Quote:
Originally Posted by Sailor Steve
That's the left shoe. And the right shoe? You wrote this because you're an unbaised observer of the system with no opinion either way? I see no purpose in this if it's not to play politics.
|
I don't believe I ever claimed I was "unbiased" or an observer of the system. I could never claim to be an uninterested or objective observer - because I participate in the system as a voter. The mere act of casting a vote negates any objectivity, for it requires a choice of one over another.
My political views are well historied here - I am not a fan of Obama or his extremely (for US politics) left wing policies and agenda. I prefer less government intervention and more personal responsibility. Call that what you will.
If I - or anyone else looks at government with a skeptical eye, that is a good thing. Given the history of this current administration and the constant attempts to demonize anyone who dares to differ with its policies or goals, such skepticism regarding a report on such a sensative and divisive issue as racism is hardly uncalled for.
So you look at the study, find its flawed on a number of levels - and the question becomes "Why is this even getting the front page attention it is?". Quoted by many left leaning pundits - one must wonder why now? The most apparent answer is the President crumbling poll numbers. Even so, that doesn't make the study itself political -unless you consider the flawed assumptions it makes. Why make such over-reaching generalizations when they are obviously problematic? Again, a very logical answer suddenly appears when the connection between the researcher and the administration appears.
To quote the "Professor" of C.S. Lewis - "Logic! I say, what do they teach in schools these days?"
If somehow following a logical, reasonable line of skepticism somehow makes me a "right shoe poltical hack" in your view, then ok. I can live with that.