does nothing to help.

Thank you for reading.

[mystictiger]

I really had no idea and am now in something of a state of shock. Thank you for the links and discussion.

In this country, the BBC is accused of being biased both to the left -and- to the right. I guess that means it's doing the right thing. Most of the criticism comes from media owned by NewsCorp. I wonder if that could be connected...

[Vekseid]

During the oil spill crisis, I was rather pissed off about how Sky was portraying the American media as ignoring American corporate involvement in the oil spill crisis, here. Halliburton, of course, was key among these.

But it wasn't NBC that was ignoring Halliburton's involvement - Maddow has never been their friend. Fox, on the other hand...

To me, it was a transparent attempt to drive a divisive wedge between the US and UK. As if what we need is more division. Divided people are easier to manage.

[DarklingAlice]

Thanks for the links Veks! Not something I didn't know, but it is nice to have the resourced to back up that knowledge.

[Dirigible]

The truth of the matter is, calling the liars at Fox a 'news' organization insults even the portion of corporate media they claim to stand in opposition to.

I've always preferred 'the propaganda wing of the Republican party'.

[Jude]

Claiming that situation accounts to Fox suing for the right to lie is a very dishonest summation of a complicated legal battle.

The supposed "hero" of the story was fighting against the WTVT Fox station (in Florida) because she was terminated over a drawn out battle to air a piece critical of the use of Bovine somatotropin.  She alleges she was fired to protect Monsanto where the corporation alleges she was fired over pushing to have the piece aired when it was biased, shoddy journalism.  They eventually went to court where every charge by one was dropped, and she was awarded a sum of money on something only barely related -- supposed violations of the Whistleblower statute.  The case that you claim gives them the right to lie was simply a counter-suit so that they wouldn't have to pay her the money, which they won.

By the way, Bovine somatotropin?  It's been cleared by the FDA, and although it definitely causes problems for the animals in which it's used, there is no human health risk that has been demonstrated scientifically (aka no credible evidence).  Whatever piece of journalism she was trying to push through wasn't based on good evidence, and thus probably was biased crap.  Yes, Fox doesn't exactly get the highest marks of journalistic integrity, but if you give them the benefit of the doubt here, it appears they were actually on the right side of the issue.  What muddies the water is that Bovine somatotropin was given special consideration because its used by Monsanto and it's unclear if Fox would have gone to that length to ensure the integrity of the report if the company affected hadn't been one of its advertisers.

Either way your couple-word summation of the events is incredibly misleading.  There's quite a few of assumptions within your original post, things that you state for fact that aren't at all substantiated, and using a wikipedia links as a resource is generally frowned upon.

MSNBC is called lefty because it hires commentators that are sympathetic to points of view that are held by the liberal party of American politics.  There isn't some grand confusion here, you can say you don't agree with the term, but I don't see how that gives you the right to dictate the eradication of what is obviously an effective moniker.

Calling them the corporate media simply because they're funded by corporate interests through advertising also strikes me as more than a little arbitrary.  It's like calling NPR government propaganda, any search engine that uses advertisement banners corporate portals, or an organization that accepts donations only from individuals "populist."  Corporations are not some monolithic entity with evil designs on America.  We exist in a capitalist nation meaning their interests conflict with each other in any number of ways.

Is the media sensitive to its advertisers interests?  Yes.  They're generally motivated by profit which results in all sorts of problems, but it isn't as if you see a more positive picture in forms of media that don't possess these motivations.  Look at sources of news on the internet that are divorced from such things:  if anything they're far less credible and reliable.  Sometimes being "beholden to corporate interests" means responsibility, and maybe, just maybe (though it seems kind of likely to me), that's what happened in New World Communications of Tampa Inc (WTVT-TV) v Jane Akre.

[Vekseid]

Claiming that situation accounts to Fox suing for the right to lie is a very dishonest summation of a complicated legal battle.

It's telling that the conservative sites bashing Akre and Wilson do not, themselves, cite the text, and I apologize for not doing so myself.

You can find the text of the Appeals Court Decision here: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf

While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.  The portion of the whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation.  § 448.102(1)(3).  The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to-4-any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.”  § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102. 

...

Because the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.  Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT.

Emphasis added. I wouldd suggest reading the entire thing. I will amend my post to note that the court specifically decreed that the FCC’s news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation", however, which is a different claim and not so broad, and I will concede that and apologize.

By the way, Bovine somatotropin?  It's been cleared by the FDA, and although it definitely causes problems for the animals in which it's used, there is no human health risk that has been demonstrated scientifically (aka no credible evidence).

This, however, is not correct. I don't know if you've had the stuff - you can actually notice the difference if you don't drink it quickly. I've ended up with some milk that was sour before I got home.

Whatever piece of journalism she was trying to push through wasn't based on good evidence, and thus probably was biased crap.  Yes, Fox doesn't exactly get the highest marks of journalistic integrity, but if you give them the benefit of the doubt here, it appears they were actually on the right side of the issue.  What muddies the water is that Bovine somatotropin was given special consideration because its used by Monsanto and it's unclear if Fox would have gone to that length to ensure the integrity of the report if the company affected hadn't been one of its advertisers.

There were legitimate concerns over their data gathering procedures, and it seems the claims of 'lack of compositional difference' actually means 'does not contain the artificial hormone', which are different claims.

MSNBC is called lefty because it hires commentators that are sympathetic to points of view that are held by the liberal party of American politics.

The second part of my post was referring to various claims of equivalence between NBC and Fox, as a separate concept from the previous rant. Fox is very much a political organization, oriented towards driving a political narrative. MSNBC has some liberal and left wing commentators - this does not make MSNBC itself a political organization.

  There isn't some grand confusion here, you can say you don't agree with the term, but I don't see how that gives you the right to dictate the eradication of what is obviously an effective moniker.

Again, different parts of my post. There is, right now:
1) No major media organization vying for reduction in now-obscene duration of copyright.
2) No major media organization objecting to the absurd heights that patent law has reached. Software patents in general are my main personal concern but genetic patents should concern everyone.
3) No major media organization that takes a stance against ACTA, and the mechanisms by which it is being drafted.
4) No major media organization takes a stance for network neutrality.

Outside of the modern technocracy, these concepts have no real voice. Maybe because I am a part of that culture, I feel they should have one - a big one, because all of those elements have, in various incarnations, effects on how messages can reach their audience.

Excessive copyright law and organizations such as Associated Press actively attacking fair use concepts restrict the spread of news and historical information - especially recent history. Software patents prevent me from adding certain aggregation and filtration features to Elliquiy here, for example. That ACTA is being negotiated outside of the public eye as a trade agreement not subject to congressional approval alone is disturbing.

Network Neutrality, outside of protocol level quality of service limitations (which I would support a flexible version of), threatens a return to the walled garden model. How many local monopolies am I going to have to negotiate with? How many will even negotiate with me? Adult organizations have a hard enough time as is.

So if the media in general is to be characterized as 'liberal' or 'left wing', where, exactly, are these views being proposed among them?

I would not mind if the term was given to organizations that actually are talking freely about issues like these - NPR, PBS, etc. But it isn't. When someone uses the phrase 'left wing media' or 'liberal media', they are almost invariably including the various megaconglomerates. That is dishonest and inappropriate.

Calling them the corporate media simply because they're funded by corporate interests through advertising also strikes me as more than a little arbitrary. It's like calling NPR government propaganda, any search engine that uses advertisement banners corporate portals, or an organization that accepts donations only from individuals "populist."  Corporations are not some monolithic entity with evil designs on America.  We exist in a capitalist nation meaning their interests conflict with each other in any number of ways.

I was specifically referring to advertising purchased to convince news organizations to overlook certain stories, or provide a bargaining arm with which to twist. I don't always disagree with the results - we're at least looking at nuclear power again, for example - but corporate money is a poor indicator of who deserves protection from hype and who does not.

Is the media sensitive to its advertisers interests?  Yes.  They're generally motivated by profit which results in all sorts of problems, but it isn't as if you see a more positive picture in forms of media that don't possess these motivations.  Look at sources of news on the internet that are divorced from such things:  if anything they're far less credible and reliable.  Sometimes being "beholden to corporate interests" means responsibility, and maybe, just maybe (though it seems kind of likely to me), that's what happened in New World Communications of Tampa Inc (WTVT-TV) v Jane Akre.

In general, I would agree that most corporations are composed of largely good people. Most people are good people - rich and poor.

Not all, however, and sometimes part of that 'not all' ends up with a bit of power, like the abuse of patent law Monsanto is currently committing.

I'll swap out the Wikipedia links with better sources, however. I was in rant mode.

[DarklingAlice]

By the way, Bovine somatotropin?  It's been cleared by the FDA, and although it definitely causes problems for the animals in which it's used, there is no human health risk that has been demonstrated scientifically (aka no credible evidence).

This, however, is not correct. I don't know if you've had the stuff - you can actually notice the difference if you don't drink it quickly. I've ended up with some milk that was sour before I got home.

I have to side with Jude on this single point. While quickly spoiling and having a lower nutritive content are indeed bad things and good reason not to buy rbST milk that does not constitute a human health risk. The court ruling in Vek's link tosses in that one line about increased IGF levels and how IGF is linked to cancer, that is a deceptive line. IGF is linked to cancer when you have overproduction of it in your own body (as the rbST treated cows most likely do, leading to a cancer risk for them). There has to a be a constant, concentrated supply leaking into affected tissues. The digestive track is generally very good at proteolysis and I see no way that consuming cattle IGF can have a negative impact on human health. I just don't think we should be blowing this out of proportion and claiming 'health risk' unless there is some definitive research on the matter.

In short: Yes, rbST treatment is a shitty process that produces inferior milk and causes health risks in cattle. It is something that should be opposed. But the biggest health risk it poses in humans is that you might accidentally drink sour milk or might be deceived about the nutritional content of your milk. Not cancer, not hormonal imbalance, etc. (Unless there has been some new, startling research of which I am unaware).

However, I also don't think that quibbling over one case has any impact on Vek's larger point.

[Vekseid]

Nweh, I misread Jude's point there, sorry.

[Trieste]

While quickly spoiling and having a lower nutritive content are indeed bad things and good reason not to buy rbST milk that does not constitute a human health risk.

No, it's just disgusting unless you like having more pus with your milk. (I don't drink cow's milk and this crap is a large part of the reason why.)

I would be interested in seeing a study done that looks at which nutrients are lacking, and how it affects those groups that rely heavily on milk and dairy products for their intake of things like calcium and vitamin D. For instance, small children are often given milk because it's thought to be healthy for them - growing bones and teeth, etc. Women who are on birth control and certain other meds are cautioned to drink more milk and eat more dairy because some meds strip calcium from the body and raise the chance for osteoperosis. So should alternative labeling be required? Should the milk be sold at a lower price, since by common measure of quality, this milk's quality is lower? Certainly something worth looking into.

/off topic

[Oniya]

And on the flip side, lowering the price would encourage the people who need more of the quality stuff (people on WIC, for example) to buy the crap stuff.  (I was going to make a comment about the pus thing too, but googling somatic cells brought up that those were 'body cells', as opposed to germ cells, or reproductive cells.)

Back on topic - I haven't seen an unbiased news source in years.  You might be able to describe them as 'conservative' and 'liberal' in the old, non-political senses of the words (conservative -> cautious, as in 'conservative estimates show...', and liberal -> extravagant, as in 'liberal amounts of salt on the pretzels'), but both words have become such buzzwords that neither one really means what people expect it to mean.  Heck, even 'republican' and 'democrat' mean different things when you capitalize them.

All it really boils down to is what label is going to inflame your opponent (or your own side) more - and that isn't a proper form of debate.

[mystictiger]

On the Milk Tangent
In terms of the health risks of rBST, I think it telling that every food regulatory agency in the world with the exception of the FDA said "we think that there might be a link between circulating IGF but we need more research on it" and therefore restricted the use of rBST. The EU report that led to the ban is a good example of what a public health body should be doing. Maybe those of us trained in medicine in the UK are biased after the whole mad-cow fiasco, and therefore are skeptical of the "OK it until someone dies from it" school of regulation. This also explains the general reluctance to eat GM food. Too many scientists appeared on our TVs saying "the current state of our knowledge is such that we cannot see a link between Mad Cows and Humans". The various cases of nvCJD cropping up were pretty good counter-evidence.

Back on topic - I haven't seen an unbiased news source in years.

