Bill O'Reilly had a segment this evening with Columbia University Professor Mark Lamont Hill, a liberal guy. The topic was a survey done under the leadership of an asst. professor of social justice and political science named Christopher Parker. The conclusion? White tea-partiers have negative racial views toward blacks. At least, 41 out of a total of 117 people interviewed do. Here is an article on the subject written by Candance Moore for Newsbusters back in April, when this study was released. (Liberal viewer warning: Newsbusters is a conservative news outlet, but if you want to read a liberal take on it, you can read Leonard Pitts of the Miami Herald-another race-obsessed guy. His gushing op-ed is also linked below.)
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/04/27/race-obsessed-professor-helps-media-prove-tea-partiers-are-racist
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/21/1589621/yearning-for-an-america-thats.html
"The numbers are in"
Hill, in supporting the study, pointed out some tea party posters photographed at various events that were racially-tinged, which is the most accurate description I would assign to the ones I saw. O'Reilly remained unconvinced since all large turnouts usually have a number of fringe elements and the tea party spokespeople have adamantly rejected those sentiments. We also know that some lefty folks in Oregon were actually organizing efforts to show up at tea party events with objectionable posters in an effort to discredit the cause. At the one tea party event I have experienced, the organizers pointedly told the crowd that if they were there to spout racist or extremist views, they were not welcome.
Now comes this professor of social justice and political science at the University of Washington with this study based on interviews of 117 people and comes to conclusions about a movement that extends all over the nation and involves millions of people. Of course, this is pasta to the leftist media like MSNBC, who will surely use this to discredit the tea party movement.
Why do I put the words "social justice" in bold print? Because it is code language for a drastic overturning of our society to the far-left in the guise of equality. It is anything but. When you hear activists talking about "social justice", it's time to run. I will let the reader peruse Prof. Parker's curricula vitae, but let's just say his entire academic career revolves around racial issues.
And how about this quote?
"Even the infamous "Joe the Plumber" charged Obama with seeking to redistribute wealth, raising age-old stereotypes of African Americans as radical, welfare dependent, and not as hardworking as the White working class. In short, he accused Obama of seeking to take money from hardworking "real Americans" to give it to "those people" ~Rohter 2008."
If I recall viewing the actual tape, Obama himself used the expression "spreading the wealth around" to the "infamous" Joe the Plumber. I don't recall the "infamous" Joe the Plumber ever mentioning race at all.
It's a hard combination to beat, the universities and the media. They are bound and determined to paint tea-partiers as a bunch of racists.
9 comments:
I'm curious to check out the survey itself, but all I can find are right-wing blogs basically saying the same thing that you are. I didn't take a lot of time looking, but I didn't even find something on the guy's own website.
Lance,
That's because it's a joke based on 117 people and the difference between whatever % of this group and whatever % of that group is 5 people.
Big deal.
Lance,
I wonder if it was "peer-reviewed".
If that's true, then I agree that it was a joke.
And you're just determined to not understand what peer review means, aren't you? It's doubtful that something like that would pass the peer review process.
So what?
So What should be the title of the study. How can you base conclusions nationwide based on a difference of 5 people. (I think there was a 3.5% + or - room for error mentioned.
I would submit that this SOCIAL JUSTICE professor has tapped into not an academic study but an industry.
Precisely Gary.
So what, if what the study says is true?
What difference does that make?
But since the study itself is a farce, even less reason to pay attention.
Siarlys,
Pay attention? Leonard Pitts and a bunch of journalists are all over it.
When I spell my name L-E-O-N-A-R-D P-I-T-T-S, you may hold me accountable to explain whatever that gentleman might have published. What I said, for myself, is "So what?" Besides, you're the one who devoted space on your own site to the subject.
Post a Comment