Who is making sure the public can continue to be tricked?

I care about people having the ability to make informed decisions based on good information. People need to make important decisions every day about who to vote for, what policies to support, what medical information and treatment to accept, etc. and these decisions have profound consequences. Therefore, it’s important to know how to get good information and how to avoid getting tricked.

One way people are tricked is when they are told that “you can make statistics say whatever you want it to say” or “all research is of equal value, each side gets to use its own information”. In actuality, you cannot make good statistics say whatever you want and you do not get to make up the information or choose the information that you like best. Most importantly there are ways to figure out how strong the evidence is.

You may say that a glass of water is half full, or that it is half empty. Both statements are true but they are presented different ways. You may consider the decision between saying “half-full” or “half-empty” as “spin”. However, you may not say that the glass is 100% full if it is half full. And you may not say that the water is really soda. Those statements are lies. When Republicans talk about how, after 8 years in power with practically no opposition, they are the “outsiders”, that is misleading or lying, not spin.

One way to determine if one group is consistently misleading you is to figure out if what they are telling you is something that helps prevent you from being tricked or is something that ensures that they can trick you now and continue to trick you for a long time. Research studies are like currency. Some studies are of very weak strength, like pennies. Some are of strong strength like hundred dollar bills. (Strength is determined by the type of study, how well it is done and how unlikely it is that the results could have been manipulated, and how unlikely it is that conclusion can have come about by chance or something else.) There are ways to tell the difference.

If someone tells you—hey, pennies and dollars are worth different amounts, and that person wants to tell you how you can tell them apart, that person is trying to make it so that you will not be able to be tricked. She don’t want you just to take her word for it, she is giving you the skills to “check the math” yourself.

If someone else tells you—pennies and dollars can be worth whatever you want them to be worth. There is no way to tell them apart. And hey, I’ll give you two pennies for that dollar you are holding. Not only are they trying to trick you now, but by telling you that either there is no difference, or that you can make them whatever you want, they are ensuring that they can trick you for a long time.

Democrats are the first kind of person—the kind trying to help the population have the skills to understand on their own and wanting the public to have the power to avoid getting tricked. Republicans are the opposite—they present weak evidence as strong and vice versa based on what they want the population to think (on climate change, education, public health, natural disasters, teen pregnancy prevention, etc., etc., etc.) and then pushes the meme that each side can use its own “facts” and that there is no difference in research results. Fox ”News” goes even further in that they try to convince the population not to trust the accurate information because (legitimate) research “comes out of universities… and universities are liberal… so therefore you can’t trust it”. They are not only tricking the public now, but ensuring that they will be able to trick the public for a long time.

In response to: Oh, you can make statistics say anything you want.

Background: After a rehearsal, a fellow cast member said in discussion that “I learned that you can make statistics say whatever you want them to”. She also went on to say, “You can’t trust research from universities because universities are liberal and have liberal professors in them”. She didn’t want to hear that universities also have the people who are trained and qualified to conduct and analyze research and rejected the idea that there was a way to evaluate how strong or weak evidence is based on objective standards. No amount of rational discussion could sway her, because it’s all a matter of opinion, in her view.

Three straw men and you’re out!

Sometimes it’s hard to know when you are talking to someone that is so extreme or indoctrinated with talking points that it isn’t worth your breath to keep talking. When should you close the conversation and walk away? Here’s an idea: Try to keep track of straw men arguments. After having to respond to three straw men, consider the person “out”. It’s hard to recognize a straw man in real time—but one thing that can help tip you off is if you or someone else has to say, “Wait—I didn’t say that!” or “What?! Nobody said that!” to respond to a silly argument. Another potential hint that the conversation is going to go nowhere is if you have to respond to a truly ridiculous argument and the person continues to defend it.

In response to: Repeatedly having to say “you are putting words in my mouth!”

Background: After a show rehearsal, I was out with several cast members. The topic turned to politics and one woman was using a lot of talking points in her arguments. In real time, I eventually realized the conversation was going nowhere. But, in retrospect, I recognized that her arguments were primarily straw man arguments coupled with verbal attacks. I am amazed about how conservative talk radio is so effective in getting out talking points and straw man arguments to the population.

Examples:

“You seem to be saying that you feel you are paying too much in taxes and not getting enough in return. I’m wondering at what point you would think it was an acceptable amount to pay for an acceptable amount of services to you. In socialist countries, taxes may be this amount for these services, on this end of the spectrum, there would be no taxes and no services. What point is acceptable to you?” Strawman response: “I can’t believe I am surrounded by people who would rather live in a socialist country!”