I think at a conceptual level, it is not possible to have unbiased news. Every story is told by a person from a place. They'll therefore have their own views on a subject. I therefore try and get a combination of sources, at least one international, one with a right-leaning perspective, and one to the left. Reading the same story in all three tends to help me detect and take into account an ideological bias.

I'd suggest a combination of sources. My personal cocktail of news media is:
-Le Monde Diplomatique
-The Economist
-BBC News
-The Guardian Weekly

[Oniya]

I think at a conceptual level, it is not possible to have unbiased news. Every story is told by a person from a place. They'll therefore have their own views on a subject. I therefore try and get a combination of sources, at least one international, one with a right-leaning perspective, and one to the left. Reading the same story in all three tends to help me detect and take into account an ideological bias.

That's actually what I was getting at.  The problems start to show up when someone adopts one singular source as 'their' news source, be it FOX, CBS, NBC, the Huffington Post, or whatever, and starts dropping buzzwords against any source that disagrees with their favored commentators.

[Jude]

Vekseid, you bring up some excellent points in defense of your point, and I find myself agreeing with you largely now that it's been elaborated on a bit more.  The viewpoints expressed by MSNBC outside of commentary are no where near as conservative as the stuff Fox routinely spouts.  Even the MSNBC commentators, when held up to a point by point comparison, simply do not measure up to the ideological bias that Fox commentators are guilty of.  I also understand that your analysis is colored by a completely different focus than mine, you pay attention to an additional dimension of depth in intellectual property laws which is both relevant and revealing of the overall corporate structure.

There is a problem when we get our news exclusively from any viewpoint, as Oniya has said, and the majority of Americans exclusively get their news from large corporations.  This means if those large corporations exert any influence on those who are employed by them, there's a good chance we're not getting an accurate view of any issue that is of interest to the overall affluence and success of such entities.

This makes me really wonder what the antidote for this problem is.  The free press only works when it isn't corrupted towards its own interests.

[HockeyGod]

Olbermann had the shortest suspension in the world (Huffpost's words, not mine). I totally agree with the MSNBC following their policy, but I think it was more about having something to wave over Fox's head rather than an actual consequence for breaking policy.

Perhaps instead, the policy should be that anchors/reporters/pundits should openly divulge any conflicts of interest. This is a common policy in the non-profit world. You divulge conflicts of interests, take steps to mitigate their impacts and refrain from taking part in activities that would be suspicious. Albeit the last tenet would be hard for a talking head.

[Remiel]

To address the original post, the problem here is that descriptors such as "left wing" or "liberal" aren't objective -- they're subjective.  If you identify as a socially conservative Republican, for example, then I think it would be indeed be fair to say that, from your point of view, most of the national media organizations are liberal, in that they assume most of their readers or viewers espouse positions that aren't in line with the social conservative platform (anti-abortion, opposition to gay marriage, etc.) .   On the other hand, if you identify yourself as a social Progressive, it's highly likely that, from your standpoint, most of American syndicated media is right-wing.   I would argue that both descriptions are correct.

The phrase "liberal media" is certainly a label that right-wing demagogues love to toss around -- but it's not necessarily a lie, any more than the statement "my chair is too hard" is a lie.   And like most stereotypes, there is a kernel of truth in it.

It is impossible to eliminate bias in journalism, although most of the credible organizations and outlets try to make at least a token effort to do so (anyone who still believes that Fox News is "fair and balanced" is, frankly, deluding themselves; MSNBC, however, seems to be heading down the same road).   Nevertheless, bias still exists, and to deny it is wishful thinking at best and a blatant fallacy at worst.  According to this report from 2007 I found which lists campaign contributions by journalists from 2004 through 2007, you'll notice that you'll see many more (D)'s than you do (R)'s... and of the (R)'s, most of those are associated with either Fox News or admittedly conservative publications, like Forbes or the Washington Times.

So, no, I don't think the phrase "left wing" or the word "liberal" in conjunction with the word "media" is a lie.  It's a misnomer, and we should be careful about using it, as we should with any loaded language, but I contest the claim that the phrase shouldn't be allowed in the arena of political discussion.

And one other thing -- when did the words "corporate" and "corporation" accrue such a negative connotation?   E.g. corporate fat cats, corporate schills... a "big corporation" is practically synonymous with "evil cabal of millionaires intent on destroying the planet".  It bugs me, but that's another rant for another day.

[Oniya]

And one other thing -- when did the words "corporate" and "corporation" accrue such a negative connotation?   E.g. corporate fat cats, corporate schills... a "big corporation" is practically synonymous with "evil cabal of millionaires intent on destroying the planet".  It bugs me, but that's another rant for another day.

Probably somewhere around 1890-1910, with the Standard Oil monopoly and the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

[Trieste]

Indeed; for every Carnegie, there is a Rockefeller or five. Or a bunch of Triangle Shirtwaist disasters. Or ENRON. Haliburton. Microsoft.

Hm.

[Vekseid]

To address the original post, the problem here is that descriptors such as "left wing" or "liberal" aren't objective -- they're subjective.  If you identify as a socially conservative Republican, for example, then I think it would be indeed be fair to say that, from your point of view, most of the national media organizations are liberal, in that they assume most of their readers or viewers espouse positions that aren't in line with the social conservative platform (anti-abortion, opposition to gay marriage, etc.) .   On the other hand, if you identify yourself as a social Progressive, it's highly likely that, from your standpoint, most of American syndicated media is right-wing.   I would argue that both descriptions are correct.

Actually, I would argue that is why they are both wrong. Even Fox discusses class differences, for example, even though they are of a different nature. I don't recall seeing major poverty elimination campaigns in a very long time, either. If you are going to apply an epithet, it should have some solid, well-grounded meaning.

What is left wing? What is right wing? Authoritarians in particular seem to love playing semantic games like this - such as associating a bad connotation to the word 'liberal'.

I've seen people argue that liberals are authoritarian - when the two concepts were originally near polar opposites - valuing personal freedom and independence versus submitting to a recognized authority. They extended the general liberal perception that those rights to personal freedom have limits - and that those limits should be enforced (for example, as environmental regulation) - and decreed that to be authoritarianism.

Honest arguments do not require bullshit like that, flat out. If someone puts a derogatory term on something, like I mentioned being fine with 'corporate media' above, they ought to be able to present two things:

1) That their usage of the term, is, in and of itself, accurate.
2) That the derogatory tone applied to it is also deserved (and I'll talk about why corporations have a dim reputation below).

And one other thing -- when did the words "corporate" and "corporation" accrue such a negative connotation?   E.g. corporate fat cats, corporate schills... a "big corporation" is practically synonymous with "evil cabal of millionaires intent on destroying the planet".  It bugs me, but that's another rant for another day.

When discussing individuals in charge of large organizations - corporations included - that do bad things, I think it's important to distinguish between ruthlessness, ignorance, cowardice, 'eccentricity', and outright malice.

Corporations are externalizing machines, and organizations in general function on a level of 'willing and able to do it'. Someone has a bad day, and a name falls through the cracks. Someone is not quite as skilled as their or their managers think they are, and they screw up. Fear instincts take over, and they try to cover up.

Organizations put in place rules and procedures to minimize the impact of this, but that has begun to unravel over the past forty years or so.

Probably somewhere around 1890-1910, with the Standard Oil monopoly and the Sherman Anti-trust Act.

Much more recent. Company loyalty was a big deal when my father got hired. Not so much now. Companies used to be more aggressive about retaining their employees through recessions, for example. Bill Gates wanted to make sure he could pay his employees for two or five years (I forget) without revenue, etc. That sort of long-term thinking has been decimated, but we'll see a return to it in the long run, I believe. Just sucks in the mean time.

Society has grown obsessed with short term thinking in general, but that's a different topic.

[Nyarly]

I tend to go in a left-winged direction. Indeed some may call me "liberal", at least my views fit more into their (perceived) ideals and I reject many views that are commonly called "conservative".

But it doesn't change one thing: I loath both sides. At least when people call themselves "liberal"  or "conservative" and therefore imply allegiance with the groups, with which these terms are associated (whichever that may be). It's the best to stand outside of this right-left crap instead of pigeonhole one own views.

Yes, for me "liberal" and "conservative" are nothing but slander, like Hunter uses "liberal" (although I doubt that he uses "conservative" the same way).

[mystictiger]

I just spent an entertaining half hour googling for first of all 'right wing media bias' and then 'left wing media bias'.

This was one of my favourites, not least because it links to a sight that seems to have trademarked the phrase "tell the truth".

It would seem that you don't tell the truth if you don't agree with the political bias of the person analysing the subject.

Having had a trawl of the Social Science Research Network for papers, it also appears that not only is the media partisan, but researchers are as well. We learn that certain newspapers report similar economic findings more postiveily for Democrat regimes rather than Republicans, and that media bias during election campaigns tends to cancel each other out. But also that the NRA is liberal while the NAACP is conserative.

There were a few high-points in my trawl. FactCheck.Org being a delightful mostly-nonpartisan effort.

Lastly, I found this line to be quite compelling:

..."balanced" coverage that plagues American journalism and which leads to utterly spineless reporting with no edge. The idea seems to be that journalists are allowed to go out to report, but when it comes time to write, we are expected to turn our brains off and repeat the spin from both sides. God forbid we should attempt fairly assess what we see with our own eyes. "Balanced" is not fair, it's just an easy way of avoiding real reporting...and shirking our responsibility to inform readers

[Jude]

As a skeptic (of the empirical vein) I'm especially irritated by media attempts at balance.  The media is obsessed with presenting two sides of a story as if they were both legitimate regardless of the actual facts.  Every time they cover the vaccine controversy they always do so while giving (nearly) equal time to dangerous ideas which are not supported by objective evidence.  News organizations shouldn't feel the need to be balanced about facts.

Fair simply means employing honest methods in coming to your conclusions and admitting any biases you have.

[mystictiger]

The following thought struck me while reading the news.

What distinguishes news from 'mere' facts? A mere recounting of facts and observed reality is not news, and nor would it be interesting. What makes news interesting is the context into which the observed facts are analysed in. Also, a recounting of observed facts is a one-way progress. Various news entities set the agenda depending on what they choose to focus on. It is therefore a two way process. In reporting the news they also make the news.

Now, if you accept the idea that news reporting should be a two-way street, it is impossible to ditch any notion of bias or policy or agenda from the news. Unless of course you want the future to be influenced by utterly random factors, such as which story the editor's cat didn't pee on.

The question of balance is an interesting one, and Jude's comments about equal weight to nonsense positions is one I have sympathy with. Chomsky made reference to this in ... erm... one of his books. I can't for the life of me remember. His idea was that news media create controversy over certain narrowly defined issues to make it look like there is free and open debate.

Tangent
As some people will realise, I'm a big fan of NGOs measuring various things. Reporters Without Borders provides an interesting insight into media bias and press freedom throughout the world.

[Oniya]

Fair simply means employing honest methods in coming to your conclusions and admitting any biases you have.

QFE.  It's like when you see 'Paid for by the commission to elect Mickey Mouse' at the bottom of an anti-Donald ad.  If ABC is putting up a dismissive piece on the dangers of a certain amusement park ride, it's helpful to know that their parent company runs amusement parks.  If NBC is putting up sensational reports of the new electric car, it's helpful to know that GE is writing the check.

[mystictiger]

The problem with that kind of approach is that you'd end up with more 'bias disclaimer' than you would message. We all have thousands of our own personal biases. Now imagine how many a company has when you add the personal biases of the researcher, the journalist, the editor, the publisher, the advertisers and so on together.

People are free to write what they want. I'll only believe things that are corroborated elsewhere. Or appear on BBC news.

[Jude]

You only have to expose conflicts of interest on a case by case basis (per story).  Science is a great example of this:  when a scientist releases a paper he isn't expected to tell his life story along with it in order to expose any potential bias, the methods in the paper largely speak for themselves.  As long as the experiment itself is sound, then generally that is enough.

However, there are instances where it isn't.  Take Andrew Wakefield for instance, he was publishing papers against vaccinations while working for a firm which was trying to trump up a legal basis to sue vaccine manufacturers for such.  That's the sort of conflict of interest which should be exposed, and the media should be held to the same level of scrutiny.

[mystictiger]

Science is one area in which I think bias is easy to identify. Mostly because I think that there is an objective truth and good science goes towards trying to find out what that is. It is therefore easy to say Wakefield is wrong because his results do not support his claims.

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective truth regarding questions like:
-Is Obama doing a good job?
-Is Obamacare a good thing?
-Who launched this? Well, maybe not that.

