I try to read broadly, to hear what each political coterie has to say on a given topic. But while doing so my brain inevitably keeps functioning and analyzing the arguments set before me. And a lot of these arguments are verifiably fallacious: not because they disagree with my own stances, but because they conflict with available data, are internally self-contradictory, conflict with the other arguments put forth by the same adherants elsewhere, or omit data in order to make their point.

So more often than not, what I end up doing is reading the best arguments put forth on a topic, often through allegedly credible media, and then finding out the stated premises aren't even supported by the content of those articles. And inevitably this seems to happen more with things having a decidedly liberal bent.

So the allegation I charge myself with: Don't your own beliefs color your perceptions? Perhaps. Who could ever refute such a charge? But I didn't begin life with a conservative bent (and still don't, on some topics), so the charge, historically, would cut quite the other way 'round.

Another alternative that sometimes presents itself is that I'm having this problem because I only read the writings of wacko, biased liberals, and am excluding the far-right conservative nut cases. I ponder this possiblity, but am not convinced: Most the flawed liberal arguments I encounter are from mainstream sources. Also, I read a good many conservative blogs, in fact, I have to work to remember to read the liberal sites. (One reason: I end up writing pieces like this next one each time I go over and check them out.)

Or maybe I'm just not very good at finding plausable liberal arguments for the specific stances where my opinion is still being formed. Its certainly not for lack of trying.

So here's an analysis of an article about affirmative action to illustrate what I mean. Please note I'm not actually taking any stance on affirmative action here, just finding problems with the integrity of the arguments set forth in the article in question. On the other hand, its easy to see that this article appears to have a definite bias, and thus its easy to jump to the simple-minded conclusion that if I'm cutting down the logic in this article, I must be doing so because I already hold the opposite stance. But that misses the whole point of debate: To argue passionately for different points, so that ultimately the best arguments can be uncovered, and perhaps sometimes even embraced by all participants.

So I'm open to arguments on both sides of the topic of affirmative action: Why its good, why its bad. If you have anything more to add to the topic, chime right in; perhaps you can supply a more convincing argument than the one in the next article.