In response to the description of a particular social program that was deemed in conversation as a valuable asset to the country. Strawman response: “So you would have us bankrupt the economy?!”

Or, more or less out of the blue… Ridiculous argument: How can you trust any research? You can make it say whatever you want it to. (As a research scientist, I explained how research and epidemiology work, but to no avail). You can’t trust research because it comes from universities, and universities are liberal and are filled with liberal professors. I should have responded—actually, universities are where they have people who are actually trained and competent to perform and analyze research. We shouldn’t preferentially discard the credible research that is performed by people who understand how to conduct and analyze research. If the pundits you are listening to suggest that, they are effectively inoculating you from getting valid information and you may want to question their motives about what they want you to believe. But, at this point, it was absolutely clear that the conversation wasn’t effective.

Taxes should be called “Membership Dues”

Taxes are the membership dues we all pay to be part of a great and civilized nation and for the opportunity to benefit from many shared resources. Your taxes aren’t “your money” any more than your car payments, your mortgage, or your memberships to other organizations are “your money”. We all benefit from having roads, schools, vaccines, cancer research, air, water and food safety standards, emergency workers, a business infrastructure, and a military. It would be impossible for each family to buy these services on their own if they were privatized.

In response to: “It’s your money”, “We deserve tax cuts/relief”.

Background: It is irresponsible, unpatriotic and short-sighted to try to convince people (and businesses) that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes. It is even more disturbing when they do so without pointing out what services and benefits would be lost by these “cuts”. Sometimes, I consider the Republican party as the party that tries to convince people not to brush their teeth without telling them what the consequences will be. Look, no one likes to pay taxes just like most people don’t like to pay their other bills or brush their teeth—but we do these things because as responsible adults we know that the consequences of not doing these things is far worse for all of us than bucking up and taking responsibility. And it’s time that we recognized and appreciated all the incredibly positive things we get for paying our taxes.

“Life isn’t Fair” is not an excuse to give up

I tell my kids that life isn’t always fair but we make the choice everyday whether to work towards making it more fair or making it less fair. Let’s choose to make it more fair.

In response to: Sometimes when injustice is pointed out, people say, “Well, life isn’t fair. That’s just the way it is.”

Background: Often, conservatives use the statement “life isn’t fair” as an excuse not to help people and worse, as an excuse to make things less fair by taking advantage of the disadvantaged. It is not an acceptable excuse.

Political views? Answer in values, not just labels

What are my political views?

I care about the well-being of people. Therefore, I support policies that work to help people and expand opportunity. I care about using the best evidence to solve problems that affect people because the consequences matter. I care about using honesty when expressing political goals, plans and the evidence about them. These values make me a liberal. Currently, the political party that promotes these values is the Democratic Party. Currently, the political party that often undermines these values is the Republican Party.

In response to: What are your political views?

Background: Instead of answering with a label, it’s important to recognize that the words, “liberal”, “conservative”, “Democratic”, and “Republican” have different meanings to different people. By laying out what you care about when you answer and linking it to the “why” you support a particular political party, you are able to strengthen the definition.

Reproductive Rights protect families

Women have abortions to protect the long term health and well-being of their families. Continuing a pregnancy can be seen as a threat to a woman’s ability to take care of the children she already has. When push comes to shove, “born” children that are part of our lives take precedent over “potential” children for most women. Expanding a family when a woman does not have sufficient tangible or intangible resources harms the children she has or the children she hopes to have.

The ability to protect one’s children and the health of one’s family is a reproductive right. The ability for a Mom not to die in the process of protecting her family is reproductive rights. Decisions we make for our families are not all easy and sugar coated. We make difficult decisions about our families because we care deeply about raising healthy children and the future of our families.

In response to: Woman who have abortions are selfish and immoral.

Background: It’s really important to take the high ground on this one. If we hide behind our discomfort with the issue and stand by idly while conservatives erode these basic freedoms, we are really doing women a horrible disservice and are putting families at tremendous risk.

Liberals will fight for all people to have equal opportunities

Part of caring about people means caring that they have the basic necessities of life: food, water, healthcare, access to education, civil rights, and opportunities. What people do with these opportunities will vary. I am not fighting that everyone have a boat or send their children to fancy private school. But, I do fight for the rights of people to have healthcare, decent wages and work opportunities, access to good schools, and the right not to be harassed or discriminated against. It’s about having the opportunity to support your family and improve your life situation while having the basic rights and necessities that allow for survival, human dignity, and the opportunity to thrive.