Good in the above questions has very different meanings given your political ideology. It is therefore possible that one person can answer yes truthfully and another can say no truthfully. This is part of the reason I hate now being technically a 'social scientist' - we have intersubjective truth. Yuck.

Conflicts of interest are far harder to identify in other areas. Does the fact that you vote for a given party make you conflicted? Does the fact that you live in a state tradtionally dominated by a given party? That your parents vote a certain way? That your school is very liberal? That you're married to a Mexican? That your wife is involved in Amnesty International? That you drive a Prius? And so on...

In general, regarding bias and agendas:
"I am right. Other people have bias"

[Vekseid]

QFE.  It's like when you see 'Paid for by the commission to elect Mickey Mouse' at the bottom of an anti-Donald ad.  If ABC is putting up a dismissive piece on the dangers of a certain amusement park ride, it's helpful to know that their parent company runs amusement parks.  If NBC is putting up sensational reports of the new electric car, it's helpful to know that GE is writing the check.

It gets deeper than that.

There was a story a major news outlet was developing about nuclear power plant leaks here in Minnesota. Now, I know, as an educated person, that radiation is not in and of itself evil, and without it, we would actually die.

But why does the power company here run so many ads? For the same reason that story was never aired.

It works the other way around, too. You can also pay to get positive publicity about your company - have them run a nice piece about you because you advertise with them or some similar thing like that.

I don't think that there is such a thing as objective truth regarding questions like:
-Is Obama doing a good job?
-Is Obamacare a good thing?

In those two cases it's because there are a lot of dimensions to those questions. There are objective answers to specific questions, especially where economics has a solid sense of math behind them like the economic benefit of the 'stimulus'.

[Oniya]

It gets deeper than that.

I'll admit, I was being deliberately simplistic there. :-)

It works the other way around, too. You can also pay to get positive publicity about your company - have them run a nice piece about you because you advertise with them or some similar thing like that.

That was the situation I was getting at with the NBC example - that it can go deceptively positive as well.

[Hunter]

It's really easy to find information to the contrary.  See below for a couple of links.

Media Research Center

Bias Basics

[Jude]

Presenting information about bias from a biased source may not be the best way to contribute to the discussion.  If you want to objectively analyze bias cite particular studies and go from there.  Citing a compilation of cherry-picked statistics from a well-known conservative organization is a great example of what not to do if you're actually looking to ascertain truth.

[mystictiger]

Journalists Vote for Liberals: Between 1964 and 2004, Republicans won the White
House seven times compared with four Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots
were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.

Given that farmers tend to vote for Republicans, you might as well say that AGRICULTURE IN AMERICA IS CONSERVATIVE! DON'T EAT CONSERVATIVE CROPS!

Also, the findings are based on a 1981 suvery. I mean, come on. That survey is almost as old as I am.

[Vekseid]

They put their most recent data last, because it's their weakest. It's pretty bad.

It's really easy to find information to the contrary.  See below for a couple of links.

Media Research Center

Bias Basics

1) They do not define liberal.
2) They equate democrat with liberal. These are not one and the same.
3) They equate journalist with media. Especially since the rise of Fox, these are not one and the same.
4) They don't even address my point in the slightest, anywhere. Stories also are subject to the whims of advertisers and corporate parents.
5) They equate bias in general with liberal <-> conservative bias, as if there can be no other form.
6) They equate popular perception with truth. This is irrelevant. If the majority of the population believes a lie, that does not make it true. Majorities of many populations have believed many lies at many times. Truth wins, in the end, but not without a fight.
7) The solidarity of their numbers and arguments begins to drop off significantly as times become more recent.
8) They cite Zogby's Internet Polls. Cute. That tells me a lot about how much I can trust their numbers, right away. Zogby has a pretty terrible reputation.
9) They openly brag about dishonest poll questions, such as comparing a group likely to be highly educated about a specific question compared to the population as a whole, for example:

Two-thirds (67 percent) of journalists opposed prayer in public schools; three-fourths of the general public (74 percent) supported prayer in public schools.

This should be roughly expected. Even I don't mind prayer in schools, so long as the students are not forced to pray and do not force others. I knew this was how the courts were interpreting it in high school, but some of my own teachers didn't.

Journalists Reject Conservative Positions: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.

Some 'conservative' positions are flat-out bigotry. Opposition to gay marriage, for example. This may technically be a conservative viewpoint, however, it does not make it the correct viewpoint.

Some 'conservative' positions are flat out authoritarian. Suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, for example.

Some 'conservative' positions are warmongering. The war in Iraq. Even if you agree with it, going to war is -not- a conservative attitude. You're spending a lot of money to enact change elsewhere.

Some 'conservative' positions are simply untrue. Creationism, for example.

Some 'conservative' positions are blatant fearmongering. Opposing the mosque, for example.

Some 'conservative' positions are, flatly, stupid at best and horrific at worst. Supporting torture.

Some 'conservative' positions may be fairly sound - nuclear power, missile defense - but these are not technically conservative.

Now, more of these may be viewed as right-wing - authoritarian movements often incorporate fearmongering, warmongering, and propaganda. Fascism is not something to be proud of any more than anarchy.

Or maybe Colbert put it best. 'Reality has a well known liberal bias'. The media has a significant bias towards the truth, as opposed to batshit crazy and outright lies. Except that's been changing lately, and they've been balancing truth with a lot of batshit crazy and outright lies.

And people are dying for it.

But that argument would paint genuinely honest and sound conservative ideas in a bad light, and that is not the argument I want to put forth. I'd like to see a rational conservative movement.

[Hunter]

Presenting information about bias from a biased source may not be the best way to contribute to the discussion.  If you want to objectively analyze bias cite particular studies and go from there.  Citing a compilation of cherry-picked statistics from a well-known conservative organization is a great example of what not to do if you're actually looking to ascertain truth.

So a liberal source is fact but a conservative source is propaganda?  Because that's exactly what I'm hearing said.

[Oniya]

There have been a few posts, including mine, that have stated that all sources have some bias or other.  Also, since liberal and conservative are relative terms, what is liberal to one person might be conservative to someone else.  I know I'm more liberal than my parents (who still have issues with mixed-race couples), but I'm not the most wildly liberal person out there (marijuana legalization should have some restrictions).  Political beliefs are not, as the pundits want us to believe, black and white - it's a continuum.  The best way for someone to be well informed is to examine as many different sources as possible.

[Vekseid]

So a liberal source is fact but a conservative source is propaganda?  Because that's exactly what I'm hearing said.

I actually hadn't considered the alternative factor to my point.

If you take bigotry and lies to be the conservative viewpoint, I think that's insulting to genuine conservatives. You did not link to a conservative source, you linked to a set of liars claiming to be conservative.

If you want your viewpoint to be respected, it must first be respectable. If you want to show that your viewpoint has a rational basis that can present solid policy opinions without resorting to dishonesty, demagoguery, or bigotry, then work to develop and promote that.

You are not aided by associating with liars and bigots. For crying out loud, there are citations they make that are objectively discernible:

Nearly half of the journalists surveyed agreed that “the very structure of our society causes people to feel alienated,” while the authors found “five out of six believe our legal system mainly favors the wealthy.”

That statement is objectively discernible. You can analyze, for example, conviction rates for people who have public defenders versus those who can afford to hire a lawyer on their own (Edit: Normalized using data from e.g. the Innocence Project, for example). You can alternately analyze legal settlements forced by class action lawsuits compared to those obtained by wealthy individuals.

But they make no effort to do this. Just declare a position that can be verified by objective analysis to be 'liberal'.

That is not a good road to go down, Hunter. By assigning the conservative viewpoint to be the viewpoint of liars and worse, that is what you are going to be painting them as.

And that's how people will view you.

Is that really what you want to be?



It's not like there are not crazies on the side generally viewed as liberal. The difference, however, is that people viewed as liberal are policing themselves for dishonesty. And get lauded for it by their readership.

When David Frum tried to do the same thing, he was branded as a traitor.

If you insist on avoiding the truth, it is eventually going to come around and smack you in the face.

The truth wins. Always.

[Jude]

Instead of focusing on what we disagree on -- which doesn't actually matter that much, I'd like to focus on what we do agree on.  Check this out:

Ed Schultz Calls Out Rush Limbaugh Over "Mr. Ed" Crack

Can anyone tell a difference between these two?  I can't.

[MercyfulFate]

I just ignore the mainstream media and go to other sources, regardless of real or imagined politicial affiliation.

[Trieste]

Please explain your viewpoints further.

[Hellion000]

I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

[Hunter]

If you insist on avoiding the truth, it is eventually going to come around and smack you in the face.

The truth wins. Always.

No, it doesn't.  If a lie is repeated often enough then it will be treated as truth.

[Noelle]

I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

You say 'statement of fact' without actually providing any evidence to give any actual weight to this. As far as I'm concerned, this is your opinion. Yes, there are politicians who are total dicks, but I don't see a lot of difference in the way they lobby for their ideas and the way any given person talks about their own. They campaign for issues that they think should be the direction of the country and it's typically without regard to compromise to anyone or what would be best for others -- mostly how they think the ideal world should be and how they would run it. I've heard it plenty of times, old men in bars who think they have all the answers. All we have to do is get a giant truck and round up all the immigrants and that problem magically goes away. All we have to do is build a bigger fence, get bigger guns, kill gay people, impeach Obama, let kids pray in school, inject more religion into our government, inject less religion into our government, tax less, tax more, work harder, eliminate welfare, euthanize the poor, etc...

It comes from both sides. No, not every person who opposes gay marriage is automatically the worst person ever, I'm willing to listen to reasoning as to why you would oppose gay marriage that isn't rooted in biblical reasoning, but I have yet to see a convincing argument from anyone, politician or average person alike, as to how denying gays the right to legally join is a realistic and overall beneficial decision for the future. Denial of rights and oppression typically does not last forever -- history has shown this. Equally, I also don't agree with the "my way or no way" attitude that many liberal gay marriage supporters take without regard to the fact that social change is slow-moving, no matter how loud they yell about it.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

You're romanticizing things I...assume you've never experienced. Every era in politics has had its share of problems even if people like to ignore it for their own idealized version of history. Many conservatives seem to dream about an era perpetually caught up in the 1950's, about how great things were when X or Y was in office or when Z happened.

What's really at the end of the day is that you are denying any and all responsibility of the same "We the People", so to speak, that you claim more politicians need to work for. But who do you think elects those people? Liberals and conservatives alike aren't some big one-minded entity that has one singular goal to corrupt and destroy -- this hardly makes sense if you're going to say "not all liberals/conservatives are the same"...it's comprised of many individuals, and if we don't hold anyone to a higher standard, if we keep electing people we feel don't give a shit about us, then aren't we ultimately just shooting our own selves in the foot? People like to think they don't have any say in what goes on, that they're totally and utterly severed from what happens "in Washington" or even in their local governments, but can often be the same people who stress how important it is to go out and vote and only assume civic duty for the personal ego-boost and sticker it gets them one day every few years or so.

Politicians aren't some superhuman breed of people. They're the same homo sapien as you and I, they're subject to the same faults and mishaps as anyone else, and to pretend like they're these supervillains that can't be defeated is a farce. "The people" aren't helpless and "the people" really need to stop passing every ounce of the blame off to some mythical, single-minded, vague monster they label as "Washington" or "politicians".

[Hellion000]

Noelle,

Rather than break down your post point by point as you chose to do with mine, I'm going to point out that you appear to have made a point to argue what I have to say for no particular reason, going so far as to make claims for me that I haven't made. Specifically romanticising things- something I didn't do at all, in any way.

I'm completely disinterested in attempting to have any measure of political discourse with someone who is so blatantly interested in 'winning' rather than 'discussing'.

You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

You want a couple of 'facts' that illustrate my claim that politicians aren't concerned with us, before I duck back out of this thread?

1.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government do not now, never have, nor ever will have to pay into Social Security. Nor do their spouses or children, if I recall correctly.
2.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have a private and secure retirement fund that is automatically adjusted for cost of living expense on a regular basis. It pays out to them until they die, and then pays out to the spouses until their spouses die.
3.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have (with the exception of the last 3 years) have voted themselves a regular and healthy raise AND cost of living increase on a nearly yearly basis while simultaneously blocking a minimum wage increase regularly.

Those three facts (and to the best of my knowledge, they are facts) show an utter and absolute gap between them and us that is instituted and maintained by them.

[MercyfulFate]

I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

This is true, hence why I ignore both major parties. People who blindly follow one or the other parties just confuse me.

