As controversial as she is, sometimes Ann Coulter nails it as far as “Fair Share” Liberals are concerned and their so-called “data” concerning the poor, race, economics…well, basically everything.
To a “Fair Share” Liberal (i.e. one who feels taking without earning is “fair”), all roads lead to Professional Victimhood in their efforts to try and appease their white guilt. To support their “plight”, they love to quote what they’d like to think is “unbiased research” to support their positions, yet it’s interesting in the spirit of “fairness” how they’ll reject or deny any research from the other side. Any evidence that seems to contradict their views, or seems to threaten their must-be-so-fragile causes not only gets rejected, but gets the brunt of their projection as well. (from Wikipedia: Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude.)
For instance, any economic evidence contrary to their guilt about the poor must be from an “illegitimate” economist. Any report calling out the political agenda of scientists regarding Climate Change must be “right-wing propaganda” and it seems any report that says black people tend to speed more than white people on a NJ highway must be “racist”.
From Coulter’s blog:
Statisticians, and other people with common sense, tried to explain to liberals that human beings are not identical. Any study purporting to show that too many blacks are stopped for speeding must first determine how many speeders are black.
Being denounced as virtual Klansmen, the state troopers demanded a real study.
Confident that any new study would merely serve to confirm the troopers’ racism, the DOJ and the New Jersey attorney general commissioned a statistical investigation from the Public Services Research Institute in Maryland.
The institute’s study was a spectacular thing. Using expensive monitors with high-speed cameras and radar detectors, they clocked the speeds of nearly 40,000 drivers on the relevant section of the turnpike. Three researchers then examined the photos to determine the race of the driver — without knowing whether the driver was speeding, which was defined as going more than 80 mph in 65 mph zones.
The result: No racial profiling.
Blacks constituted 25 percent of all speeders and they were 23 percent of drivers stopped for speeding. Controlling for age and gender, blacks sped at about twice the rate of whites. The racial disparity was even greater for drivers exceeding 90 mph.
Inasmuch as the study was irrefutable, Mark Posner, a lefty Clinton holdover in the Bush Justice Department, tried to block it from being released, continuously demanding more information.
But no matter how statisticians fiddled with the data, the results were identical: Blacks were twice as likely to speed as whites — and at much higher speeds. The troopers were completely vindicated.
When the study finally leaked — over Posner’s objections — he informed the press it wasn’t “valid” without articulating any actual problems with it. The attorney general of New Jersey, David Samson, nonsensically said the results didn’t matter because New Jersey had already admitted its troopers were engaging in racial profiling.
Perhaps the Times is right and there is no comprehensive study of police shootings by race. But it’s also possible that there is one, it didn’t come out as planned, so it has never seen the light of day.
What I dislike about the race-baiting and race-mongering is that it takes the spotlight off, and the credibility away from, the REAL cases of racism that exist either inside a police department or elsewhere. Jon Stewart said it right – it may suck for us as white people to have to deal with this as an “issue”, but for many black people true racism is something they live and deal with every day. White, right-wing bigots with Jim Crow blood still running through their veins do NOTHING to help the issue and only make things worse, but in my opinion, so do “Fair Share” Liberal idiots whose theatrics and p.c. bullshit keep taking away from the real issues that exist.
Fair Share Liberals acting like their points and causes are so fragile that they can’t for an instant stand up to real scrutiny or debate make their causes look manufactured and almost non-existent at worst, and at best provide ammo for right-wing zealots (and bigots) to shoot a thousand holes into every one of their stories, encouraging us all to move on.
Personally, I think this was a big reason why Zimmerman was let go for Martin’s shooting, and why I think the Brown case might not get the justice it deserves as well. When people see liberal zealots going overboard they seem to tend to give points and support back to the other side. Although liberals love the “victimhood” aspect of this, it actually harms the victims.
Instead of automatically convicting the cop who shot Brown and doing this big, overblown spectacle of race-mongering, I think they instead should just stow it for a while and try and act “fair and balanced”; confident that the truth and the evidence will be on their side. Being calm and cool as a cucumber would do much more to show strength in their case and legitimacy of their cause, as would openly inviting any and all contradiction and debate into the argument like Coulter points out in her article.
Otherwise, rushing to judgment and crying “victim” all the time just makes you look weak and either easy to step on, or step over.