In response to: George Will has the ability to fit many mistruths and poor assumptions into very few words. He was on the Colbert Report and said that “Conservatives tend to favor freedom and are willing to accept inequalities of outcome from a free market and liberals tend to favor equality of outcome and to sacrifice and to circumscribe freedom in order to get it”.
It is simply not true that we stand for equal outcomes.

Background: First, we need to debunk the notion that the “free market” is really free or consistently works in the common interest of people—especially when it is unregulated and open to manipulation (see SOV). Next, we need to debunk the meme that conservatives favor freedom (for example, the Patriot Act, removal of habeas corpus, the manipulation of expert scientific panels and scientific evidence that they simply don’t like, the use of propaganda and packaged “news” reports to add to the press, the drive to remove the right to contraception and to make abortion illegal, opposition that states have the freedom to approve gay marriage and civil unions, etc, etc.) And finally, we need to address the scare tactic of telling people that liberals are trying to make everyone have the same outcomes even if it means having to take away your beloved stuff.

Telling the truth is patriotic

“It is unpatriotic not to tell the truth whether about the president or anyone else.”
-Theodore Roosevelt

I believe in making informed decisions. It is impossible to make informed decisions without truthful and accurate information. Keeping secrets and lying to cover up misdoings in the White House shows a profound disloyalty to the American people because it harms the American publics’ ability to make informed voting decisions.

While it is best for insiders to “come clean” and tell the truth immediately, it is better that they do it late than doing it never.

In response to: The White House is in a tizzy over Scott McClellan’s book revealing dishonesty and misdeeds of this Republican administration.

Background: Republicans are in an uproar about Scott McClellan’s book, “What Happened: Inside the Bush White House and Washington’s Culture of Deception”. Aides are accusing him of disloyalty and throwing out the usual talking points about “He didn’t say anything before.” “It’s all about selling books.” The assumption that he should have kept this a secret until after the election is unacceptable. It bothers me to no end that when he was press secretary not only was he dishonest in towing the party line, he answered questions about the truth with condescension and scorn. It never ceases to amaze me how many Republicans can get caught in a lie and return with scorn as if to say, “How dare you catch me doing something wrong! You’re a bad person for catching me and telling people about it!” Although Scott McClellan played this Republican game with the rest of them, and I am no fan of Scott McClellan, I appreciate that he is coming clean about the administration now, instead of never. If he were more patriotic, he would have said something sooner.

Fox News wants you mad

Does Fox News make you mad? If you get upset about something or someone when you watch Fox News, remind yourself that that is their primary goal. You’ve been played. The purpose of Fox News coverage is to make people like conservatives and conservative ideology and make them not like liberals or progressive ideology. The news is presented in a way to make their case on an emotional level—even if they have to alter and distort the stories, repeat falsehoods and talking points, and misrepresent what “liberal” is.

Next time you get upset about something you hear on Fox News, take that as an opportunity to educate yourself about the issue. How did they manipulate me? How did they manipulate the story?What did they leave out? What did they take out of context? Why did they choose to highlight some parts of the story over others? What are the facts? What do the experts who study this problem or issue conclude?

Our best chance of solving important world problems is getting an accurate understanding of reality. Fox News is an obstacle to this goal. Here are common Fox News story lines:

• conservatives good.
• liberals bad.
• when a liberal does something that can only be construed as good, it must be discredited.
• when a conservative does something that can only be construed as bad, the person must be relabeled as a liberal.
• poor righteous christian family is oppressed by secular society.
• scary godless science or depraved liberal culture does it again.

Don’t buy it.

In response to: Seeing Fox News by accident.

Background: Lisa and I catch snippets of Fox News stories on the big TVs at the gym and watch long enough to see which of their standard story lines are being demonstrated.

Killing the messenger hurts everyone

Primitive societies used to have a practice where they killed the messenger who reported bad news. The leaders liked this plan because it kept bad news to a minimum and gave them an outlet for their frustration after the news was delivered.  On the other hand, hearing only what you want to hear is really bad for responding to and fixing important problems.  Ignoring important information and making sure other people don’t hear it are dangerous and harmful to societies.

It is a really base/gut/primitive response to want to discredit people for giving us information we don’t want to hear.  But, we should be smarter than to fall for it.  When people who don’t want to hear about global climate change, or don’t want to take responsibility for making it better, many will slander and discredit Al Gore.  It doesn’t make his message less important. It doesn’t make his information less true or less urgent that we act.  But, it does impair the population from understanding the problem and delays important actions we should be taking.

In response to: Al Gore is a self-aggrandizing liar.

Background: Lisa heard 2nd hand that Max tried to stand up for Al Gore when someone at a party began spouting Fox-News talking points to discredit him.