[Vekseid]

Sorry for my post being all over the place..

"Some 'conservative' positions are flat-out bigotry. Opposition to gay marriage, for example. This may technically be a conservative viewpoint, however, it does not make it the correct viewpoint."

So because I may be against gay marriage, I naturally hate gay people? Or maybe I have a phobia about them?

No, being against gay marriage, while supporting state sanctioned marriage, means you wish to assign more rights to yourself than to another class of people, for no empirical reason.

Since I'm  against the mosque at Ground Zero, I'm just a paranoid fear-mongerer?

Considering the only mosque ever at Ground Zero, or with plans at Ground Zero, was destroyed in the attacks, I'd call using language like that fearmongering.

If you have an issue with Islam and/or religion directly, you can criticize its tenets directly. It has no particular empirical sacredness over any other religion.

Demonizing a position for it's idea or creed is considered bigotry.

This sentence is nonsense on its face. You are claiming, here, that opposing any atrocity, anywhere, at any time, for any reason, is bigotry.

Just because you think you're correct or you have the moral high-ground doesn't mean you can call someone a neo-nazi, baby-eating, bible-thumping redneck for disagreeing with you.

Please cite where, prior to this post in this thread, I - or anyone save yourself - used one of the following terms:
1) Nazi
2) Thumping
3) Redneck
4) Eating

"Some 'conservative' positions may be fairly sound - nuclear power, missile defense - but these are not technically conservative."

A strong defense/high budget has always been a tenant of conservatism, from the Old Right to the New Right. The same cannot be said of the left, generally speaking.

Because Herbert Hoover was known for his warmongering, and FDR for his pacifism.

...for crying out loud, Edmund Burke, founder of modern conservatism, was not exactly against the American Revolution.

...

Conservatism, in a nutshell, is about maintaining the status quo, or returning to an older status. A large military can be a tool for maintaining the status quo, or enacting a great deal of change. It is more appropriately regarded as an authoritarian structure.

As for the other ones, I don't support them.  While Neocons (who are mostly disillusioned progressives that decided to become "conservative" in the 1960s) are the more authoritarian, interventionist branch of conservatism; there sure as heck are statist, interventionist Liberals, or things like the PATRIOT Act wouldn't have been reauthorized in 2009.

Democrat does not mean liberal. Obama has been very keen on keeping expanded executive powers, and organizations like Fox have been very quiet on that front.

I'm curious as to what your definition of a true conservative is. Especially considering the fact you said "conservative" and "liberal" are two very broadly defined groups, nor do you come off as a "conservative" in general.

See above.

Conservative: Maintain current status quo, or return to an older status quo.
Progressive: Opposite of conservative: progress from the current status quo, prevent returning to an older one
Liberal: Support individual liberty and egalitarianism.
Authoritarian: Opposite of liberal: Subject personal freedom and individual rights to an authority.

None of these are flat out, by definition wrong. We accept limitations on personal liberties, we do not accept limitations on others, we accept that some things should change. We accept that some things should remain the same.

I believe that muddling with these definitions has a lot to do with why politics in America is so messed up, so to speak.

As for corporate bias in the media or even by lobbyist groups...of course it exists. But it's pretty self-evident to me some are clearly left or right-wing, or maybe Democrat and Republican would be more accurate.

Fox is a republican-oriented political operation.

MSNBC is more supportive of democrats, but it hasn't reached the level of a full-blown, authoritarian political propaganda machine the way Fox has.

There are organizations that are well-placed to become new media mega-empires, that certainly have heavily liberal tendencies. Google and Facebook, to name two.

No, it doesn't.  If a lie is repeated often enough then it will be treated as truth.

Repeating a lie does not change the truth, no matter how it is being treated. And for crying out loud, there are still global warming deniers in America, but policy wise, America is going full bore into preparing to stake its claims under the collapsing Arctic icecap.

I'm really shocked by the fact that this is a 2 page thread. Ultimately what it comes down to is a simple statement of fact:


The vast majority of politicians are in it for themselves and their close associates, not We The People. Therein lies the distinction between being a politician and being a statesman.

We need more old school classic statesmen and fewer politicians.

Ultimately, at the end of the day, both Republicans and Democrats as a whole have failed us; and Liberals and Conservatives have gotten wrapped up in their personal war and forgotten the people they're supposed to be serving.

As bad as things may seem now, its really hard to find an era where you can definitively say the world was better off. You peel back the painted, silvery veneer people place on history and you find a lot of horrific facts, and get an epiphany about just how far we've come.

[Noelle]

I'm completely disinterested in attempting to have any measure of political discourse with someone who is so blatantly interested in 'winning' rather than 'discussing'.

Great, thank you for being so condescending. Obviously writing five thoughtful paragraphs in response to something you said that I disagreed with and wanted to discuss apparently isn't discussion. I must've missed the memo where giving your opinion in rebuke is "wanting to win". And speaking of which...

You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

Please don't put words back in my mouth if you don't enjoy having it done to you. If you read back over my post, I never said you were wrong. I said it was your opinion and that you could make it a more substantial claim by finding evidence to the "fact" you never backed up. If you don't want to back up things you are touting as fact because it's just too much of a bother, then don't misrepresent it as one. I might say equally that it's an awfully "Fox News" or "Yahoo news article commentator" thing to do, but since I'm not actually here to win, I don't care enough to sling those kinds of labels around because it's rude and unnecessary.

Providing evidence is what you do in a debate. If you can't or won't back up your opinions, then perhaps you should rethink discussing them with others in a forum where they can be openly criticized.

[Alsheriam]

You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

That's because educated people back their claims and opinions up with substantiated evidence. People on the right-wing tend to ignore that important tidbit about being educated because they're more used to taking things based on faith, and most of the time only have one source: the Bible. To make things worse, provision of substantiated evidence is all the more important now when you have people like Fox News who have taken the time to sue for the right to lie. (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/)

[Oniya]

Actually, I've seen that lack on both sides of the political fence.  It's merely the difference between argument and debate.  Some people prefer to argue, others to debate.  Both should read the logical fallacies announcement that is stickied in the forum.

[Jude]

You seem to me to be using the same methods of argument as the people who frequent the Huffington Post- which is to say automatically marginalizing anyone who doesn't feel inclined to chase down (usually) suspect links to support their claims. That methodology is why I no longer post on HuffPo. Saying 'You're wrong because you don't have links of "facts" to substantiate your claims.' doesn't make your points any more valid than mine do, even when I agree with the majority of your post.

The thing is, if you don't substantiate the facts that you use to construct your points there is no basis for actual discussion.  I can state my point of view, you can state yours, but unless I actually see how you're arriving at that point of view by looking at your facts, there's no way you have any chance of swaying me.

Argument is two people stating their opinions back and forth; debate requires setting up the premise by laying out the facts then manipulating them.  Resistance to enumerating your facts is a lot like refusing to show your work when it comes to mathematics in school:  if I can't see how you got there, it's gonna be pretty hard to agree or disagree with you.

You want a couple of 'facts' that illustrate my claim that politicians aren't concerned with us, before I duck back out of this thread?

1.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government do not now, never have, nor ever will have to pay into Social Security. Nor do their spouses or children, if I recall correctly.
2.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have a private and secure retirement fund that is automatically adjusted for cost of living expense on a regular basis. It pays out to them until they die, and then pays out to the spouses until their spouses die.
3.) Members of the Congressional arm of the government have (with the exception of the last 3 years) have voted themselves a regular and healthy raise AND cost of living increase on a nearly yearly basis while simultaneously blocking a minimum wage increase regularly.

Those three facts (and to the best of my knowledge, they are facts) show an utter and absolute gap between them and us that is instituted and maintained by them.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

I only really addressed the first of your three claims there, because I found serious problems with it after a decent amount of digging, so given that the last two are unsupported and the first was shown to be dubious, I don't think it's necessary for me to spend another significant chunk of my time trying to find a basis for your claims.  I do find the bolded part of your reply interesting however.

The reason why research and backing up your own opinions with fact carefully referenced by links is important is that it ensures that you actually state an opinion based on valid fact.  Many times while debating, I've started out defending one point and changed my position when I stated doing the research to back up that opinion and found that the facts didn't jive with what I was saying.  In this way, debate actually informs you and corrects misinformation you've come to accept as truth before you start communicating that misinformation to others.  It's about responsibility.

[mystictiger]

That's because educated people back their claims and opinions up with substantiated evidence. People on the right-wing tend to ignore that important tidbit about being educated because they're more used to taking things based on faith, and most of the time only have one source: the Bible. To make things worse, provision of substantiated evidence is all the more important now when you have people like Fox News who have taken the time to sue for the right to lie. (http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/)

This view is dangerous. It says that 'we democrats' have a monopoly on the truth. You're either with us or you're a fundamentalist throwback who doesn't understand how the 20th century works, much less the 21st.

Get off your intellectual high-horse. Ditch your sense of intellectual superiority. You are not better than a republican. You have different beliefs. Republicanism is no more stupid than being a democrat. There are stupid democrats just as there are stupid republicans.

Ditch the atitude.

[HairyHeretic]

No one has a monopoly on truth, only on their own opinion, and every ideology attracts its share of blinkered idiots.

[Hellion000]

You only have to expose conflicts of interest on a case by case basis (per story).  Science is a great example of this:  when a scientist releases a paper he isn't expected to tell his life story along with it in order to expose any potential bias, the methods in the paper largely speak for themselves.  As long as the experiment itself is sound, then generally that is enough.

However, there are instances where it isn't.  Take Andrew Wakefield for instance, he was publishing papers against vaccinations while working for a firm which was trying to trump up a legal basis to sue vaccine manufacturers for such.  That's the sort of conflict of interest which should be exposed, and the media should be held to the same level of scrutiny.

On the other end of that specific spectrum we have Paul Offit, who at the same time he was working for a pharmaceutical company that made vaccines, was one of the most influential policy makers at the CDC and controlled the group that decided vaccine schedules and what vaccines went on the schedule. Shockingly, the vaccine he owned the patent on was immediately added to the schedule!

Sadly, over all, you can't mention vaccines or the people intricately involved in them without exposing massive amounts of bias on both sides of the fence.
____________________

The thing is, if you don't substantiate the facts that you use to construct your points there is no basis for actual discussion.  I can state my point of view, you can state yours, but unless I actually see how you're arriving at that point of view by looking at your facts, there's no way you have any chance of swaying me.

Argument is two people stating their opinions back and forth; debate requires setting up the premise by laying out the facts then manipulating them.  Resistance to enumerating your facts is a lot like refusing to show your work when it comes to mathematics in school:  if I can't see how you got there, it's gonna be pretty hard to agree or disagree with you.http://www.snopes.com/politics/socialsecurity/pensions.asp

I only really addressed the first of your three claims there, because I found serious problems with it after a decent amount of digging, so given that the last two are unsupported and the first was shown to be dubious, I don't think it's necessary for me to spend another significant chunk of my time trying to find a basis for your claims.  I do find the bolded part of your reply interesting however.

The reason why research and backing up your own opinions with fact carefully referenced by links is important is that it ensures that you actually state an opinion based on valid fact.  Many times while debating, I've started out defending one point and changed my position when I stated doing the research to back up that opinion and found that the facts didn't jive with what I was saying.  In this way, debate actually informs you and corrects misinformation you've come to accept as truth before you start communicating that misinformation to others.  It's about responsibility.

I read your Snopes link, dude. There's evidence enough in it to show that the information I was given was not only dated but also only partially true. Unfortunately for me, that makes me look like an asshole. Fortunately enough for me, I'm not scared to say I was wrong. So, I was wrong.

What interests me the most about your reply to me is where you placed the emphasis. You bolded a comment about the last three years and entirely glossed over the part where I said the bullet points I made were facts to the best of my knowledge.
___________________________


PS: Trying to duck out of a conversation doesn't work when the posts go directly to your Inbox. Heh.

[Vekseid]

This view is dangerous. It says that 'we democrats' have a monopoly on the truth. You're either with us or you're a fundamentalist throwback who doesn't understand how the 20th century works, much less the 21st.

Get off your intellectual high-horse. Ditch your sense of intellectual superiority. You are not better than a republican. You have different beliefs. Republicanism is no more stupid than being a democrat. There are stupid democrats just as there are stupid republicans.

Ditch the atitude.

