Next time someone who does not share your exact political beliefs (or your orthodoxy in ensuring that his/her tertiary sources have unimpeachable credentials), I suggest you actually read what they're saying and come back with facts. The reality is that in a community of professionals, you're unlikely to find yourself conversing solely with people who agree with your worldview.
The irony is, I probably do agree with your politics, but I find the way you handled this particular wrinkle of the discussion so repellant that I've been driven somewhat apey.
That having been said, I think you misunderstand me. I'm quite eager to learn from people who don't share my beliefs; it's the only reason I spend any time slogging through these comments in the first place. The spirit of my original reply, and what I should have said, is that bringing the Heritage Foundation into the discussion can only serve to muddle things.
We're OK. Sorry to drag this out. It's been an annoying day.
Only if you choose to let it. Here on HN, we usually don't.
You mention in your profile that the quality of discussion here is "slightly better than most places on the web". This is not an accident; it's a result of our strong community standards. Name-calling or ad hominem is generally rewarded with downvotes. Our preference is to look deeper into data and disagree in productive ways [0], not to get upset at the mention of a politically slanted organization.
You've had a rough introduction to our community. I hope you stay a while, learn our standards, and have a productive time here.
Heritage's data come from a Dept of Ag study. This seems like an excellent example of why we should try to cite original authors instead of intermediaries.
I honestly didn't mean to do anything trollish. And what's with "quality" in scare quotes?