If your view was the accepted one, there would be no reason for political parties. While I agree that it is dangerous to consider yourself better, it is most certainly appropriate to hold yourself to a higher standard, and to make sure that other people know you are holding yourself to that higher standard. If the standards of a political apparatus collapse, it deserves, fully, to be called out for that, and attempting to justify it because "the other side is bad too!" is the sick, insipid logic that has brought about much of the current situation in America.

[mystictiger]

If your view was the accepted one, there would be no reason for political parties. While I agree that it is dangerous to consider yourself better, it is most certainly appropriate to hold yourself to a higher standard, and to make sure that other people know you are holding yourself to that higher standard. If the standards of a political apparatus collapse, it deserves, fully, to be called out for that, and attempting to justify it because "the other side is bad too!" is the sick, insipid logic that has brought about much of the current situation in America.

I entirely agree with this. But at the same time saying:

"Oh, but the other side is too stupid to understand what's best for them" is even worse. Not only is it false, it's also deeply patronising.

By all means disprove the factual assertions that other sides are making. In fact, good debating technique requires you to trash the factual errors in the other side's position. Being less well educated does not make the other side stupid. Rather, it means that they merely have different viewpoints. And... shock horror - different viewpoints are why there is a plurality of political views, elections, and indeed democracy.

I have absolutely no doubt that John Yoo is a -very- intelligent man. I think, however, that his moral standpoint was toxic.

As democrats, you do not have some god- / science- / fate-derived right to rule America. It is your obligation to convince the majority of undecideds that your beliefs (anyone who tells you that politics has anything more than a vague relationship to rational, logical, or objective belief is probably asking for your vote).

[Oniya]

I think if we turn this on its head a little, it will all resolve.  Calling the other side stupid (or any other dismissive term) implies that 'your' side has no reason to evaluate their own position.  In reality, both sides have an obligation to continually evaluate their position.  Note, I say 'evaluate', not 'change'.  When you look down the street at an intersection, you evaluate whether there's enough room to cross, and if it's legal to do so.  When a new piece of information comes along (a light changes, a car turns onto the cross road, a siren starts in your direction), you re-evaluate - and you might choose to keep your current decision that it is/is not safe to cross.  Then again, that new piece of information might change your mind, if you don't choose to ignore it.

[Noelle]

I think you've definitely touched slightly on a larger issue, Oniya. A lot of people are willing to evaluate, but are afraid to concede that they may not have had all the information and that their conclusion may not be correct. Part of making a responsible and informed decision is accepting that what you want may not be what's best or the most beneficial for people at large. It's okay to be wrong or just misinformed -- acknowledging that and adapting for new circumstances and factual evidence is striving towards truth rather than just short-term, quick-gratifying solutions. I've learned a lot about my own views just debating with others on this forum over time, and I appreciate the chance to be able to come to a more balanced view of issues.

[mystictiger]

The problem here is that 'truth' isn't the same for everyone. And in certain situations there is no such thing as truth. Or, for that matter, facts. There are arguments and supporting evidence, but  fact, evidence, proof, and truth aren't synonyms.

There are some arguments that can be resolved to completion (e.g. is the moon made of cheese?), there are some that can be explained away (e.g. what is the best way to explay how there are humans?), and there are some that are purely subjective and therefore cannot have an external 'answer' (e.g. what is your favourite political party / food / colour?).

Sure, you'll change your view with time and experience, but I don't think it's a change in the objective, but rather in the subjective.

[Oniya]

There are some arguments that can be resolved to completion (e.g. is the moon made of cheese?), there are some that can be explained away (e.g. what is the best way to explay how there are humans?), and there are some that are purely subjective and therefore cannot have an external 'answer' (e.g. what is your favourite political party / food / colour?).

Sure, you'll change your view with time and experience, but I don't think it's a change in the objective, but rather in the subjective.

I fully agree with you.  The danger occurs when people stop questioning why they hold a certain view.  Sometimes the 'reason' is simply that 'this is what my parents said', or the even vaguer 'Everyone knows that'. 

[Jude]

It's also dangerous when people refuse to recognize that something is a fact and not a political issue.  In my view, politics should deal exclusively with matters of political philosophy that do not have objective answers.  Politicization of issues that have objective answers is becoming disturbingly prevalent in America.

Example:  Global Warming.  Whether or not it is occurring should not be a political, religious, or social discussion.  That's an empirical question and it's being treated like a political one.  How we deal with it (whether or not it needs to be stopped) however is a political question, one that must be informed by scientific evidence.

[MercyfulFate]

It's also dangerous when people refuse to recognize that something is a fact and not a political issue.  In my view, politics should deal exclusively with matters of political philosophy that do not have objective answers.  Politicization of issues that have objective answers is becoming disturbingly prevalent in America.

Example:  Global Warming.  Whether or not it is occurring should not be a political, religious, or social discussion.  That's an empirical question and it's being treated like a political one.  How we deal with it (whether or not it needs to be stopped) however is a political question, one that must be informed by scientific evidence.

How it's handled is the biggest issue, for example cap and trade which I hope doesn't happen personally. Also those who don't want to believe it's happening see it as a form of control of their lives, which could actually be true depending on how it's handled.

[Jude]

No matter how you handle Global Warming legislation it's going to have to involve things people won't want to happen.  The thing is, no one alive today is going to see any of the tangible, distinct, and negative consequences from Global Warming, we won't live that long, so passing Global Warming legislation is not in the interest of even a single human being alive today.  That's why voluntary compliance won't work; people don't care enough about the abstract future that will never affect them to curb their habits for it.  I'm not saying Cap and Trade is the way to go about it, but I just don't think any way we find is going to please everyone.

Conservatives are aware of this, and I think that's also why so many of them refuse to even consider Global Warming real.  Global Warming is an issue where the continued existence of mankind is at stake, so basically government intervention is required.  This is a mark against the current Republican establishment that likes to pretend as if there are no legitimate roles for government, so their solution to the problem is delusional opposition to scientific fact.

[Bayushi]

Conservative: Maintain current status quo, or return to an older status quo.
Progressive: Opposite of conservative: progress from the current status quo, prevent returning to an older one
Liberal: Support individual liberty and egalitarianism.
Authoritarian: Opposite of liberal: Subject personal freedom and individual rights to an authority.

These are dated definitions, Veks, excluding Authoritarian.

Traditional liberalism seems to long since have died, as it has been seemingly co opted by people who describe themselves as 'Socialists'.  People argue for liberty and the like, then stump for Socialism. I would like to direct everyone's attention to nearly every nation which has gone Socialist in the history of man.

How many succeeded? What's that? None? Or is it that true Socialism can not work in an imperfect world of imperfect humans?  Or hell, maybe Socialism does not work because people like to own things? People are always trying to improve their social status, and amongst a large portion of humanity, the only real way to do that is to improve one's wealth. Something that does not apply in a true Socialist system.

Just as Marxist Communism does not function. When one person (or a small group) has ultimate authority, human nature dictates that it is likely that they will abuse that authority. The former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all prime examples of this.

Just as well, nearly every Socialist or Communist nation openly tramples on the liberties of the people. This is a historical fact, and continues to this day. Why the so-called "liberals" seem to be in love with Communist Dictators (have you ever been to a large public University? The Communist Dictator loving kid population is growing) is completely beyond me.

The crazy part is, most of these people vote party line Democrat. I have been forced to rent with some of these individuals in the past, and frankly... just yeah. >.<

The media is biased.

Fox News is blatantly pro-Republican. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
MSNBC is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
CNN is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
NBC is not blatant in either direction, but appears to lean Democrat.
CBS is not blatant in either direction, but appears to lean Democrat.

...I can go on. This is the impetus behind the cries of the "liberal media". I cannot help but agree, while disagreeing. I agree that the media is pretty obviously in the tank more towards one party than the other, which is disheartening, as there may be intelligent and good representatives from either major party; while only one seems to be represented.

Some people cry about Conservatives being bigoted.

EXCUSE ME?!

Kind of hard to be a bigoted Conservative when I myself am lesbian. I am for same-sex marriage, but against "gay" marriage. People of the same gender should be able to marry, however, we do not need the "gay" agenda pushed down people's throats. Not all homosexual and lesbian folks are "gay". Being "gay" is a particular lifestyle and/or a political belief. Many of these "gay" crusaders scream for their own rights, while trying to deny rights to heterosexuals in the same breath.

I am a Fiscal Conservative, while more Socially Liberal. Which, in essence, makes me a Libertarian.

Not all of us are bigoted or racist. A lot of us desire a smaller government, lower taxes, and greater personal freedoms. We need less government in our lives, with more personal responsibility.

Less generalizations, folks. Generalizations and grand sweeping statements make one look foolish.

All in all, I agree with Veks' original post, while disagreeing with small details. The intent is spot on, while the minutiae may be argued. I'd rather not get dragged down in minutiae, thanks.

[DarklingAlice]

Less generalizations, folks. Generalizations and grand sweeping statements make one look foolish.

Exactly. I mean, generalizing about, for example: liberals, or socialists, or gays...well, that would just make someone look like a moron...

Akiko is correct though that there needs to be less generalization and labeling. On both sides. The above is a perfect example of the kind of hypocrisy that needs to be avoided in proper discourse. The US vs. THEM mentality is good for inducing short term competition, but is a losing proposition in the long term. Which is something the current political climate makes perfectly clear.

[Noelle]

These are dated definitions, Veks, excluding Authoritarian.

Traditional liberalism seems to long since have died, as it has been seemingly co opted by people who describe themselves as 'Socialists'.  People argue for liberty and the like, then stump for Socialism. I would like to direct everyone's attention to nearly every nation which has gone Socialist in the history of man.

How many succeeded? What's that? None? Or is it that true Socialism can not work in an imperfect world of imperfect humans?  Or hell, maybe Socialism does not work because people like to own things? People are always trying to improve their social status, and amongst a large portion of humanity, the only real way to do that is to improve one's wealth. Something that does not apply in a true Socialist system.

Yes, there have never been any first-world, industrialized countries who have ever used a socialist sys-- oh wait, there's pretty much the entire European continent. Or maybe I missed the memo where they were actually all barbarians who had no possessions, no innovation, and no rich people? I always knew those dirty Frenchmen were up to something!

But seriously, what? All we have to do is get more money? That's about as intelligent as saying all the people living in ghettos need to do is pick up and get out of the projects and it's that easy for all their problems to go away. I don't agree with a purely socialist state, but I also don't agree that capitalism has all the right answers, either, as evidenced by both Europe and America being in a financial crisis right now.

Just as Marxist Communism does not function. When one person (or a small group) has ultimate authority, human nature dictates that it is likely that they will abuse that authority. The former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all prime examples of this.

Just as well, nearly every Socialist or Communist nation openly tramples on the liberties of the people. This is a historical fact, and continues to this day. Why the so-called "liberals" seem to be in love with Communist Dictators (have you ever been to a large public University? The Communist Dictator loving kid population is growing) is completely beyond me.

Socialism =/= Communism. Wikipedia it if you must. Please do not use those terms interchangeably.

Also, if you're going to quote so-called "historical facts", please provide a reference to a credible source (or any source at all, for that matter). Until then, you should also not consider your point of view a 'fact', but rather an opinion. Your generalizations and buzzwords are hardly substantial -- in fact, they're grossly inaccurate, unfounded, and hypocritical to boot. You freely throw around buzzwords like "communist dictator" and "socialism" and I frankly have yet to see your understanding of it. If you're going to make extreme accusations and insulting generalizations (College kids worship communists, huh? That's weird, my friends and I just graduated and I don't think any of us have the sickle and hammer sewed on our jackets anywhere...) , you should probably be prepared to provide some pretty shocking evidence to point towards it. Until then, resorting to mud-slinging and ridiculous stereotypes is doing nothing for your point.

Some people cry about Conservatives being bigoted.

EXCUSE ME?!

Kind of hard to be a bigoted Conservative when I myself am lesbian.

Sorry, but being a minority isn't a 'get-out-of-bigot-free' card and never will be a valid excuse. It's akin to saying "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend..." or "I'm not racist! I work with this black woman..."

Overall, your post would do well to listen to your own advice --

Less generalizations, folks. Generalizations and grand sweeping statements make one look foolish.

You should probably examine the way you think and speak about "the other side" before you demand respect for your own. I should note that I'm not saying that some liberals don't do the same thing, but if both sides sit with their backs turned and go I'LL GROW UP WHEN THEY GROW UP...Well...nobody ever really gets past a playground political mentality.

[Bayushi]

But seriously, what? All we have to do is get more money? That's about as intelligent as saying all the people living in ghettos need to do is pick up and get out of the projects and it's that easy for all their problems to go away. I don't agree with a purely socialist state, but I also don't agree that capitalism has all the right answers, either, as evidenced by both Europe and America being in a financial crisis right now.

My beef is largely with unnecessary government intervention in our markets.

I do not believe that capitalism has all the answers, either. Yet it is obvious that a regulated version of capitalism with some socialist aspects works better than a true socialist system does.

Much of the problems we have now were systemic, as caused by bad laws written and foisted upon our capitalist market. I grudgingly accepted TARP, but did not see the need for either 'bail out' since then. Not for political reasons, but for economic reasons. Most of the corporations that were bailed out should have been left to fail.

Then there is GM. Got bailed out, then declared bankruptcy anyways. Yeah... that bail out worked wonders, didn't it?

Socialism =/= Communism. Wikipedia it if you must. Please do not use those terms interchangeably.

I did not use them interchangeably. Communism is/was a perverted form of socialism. At least Marxism is. True Communism is an ideal form of governance, but it requires a perfect world with perfect people. Sucks about that 'perfect' part, huh?

There are a number of pseudo-socialist European nations now, but look where that got them?

If you're going to make extreme accusations and insulting generalizations (College kids worship communists, huh? That's weird, my friends and I just graduated and I don't think any of us have the sickle and hammer sewed on our jackets anywhere...) , you should probably be prepared to provide some pretty shocking evidence to point towards it. Until then, resorting to mud-slinging and ridiculous stereotypes is doing nothing for your point.

Where did I generalize? The population of kids at colleges that seem to adore Communist Dictators IS on the rise. I see them more and more every day. I did not say ALL college kids are like this. I attended University. I am attending University again, now.

It's sad. Practically everywhere I go in this town (college town), there's some kid wearing a bedamned Che Guevara T-shirt. Not quite sure what's so "cool" about Che Guevara.

I mean, seriously? You're wearing a shirt with the face of a communist mass murderer on it? Good Work, Douche bag! I constantly hear about how we're hurting people in Venezuela by not going along with Hugo Chavez's insanity. Not sure if people pay attention to the news, but the guy is jailing anyone who disagrees with him. Yeah, class act there.

Then there was the former White House Press flunky, Anita Dunn. Her favorite philosopher was Mao Tse Tung. Who directly or indirectly caused the death of over EIGHTY MILLION of his own countrymen. (Not counting the revolution itself)

Mind you, I am not sure if it's purely a University thing, or a combination of it being a University thing coupled with living in one of the more "Liberal" areas of the country? (Oregon)

Sorry, but being a minority isn't a 'get-out-of-bigot-free' card and never will be a valid excuse. It's akin to saying "I'm not homophobic, I have a gay friend..." or "I'm not racist! I work with this black woman..."

Not only am I a "minority" as a lesbian, I am also a woman, and I am a minority by ethnicity. As for "being homophobic", umm, are you even paying f**king attention? I am a LESBIAN. I DO NOT FEAR MYSELF.

Duh?

You should probably examine the way you think and speak about "the other side" before you demand respect for your own. I should note that I'm not saying that some liberals don't do the same thing, but if both sides sit with their backs turned and go I'LL GROW UP WHEN THEY GROW UP...Well...nobody ever really gets past a playground political mentality.

I'm open to both sides, socially. I am not open to both sides fiscally. I've studied both sides already, as I used to be an accountant, and dealt with money daily. I have a very good idea on how money works.

For instance, do you have any idea how retarded the US Tax Code is? I am pretty sure that if the US Tax Code was printed, in 10 point font on 8.5x11" pages, single side, it would fill the entirety of the nine-bedroom house I am living in, and still over flow into the back yard and front porch.

[Oniya]

Just a note, but bigotry can go from the minority to the majority as well.  There's just not a spiffy name for it when someone says they hate men (misogyny is a hatred of women, but misanthropy is the hatred of humankind), or white people, or straight people.  I believe that was the point Noelle was trying to get across - not that you, specifically, were homophobic or racist; those were examples of the commonly cited 'Some of my best friends are _____.'  The sticking point with that statement is that, despite the speaker claiming that his/her 'best friends' are 'whatever', those friends are still categorized as 'whatever', instead of just being 'friends'.

[Vekseid]

Oniya, hatred of men is called misandry.

These are dated definitions, Veks, excluding Authoritarian.

I consider the concept of working to change the meaning of a word for no purpose other than political gain to be the province of very disgusting people, and I have no problem with working against very disgusting people.

The 'dated' definitions are simple, to the point, and relatively bullshit free. I think we would do well to use them as such.

Traditional liberalism seems to long since have died, as it has been seemingly co opted by people who describe themselves as 'Socialists'.  People argue for liberty and the like, then stump for Socialism. I would like to direct everyone's attention to nearly every nation which has gone Socialist in the history of man.

Like Norway? Sweden?

You throw the word out there like it's some demon word that scares people into submission.

How many succeeded? What's that? None? Or is it that true Socialism can not work in an imperfect world of imperfect humans?  Or hell, maybe Socialism does not work because people like to own things? People are always trying to improve their social status, and amongst a large portion of humanity, the only real way to do that is to improve one's wealth. Something that does not apply in a true Socialist system.

Considering the sheer economic starvation the United States is forcing on Cuba, I'd say they're doing pretty well. They could be doing better, but central planning does work on small scales (what do you think a corporation is?)

China is no less communist now, and it's quite successful. They've learned to run their country like a business and are applying that to great effect. They've even got a major American media outlet on their side (Fox, if you're wondering).

Just as Marxist Communism does not function. When one person (or a small group) has ultimate authority, human nature dictates that it is likely that they will abuse that authority. The former Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba, and Venezuela are all prime examples of this.

The first sentence of your paragraph has no relevance with the rest. Common elements of oppressive regimes are
1) Anti-intellectualism - demeaning and eventually persecuting the 'intellectual class'
2) Lack of transparency. People behave better when watched.
3) Ideology. Alter or ignore the facts to suit your position, rather than the other way around.
4) Fearmongering. Scare people into performing actions, rather than giving them positive reasons to.

Just as well, nearly every Socialist or Communist nation openly tramples on the liberties of the people. This is a historical fact, and continues to this day. Why the so-called "liberals" seem to be in love with Communist Dictators (have you ever been to a large public University? The Communist Dictator loving kid population is growing) is completely beyond me.

Yes, Sweden and Norway are so oppressive.

And yes, the outright communist population is growing. Some republicans are trying to sweep this under the rug, others are so scared shitless of it they think Obama was going to be the one to activate that sentiment.

The crazy part is, most of these people vote party line Democrat. I have been forced to rent with some of these individuals in the past, and frankly... just yeah. >.<

The Progressive Caucus was the only Democratic caucus to actually gain strength this election.

Most people (regardless of party) view the choice as being between bad and worse. The Republican Party's name has been mud amongst this crowd since roughly 2004, and for good reason.

There's a rumor that Bloomberg is going to help launch a new political party sometime this month... we'll see how that turns out.

The media is biased.

Fox News is blatantly pro-Republican. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
MSNBC is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.
CNN is blatantly pro-Democrat. As such, I do not use it as a news source.

CNN? Seriously? They've taken a sharp right turn and their ratings plummeted for it.

Regardless, you're making the same equivalence that I've been ranting about since the first post. Democrat does not mean liberal.

...I can go on. This is the impetus behind the cries of the "liberal media". I cannot help but agree, while disagreeing. I agree that the media is pretty obviously in the tank more towards one party than the other, which is disheartening, as there may be intelligent and good representatives from either major party; while only one seems to be represented.

Some people cry about Conservatives being bigoted.

EXCUSE ME?!

I referenced that some of the 'conservative opinions' in Hunter's links were bigoted. I did not say that conservatives were themselves bigoted, however, by promoting studies with data drawn from bigoted opinions, Hunter risks promoting the concept that conservatives are bigots. This is easily solved by shunning bigoted sites and studies.

Similarly, Hunter's link also considered empirically verifiable facts to be matters of liberal versus conservative opinion.

This, at best, runs the risk of equating conservatives with being ignorant. At worst, it runs the risk of equating conservatives with being liars.

If you refuse to hold your sources accountable, you are going to be tainted with those sources. This should not be difficult to understand.

[Jude]

It's true that a person's political philosophy cannot be plotted on a one-dimensional number line between conservative and liberal despite what a good portion of the United States believes.  Republicans have as much in common with Libertarians as Democrats do, just as true Authoritarian-Fascists incorporate the Social tenets of Republicans and Fiscal policies of Democrats.  Political philosophy consists of two intersecting dimensions, one which concerns itself with governmental intervention in the economy and another that is focused on moderating the behavior of individuals.  There is typically very little overlap in each component of ideology, but ever since the Industrial Revolution there's been conflict between the rights of the individual and the freedom of the market.

At first this conflict was ignored, and corporate abuses of individuals and our environment ran rampant.  Progressivism was the first philosophy that attempted to resolve this problem, and for a long time it was assumed to be the right way of moderating the interests of the individual and the interests of business.  With Reagan came a countering philosophy:  the gospel of deregulation.  The pendulum swung back the other way, and overnight Republican Progressives basically vanished.  Now being progressive is associated solely with being liberal, any Republican with progressive sympathies is expunged in the name of ideological purity, and even some liberals have signed onto the deregulatory bandwagon.

In a lot of ways the question of for deregulation versus progressivism has started to define political affiliation more than underlying ideology.  Republicans claim to be for the individual, but their deregulatory and business-centric rhetoric favors large businesses far more than the individual.  The counterpoint they always talk up is the entrepreneur, but really given their relative scarcity compared to everyone else, that's an extremely poor argument.  I find it totally mystifying that they beat up on the Democrats for a year over their support for a health care plan that the majority of Americans did not like, yet they've adopted an opinion on tax cuts which is in opposition to the majority.  It just goes to show how utterly disingenuous their criticism of the Democrats really was.

I think one of the points Vekseid was trying to make is that arguments against deregulatory philosophy are largely muted on the corporate news scene because the philosophy of deregulation benefits corporate news.  There are plenty of individual commentators who take the business world to task, but they always seem to do it from a wholly predictable angle.  There are deeper arguments to be had regarding copyright, intellectual property, network neutrality, and other issues that are practically invisible on the national level.

I know that a lot of my post paints the deregulatory philosophy in a negative light, but I recognize there is a purpose to the presence of such principles in our system.  I certainly don't agree with the way that European Countries handle these issues -- their legally mandated retirement ages, maternity leaves, and number of vacation days certainly has a negative effect on industry.  I don't want to see every profession unionize, endless minimum wage increases are a recipe for inflation and lower the standard of living for people just above the poverty line, and if you always favor the individual to business, then we'll have wonderful laws which protect people from being exploited by non-existent corporations (as they will have all left the country for greener pastures).

You would think that the collapse of the Real Estate Market being linked to the repeal of Glass–Steagall (which by the way was a bipartisan effort) would have served as an inflection point in favor of Progressivism.  At first it seemed like it was going to have a long-term effect, it was definitely part of what got Obama elected, but the pendulum has already swung back in the opposite direction.  It seems like America has taken a stance trending in favor of deregulation over time, something that I find utterly mystifying.  A good balance of the two with both ideals held up as important to consider as congress legislates is, without a doubt in my mind, the preferred alternative.

But, switching topics a bit, it's absolutely true that not every conservative is a bigot.  Generalizing will always fail when whatever characteristic you are assuming to be omnipresent is not an intrinsic part of whatever group you are judging.  Bigotry is not a standard conservative position, so conservatives are not necessarily bigots.  However, if you look opinions that are widely held and a dominant part of the party platform, then make judgments from a matter of prevalence, it's impossible to deny that bigotry is running rampant in the Republican Party.  The presence of a few log-cabin types does not dissolve the Christian Right's ownership of the Conservative brand in the United States.

If you don't like being lumped in with individuals that are in opposition to gay rights, regularly display xenophobia, and are thoroughly guilty of WASP ethnocentrism, then it's probably not a good idea to tie yourself to the popular Conservative Movement in the United States.  There are plenty of smaller outfits with a more Libertarian mindset that eschew the Christian Right to latch onto.

There's definitely a larger point here though, nothing about Conservativism is intrinsically bigoted.  Conservatism, at least our form of it, opposes rapid cultural change and it just so happens that the culture we are transitioning out is bigoted.  In time Conservatives will accept the new norm.  Every time that Conservatives lose a major election I hear rumblings that such a shift is coming, and although it never seems to and the pace of change is glacial, it will happen.

[Noelle]

Much of the problems we have now were systemic, as caused by bad laws written and foisted upon our capitalist market. I grudgingly accepted TARP, but did not see the need for either 'bail out' since then. Not for political reasons, but for economic reasons. Most of the corporations that were bailed out should have been left to fail.

Then there is GM. Got bailed out, then declared bankruptcy anyways. Yeah... that bail out worked wonders, didn't it?

The feedback on the bailout has been mixed, at best, sure. Your brief summation just there doesn't exactly tell the whole story, though. It is hard to say that leaving them to fail wouldn't have been more catastrophic to the economy than it already was, and that was the fear that was prevalent when they were trying to decide which course of action to take. It's not like there was a meeting of evil socialist masterminds to figure out how to instate their wicked agenda. We're talking about more than just a singular business here, we're talking about a huge chunk of an entire industry. Imagine if the food industry was starting to go under -- are you really going to let them collapse? Pretty sure the aftermath would be devastating.

Ultimately though, there were jobs that were saved -- a lot of them, at that, which is definitely plenty to say given the public has been complaining about the unemployment rate and an effectual collapse of the biggest auto manufacturers would've sent unemployment in the states that rely on it the most skyrocketing, thus plunging our country further into economic upheaval -- GM paid back the money they were lent (so no, the story doesn't really stop at bankruptcy), tax dollars were/will be mostly recouped, and the government got itself out of their business as fast as possible. That's not exactly the government takeover doomsday scenario that naysayers like to predict, and those who are crying OMG BIG GOVERNMENT about it fail to acknowledge this. I'll also point out that the bailout was also initiated by Bush, who is both Republican and conservative, so no, this is not just a liberal or an omgevilsocialist thing. Interesting, right?

I did not use them interchangeably. Communism is/was a perverted form of socialism. At least Marxism is. True Communism is an ideal form of governance, but it requires a perfect world with perfect people. Sucks about that 'perfect' part, huh?

So why even bring it up? Nobody's talking about going communist or instating Marxist values, so it shouldn't have anything to do with this discussion.

There are a number of pseudo-socialist European nations now, but look where that got them?

The best ranked health care system in the world? The highest-ranked nations for happiest people? High marks for their quality of life? That's probably not what you were intending, but if you're talking about their financial crisis, well, I hate to point it out, but it's kind of a global problem, socialism or not.

Where did I generalize? The population of kids at colleges that seem to adore Communist Dictators IS on the rise. I see them more and more every day. I did not say ALL college kids are like this. I attended University. I am attending University again, now.

And obviously because you see something, it must be a fact on a grander scale. You can technically add a single drop of water to the ocean and say that its levels are on the rise, but I think it should be clear why that's kind of a worthless statement to make.

It's sad. Practically everywhere I go in this town (college town), there's some kid wearing a bedamned Che Guevara T-shirt. Not quite sure what's so "cool" about Che Guevara.

I mean, seriously? You're wearing a shirt with the face of a communist mass murderer on it? Good Work, Douche bag! I constantly hear about how we're hurting people in Venezuela by not going along with Hugo Chavez's insanity. Not sure if people pay attention to the news, but the guy is jailing anyone who disagrees with him. Yeah, class act there.

You're making my own point here. I've seen the idiots wearing Che shirts, I, too, think it's hilariously stupid, but in no way do I equate this with 'worship'. I mean, really, it's about the same as people wearing Bob Marley shirts or Jimi Hendrix shirts even though they don't know anything about them or their music. People wear things all the time without understanding the implication, simply that it's somehow become trendy or has an implication of cool. Fashion trends don't usually make sense -- after all, people who wear army jackets probably don't worship the military. People who wear Spongebob on their shirt probably don't worship in the Church of Squarepants. Why don't you just ask these people sometime what they know about the person on their shirt? I think you'll find that 'worship' is a gross and ridiculous misrepresentation of what's actually going on. I've seen people wear FREE TIBET shirts without the slightest clue of where Tibet actually is. It doesn't necessitate that suddenly there are a bunch of people out there worshiping the Dalai Lama, just that there's a bunch of idiots running around looking for cool, eclectic intelligence points from some invisible jury of hipster peers.

Then there was the former White House Press flunky, Anita Dunn. Her favorite philosopher was Mao Tse Tung. Who directly or indirectly caused the death of over EIGHTY MILLION of his own countrymen. (Not counting the revolution itself)

And when you buy foreign-made clothing, you help spur on the pain and suffering of underpaid and overworked wageslaves overseas. And when you consume meat products, you support the cruel treatment and eventual slaughter of millions of animals. How many people died under each president during times of war? How many people have died due to Christianity? Islam? Hell, even the Dalai Lama and Mother Theresa have caused more undue suffering/death somehow. A president died supposedly due to the writings of JD Salinger a la Catcher in the Rye. Glenn Beck indirectly made some guy try to kill the president. What's your point?

Not only am I a "minority" as a lesbian, I am also a woman, and I am a minority by ethnicity. As for "being homophobic", umm, are you even paying f**king attention? I am a LESBIAN. I DO NOT FEAR MYSELF.

Duh?

Why yes, I am "paying f**king attention". Are you? I never used the word 'homophobic' anywhere in my post, thank you. The words 'bigot' and 'homophobe' are not mutually inclusive. You could argue that all homophobes are bigots, but not all bigots are homophobes.

big·ot
–noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

I'm saying that you can still make bigoted decisions and have bigoted attitudes regardless of what you are. You can still be insensitive towards gays while being gay. Your little aside about gays impeding on heterosexual rights, for one, is a baffling attitude. Where exactly have heterosexuals been trampled on in all this? What exactly are straight people losing out on because of the big, evil 'gay agenda'? You've made your own little distinction between gays and homosexuals (or something), which is already a bigoted "us vs them, my views are better" attitude. It's the same kind of "nigger vs. black person" distinction some make, only you've taken a term that wasn't really offensive to begin with (since when has 'gay' been a dirty word? I mean, my choice probably would've been 'fag', if I had to) and made it so, which is possibly even more of an offensive thing to do.

As Jude pointed out, it's true that being conservative or Republican doesn't necessitate that you're a bigot. But generally, I find that this quote of his is especially pertinent --

If you don't like being lumped in with individuals that are in opposition to gay rights, regularly display xenophobia, and are thoroughly guilty of WASP ethnocentrism, then it's probably not a good idea to tie yourself to the popular Conservative Movement in the United States.  There are plenty of smaller outfits with a more Libertarian mindset that eschew the Christian Right to latch onto.

[Oniya]

Oniya, hatred of men is called misandry.

Thank you - I've never heard that word used before, but I will surely file it away.  Suffice to say, the term is uncommon enough compared to the female equivalent that it doesn't have the same shock-and-shame impact as misogyny/misogynist.

[Zakharra]

Considering the sheer economic starvation the United States is forcing on Cuba, I'd say they're doing pretty well. They could be doing better, but central planning does work on small scales (what do you think a corporation is?)

  I think I wil call on this one. As far as I know, the US is the ONLY nation that doesn't have any trade with Cuba. If that's still true, then blaming the US for Cuba's troubles is wrong. They can trade with the rest of the world and do fine. Any problems they have in of their own making. Not having a trade agreement or relations with one nation out of the entire world will not spell the doom of any one island nation, unless that island nation is fucking itself up.

[Oniya]

Cuba currently has trade agreements with Russia, Bolivia, Panama, Venezuela and Guatemala (and possibly a conglomerate of Caribbean nations: CARICOM), based on a very quick Googling of 'Cuba trade agreements' and sifting out the ones that referred to how the US does not have trade agreements with Cuba.  So, they have avenues of trase, and through those, there's essentially trade with the rest of the world.  I mean, once we trade goods with another nation, there's nothing preventing them from trading those same goods with Cuba.

[Remiel]

Conservative: Maintain current status quo, or return to an older status quo.
Progressive: Opposite of conservative: progress from the current status quo, prevent returning to an older one
Liberal: Support individual liberty and egalitarianism.
Authoritarian: Opposite of liberal: Subject personal freedom and individual rights to an authority.

Realizing that I'm late to the table, here, one might argue that the opposite of "authoritarian" is libertarian, not liberal.  I've always considered "liberal" and "progressive" to be interchangeable, and have always been amused by the fact that "liberal" seems to have become a four-letter word.   Not, specifically, that right-wingers have painted it as such, but that left-wingers seem to have let them.  I have yet to meet a conservative who does not wear the label "conservative" with pride.

[Vekseid]

  I think I wil call on this one. As far as I know, the US is the ONLY nation that doesn't have any trade with Cuba. If that's still true, then blaming the US for Cuba's troubles is wrong. They can trade with the rest of the world and do fine. Any problems they have in of their own making. Not having a trade agreement or relations with one nation out of the entire world will not spell the doom of any one island nation, unless that island nation is fucking itself up.

But Cuba isn't doomed. It's survived for fifty years under the embargo, and twenty years under since it's been law, despite shortages of food and medicine it causes. There are some goods that mostly do come from the United States and foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Some stuff only comes from the United States, and some of it is time sensitive, and prices rise for each middle man gone through.

Realizing that I'm late to the table, here, one might argue that the opposite of "authoritarian" is libertarian, not liberal.  I've always considered "liberal" and "progressive" to be interchangeable, and have always been amused by the fact that "liberal" seems to have become a four-letter word.   Not, specifically, that right-wingers have painted it as such, but that left-wingers seem to have let them.  I have yet to meet a conservative who does not wear the label "conservative" with pride.

I've never seen a major libertarian movement, outside of libertarian socialism, that actively supported rules, regulations and penalties for the imposition of externalities, or limitations on corporate rule over those in its territory. "You're free to sue them after they kill you."

This sort of thing leads to quips like "A Libertarian is an anarchist who wants police protection from his slaves." Not many people alive today know what being paid in company scrip meant. A popular song was written about it. Don't like it? Tough.

I've never seen a libertarian movement that was in complete opposition to authoritarianism. In particular, debt slavery. Libertarian socialists - the original libertarians - oppose it, but wanted to prevent private ownership of production, whereas modern libertarians often consider someone fooled or forced into debt slavery as deserving of their situation.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is essentially "the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of property." Nothing against owning the means of production - but intrinsic in that concept is not forcing or fooling others into giving away their own liberty.

[Zakharra]

But Cuba isn't doomed. It's survived for fifty years under the embargo, and twenty years under since it's been law, despite shortages of food and medicine it causes. There are some goods that mostly do come from the United States and foreign subsidiaries of US corporations. Some stuff only comes from the United States, and some of it is time sensitive, and prices rise for each middle man gone through.

Yes they have, but saying this;

considering the sheer economic starvation the United States is forcing on Cuba,

Is a fallacy and to be blunt, I am thinking it is wishful thinking. There is no way at all that the US is in any way responsible for Cuba's economic situation. We do  have not placed Cuba under a naval blockade. Ships can and do go to and from the nation freely (under Cuba's restrictions).

The only one limiting Cuba economicaly is Cuba. Cuba is screwing itself. Not the US screwing Cuba.

[Vekseid]

Yes they have, but saying this;  Is a fallacy and to be blunt, I am thinking it is wishful thinking. There is no way at all that the US is in any way responsible for Cuba's economic situation. We do  have not placed Cuba under a naval blockade. Ships can and do go to and from the nation freely (under Cuba's restrictions).

The only one limiting Cuba economicaly is Cuba. Cuba is screwing itself. Not the US screwing Cuba.

As long as US companies - and their subsidiaries - are not allowed to trade with Cuba, this raises Cuba's import prices, and lowers its export capability as people have to go through side channels.

'Sheer' was probably a bad adjective to use, however, Cuba's competitive capability compared to other nations is hindered, as the world's largest consumer and the world's largest agricultural producer are barred from direct trade with it. Its costs are higher and its exports are lower relative to where it would be if Cuba's trade with the US was not so restricted.

[Zakharra]

As long as US companies - and their subsidiaries - are not allowed to trade with Cuba, this raises Cuba's import prices, and lowers its export capability as people have to go through side channels.

'Sheer' was probably a bad adjective to use, however, Cuba's competitive capability compared to other nations is hindered, as the world's largest consumer and the world's largest agricultural producer are barred from direct trade with it. Its costs are higher and its exports are lower relative to where it would be if Cuba's trade with the US was not so restricted.

So?  Would Cuba's economy be helped if they traded with the US? Undoubtedly. But you cannot say that the US is responsible for their economy. They are free to trade and make trade agreements with any other nation. China, Russia, Europe, Central and South America, all of those nations and lands can make nearly everything the US can, for cheaper. If Cuba wants to improve relatons with the US, they need to change their stance.  So I reiterate that Cuba is the only one screwing themselves over.

Castro, please die! Get his ancient ass out of power and into the ground and maybe Cuba can change for the better.

[Vekseid]

So?  Would Cuba's economy be helped if they traded with the US? Undoubtedly. But you cannot say that the US is responsible for their economy. They are free to trade and make trade agreements with any other nation. China, Russia, Europe, Central and South America, all of those nations and lands can make nearly everything the US can, for cheaper. If Cuba wants to improve relatons with the US, they need to change their stance.  So I reiterate that Cuba is the only one screwing themselves over.

Castro, please die! Get his ancient ass out of power and into the ground and maybe Cuba can change for the better.

Err. The United States is still one of the largest exporters in the world. That's a trillion dollars worth of goods, per year, that people are buying from the United States rather than elsewhere. A very significant portion of this is food, but also things like heavy machinery, advanced processors, etc.

Name a major CPU manufacturer not US owned. IBM, Intel, AMD... none of them can sell CPUs straight to Cuba. They can get ARM chips from some manufacturers, but ARMs don't power macs or pcs, they power cell phones.

There are a lot of goods that the United States maintains careful - and powerful - control over. And all that manufacturing that got shipped to China, and now from China to Southeast Asia, India and Africa? It's still being produced for US companies. And often with inferior tech.

You still only addressed half of that point - the artificial pressure goes against the value of their exports, too.

The original concept stands, regardless - Cuba is surviving, despite the negative influence of American policies compared to other nations.

[Trieste]

And, you know, there's also the fact that putting an embargo on Cuba due to Castro while supporting our economy with Chinese money - not to mention some of the rulers we've gotten into bed with elsewhere - makes us big fat hypocrites.  XD

[Zakharra]

Err. The United States is still one of the largest exporters in the world. That's a trillion dollars worth of goods, per year, that people are buying from the United States rather than elsewhere. A very significant portion of this is food, but also things like heavy machinery, advanced processors, etc.

Name a major CPU manufacturer not US owned. IBM, Intel, AMD... none of them can sell CPUs straight to Cuba. They can get ARM chips from some manufacturers, but ARMs don't power macs or pcs, they power cell phones.

There are a lot of goods that the United States maintains careful - and powerful - control over. And all that manufacturing that got shipped to China, and now from China to Southeast Asia, India and Africa? It's still being produced for US companies. And often with inferior tech.

You still only addressed half of that point - the artificial pressure goes against the value of their exports, too.

The original concept stands, regardless - Cuba is surviving, despite the negative influence of American policies compared to other nations.

That's true, but you cannot blame the US for Cuba's problems. There ARE other ways of getting goods in if Cuba wants. Even if it is a round about way, and there are other computer makers. CRUs and other parts. The US isn't the only one. I doubt Russia or China uses US made computers and comp parts. They make their own. Neither nation would put such sensitive tech infastructure in the US's hands.

Is the US about the best in high tech? Yes, but we're not the only one out there that makes high tech goods.  Cuba's economy would be a lot better if we did trade with them, but as long as Castro is alive, that will never happen.

The fact remains that Cuba can get better stuff if they want. If the US brought it's full political weight down on sufficating Cuba, we could drive the nation into the ground easily, but we aren't. As I understand it, it's more of a 'We will not trade with you' embargo.

And, you know, there's also the fact that putting an embargo on Cuba due to Castro while supporting our economy with Chinese money - not to mention some of the rulers we've gotten into bed with elsewhere - makes us big fat hypocrites.  XD

I have no real disagreement with that.

[Remiel]

I've never seen a major libertarian movement, outside of libertarian socialism, that actively supported rules, regulations and penalties for the imposition of externalities, or limitations on corporate rule over those in its territory. "You're free to sue them after they kill you."

This sort of thing leads to quips like "A Libertarian is an anarchist who wants police protection from his slaves." Not many people alive today know what being paid in company scrip meant. A popular song was written about it. Don't like it? Tough.

I've never seen a libertarian movement that was in complete opposition to authoritarianism. In particular, debt slavery. Libertarian socialists - the original libertarians - oppose it, but wanted to prevent private ownership of production, whereas modern libertarians often consider someone fooled or forced into debt slavery as deserving of their situation.

Liberalism, on the other hand, is essentially "the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of property." Nothing against owning the means of production - but intrinsic in that concept is not forcing or fooling others into giving away their own liberty.

I was referring to the etymology of the words.  A "libertarian" is one who espouses personal liberty, or freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own and consume illicit substances.  The logical opposite, or "authoritarian", would be someone who believes in a strong, Big Brother-like state to protect us and look after us--essentially protecting us from ourselves. 

You can see that a lot here in California, where city councils are keen on outlawing sugary sodas from school cafeterias, and increasing "sin" taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol.  We seem to be headed toward authoritarianism, especially with the complete Democratic sweep in our last election.

A "liberal", on the other hand, would be someone who, like you said, would technically be someone who advises change or improvement from the status quo (and conversely, a literal "conservative" would be someone who resists change in social or political policy).

It's entirely possible to be liberal and libertarian, or conservative and authoritarian, just as it is possible to be liberal and authoritarian, or conservative libertarian.

[mystictiger]

The fact remains that Cuba can get better stuff if they want. If the US brought it's full political weight down on sufficating Cuba, we could drive the nation into the ground easily, but we aren't. As I understand it, it's more of a 'We will not trade with you' embargo

There is little more that the US can do legally that it hasn't already done.

The Cuban Democracy Act and the Helms-Burton Act include:

-Potential to deny aid if you trade with Cuba
-Any vessel that has traded with Cuba cannot land / dock in the US for 180 days
-Any company that trades in or with Cuba can have its goods seized and its board members may be refused entry to the US.
-Refuses to recognise any Cuban government that does not pay compensation for the nationalisation / deprivation of US property

[Zakharra]

 The US could bring a lot more pressure on Cuba if it wanted to. There's been no real need though. As annoying as Cuba is, it hasn't been a threat.

[Vekseid]

I was referring to the etymology of the words.  A "libertarian" is one who espouses personal liberty, or freedom -- freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom to own and consume illicit substances.  The logical opposite, or "authoritarian", would be someone who believes in a strong, Big Brother-like state to protect us and look after us--essentially protecting us from ourselves. 

No.

A central tenet of sustainable libertarianism has always been the prevention of fraud. This requires an informed public, and functions even better with an educated public.

Another central tenet of sustainable libertarianism is being safe and secure in one's own person and property. This means that externalities imposed on a person must be either compensated for or prevented. Again, "You can sue them after they kill you" is not serious option.

Ignoring these two points - as modern people calling themselves libertarian often do - is not libertarian. It's stupid.

Libertarianism is not about legalizing marijuana. Legalizing marijuana is merely a side effect of desired policy.

For example, making a constitutional amendment that declared that no item found in a person's possession shall be used as evidence against them, and that the consumption of chemicals that do not cause externalities shall not be prohibited.

Authoritarianism, however, has several key traits.

The universal refrain of authoritarians is anti-intellectualism. The entire point of authoritarianism is to subject yourself to another authority. What they say goes, and most importantly, you cannot countermand them. You cannot disagree with their authority. If an intellectual source disagrees with the authority, it is the intellectual source that is wrong - because the authority is perfect.

Authoritarianism cannot function without that structure in place. You can only trick people into authoritarianism by convincing them that you are the only authority they should consider. This is a bit dangerous, because it naturally requires that you lie to your audience at times, and either they wise up and leave you, or they become less competitive among their wiser peers. "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time." - in order to capture a country, you actually have to do it pretty quickly.

Note - I'm not referring to the authority itself. A libertarian socialist like Noam Chomsky can have authoritarian followers. People who consider the words of Mises or Rand to be gospel and perfect in nature are even more authoritarian than those they claim to oppose. Most leaders who cultivate authoritarian followings tend to be narcissists, however. Many leaders are themselves narcissists or sociopaths. "Power attracts the corruptible." and all that. But they have a very hard time building things, as a rule.

So you need keep that in mind with the 'protecting us from ourselves' mantra. Most liberals certainly want marijuana legalized. The ban on scientific studies of it is certainly an authoritarian stance by the government - but it's an old one and getting weaker each year.

On the other hand, most liberals oppose pumping toxins into the groundwater. Preventing someone from doing that isn't authoritarian - that person intends to impose externalities on others and needs to either pay for that or be prevented from doing so.

You can see that a lot here in California, where city councils are keen on outlawing sugary sodas from school cafeterias, and increasing "sin" taxes on things like tobacco and alcohol.

After the raids during the Republican National Convention across the river here, peaceful Bush protesters being arrested, the suspension of habeas corpus and warrantless wiretaps, you're focusing on taxes and corn syrup?

First off, sin taxes should generally be aligned to the externalities they impose. That is actually the logic behind many of them.

Secondly, removing corn syrup drinks from school cafeterias would only be authoritarian if
1) It was imposed on private schools as well, or
2) Was done against the will of parents in the community. Which would be rather hard to do at the local level, or
3) Banned students from bringing it in themselves.

We seem to be headed toward authoritarianism, especially with the complete Democratic sweep in our last election.

What authoritarian expansion of power did the democrats commit that the republicans did not support?

[mystictiger]

The point about legalising canabis is interesting and well made - some people will approach a debate with a theoretical mindset (e.g. Libertarianism) and then justify the conclusions. Others will have a conclusion (e.g. legalise soft drugs) and then find a banner that supports this.

I would object to the characterisation of authoritarianism as one of voluntary suplication. Rather, the whole point about authoritarianism is that someone else is subjecting you to it ;)

What amuses and amazes me about all of this is the gross mischaracterisation that takes place.

Democrats as authoritarians? Obama as Hitler and a communist?

Go and live in a proper dictatorship for a few days and you'll find out what these terms really mean.

[Oniya]

I suspect that many of the people throwing 'Hitler' and 'communist' around are using them more as the 'great big bogeyman' that their parents grew up with.  They probably have a vague idea of Hitler as 'that guy we fought in WWII', and communists as 'those guys we were fighting against after WWII'.

[Noelle]

I suspect that most people who toss around loaded words like communist, fascist, socialist, Hitler, and authoritarian don't have a great grasp on those words except that they cause a knee-jerk reaction in people so they freely misapply it to anything they don't like because everyone knows that Hitler is pretty much a universally-disliked figure, so what better way to bring down someone's name than to make some kind of ridiculous leap to pair the two?

[Trieste]

The prevalence of cheap-shot debate tactics that violate Godwin's premise make it frustratingly difficult to honestly and rationally discuss Hitler as an historical figure, or corollary figures such as Mengele and Himmler.

[Vekseid]

The point about legalising canabis is interesting and well made - some people will approach a debate with a theoretical mindset (e.g. Libertarianism) and then justify the conclusions. Others will have a conclusion (e.g. legalise soft drugs) and then find a banner that supports this.

I would object to the characterisation of authoritarianism as one of voluntary suplication. Rather, the whole point about authoritarianism is that someone else is subjecting you to it ;)

I was actually referring to the core structure of authoritarian institutions. If everyone ignored them, they would have next to no power. It's through indoctrination that authoritarian civilizations are made, after all.

Authoritarian institutions have very clear and common methods.

1) Attack the educated class, as I mentioned above. Pol Pot's regime had people executed for so much as wearing glasses. You cannot establish a malignant authority in an area where there are a lot of competing authorities. A good way to spot authoritarians in general is to watch for those who attack smart people for being smart or educated. An alternate means sometimes used by authoritarian attempts in the United States is to establish your own 'university' and make sure that it cannot be properly scrutinized and reviewed, via whatever means.

2) Using fear as a motivating factor. "The other person is more crazy/evil than this person! Vote for them!"  This basic message was -extremely- common during the past election and we are only going to hear more of it until the American public is basically inoculated against demagoguery.

3) Controlling the flow of information. Leaving information out, putting extra information in, outright lying, etc. Speaking in code. "Cut down the tall trees." <- the Rwandan genocide. A less graphic example is Fox's habit of turning republicans into democrats whenever a republican is involved in a scandal.

4) Create divisions within the population. Treat one group a little bit better, so that they will suppress the other group for you. This keeps both of them down. Racism was invented for this purpose. Today, there's another division being created where people making over $250k/year are 'rich', whereas the people making ten million or more per year are apparently just as rich.