I’ve always said that Thomas Keyes is a wise and learned man. His latest article proves it once more.

I totally agree with Thomas’ pursuit of the truth from a variety of sources.  Although, unlike Thomas, I am limited in my research time by the pressures of a career and child rearing, the time I do have is spent at a variety of web sites.  I wish I had the hours available it would take to peruse all of those sites that Thomas lists.

In fact, I tend to spend more time at web sites that espouse ideas with which I disagree than at those reflecting my views.  I honestly seek to understand those other perspectives.  For example, I listen to NPR in my car at least as much as I listen to the conservative talk shows. Admittedly, a major reason is NPR’s limited advertising – I hate advertisements.  On the other hand, I like that the conservative talk shows are honest in their presentation of their bias as opinion.  NPR, like the network news stations, dishonestly disguises their bias as "news reporting."  Those sources would have much, much more credibility with me if they were more honest about their intentions.  I also like the talk show format, with listener input, more than NPR’s interview format.

Like Thomas, I refuse to be pigeonholed into an ideological category.  On matters of economics, taxation, national defense, and culture, I am very conservative.  Yet, I am not religious, I’m willing to accept the reality of abortion, and I would eliminate much of our drug laws – stances that are generally considered liberal.  Like almost anyone, I love nature and would approve of laws to protect it.  I don’t agree, however, with those who manipulate society’s environmental sentiment for political purposes.

I also share Thomas’ stated obsession with the truth.  In fact, I would call it a pet peeve of mine – to the extent, that most of my U-K articles point out those who distort the truth.  Unfortunately, because many liberal causes are rooted more in idealism than reality, and because most liberals don’t want to admit that and so, instead, skew reality to support their idealism, most of my articles expose the distortions of liberals.  Similarly, I have exposed a few of those who try to politicize environmental issues, and the majority of those people are distorting to support liberal agendas.

Thus, although I have both liberal and conservative beliefs, because I more often criticize liberals on U-K, I am considered a conservative by many of the readership.  Those liberals I’ve exposed even consider me "extreme right wing."  Yet, if I were to dialogue with a true conservative, I’m sure he/she would not consider me his complete ally.

So, can one truly be ideologically agnostic?  From my experience, only in one’s own opinion.  To everyone else, you will be categorized into some ideology or another.

Finally, I have to address Thomas criticism of me.  I don’t recall making the "pseudo-intellectual" statement he attributes to me, I’d like to see the link so that I can understand the context – Thomas has taken my words out of context on several occasions in the past.  I also question his characterization of me as a "pseudo-intellectual."  My understanding of that term is that it describes those who consider themselves intellectual, but aren’t.  I definitely do not consider myself an intellectual and challenge anyone to quote any words from me claiming such.  If anyone judges me an intellectual, that is merely his or her opinion and I would compare it to an idiot thinking a moron was smart.

I also note that while Thomas claims his "sole purpose is to get at the truth," we U-K readers know that he has another purpose – telling us his version of the truth.  If he intended to only relay "the facts" to us, he would omit his opinions and biased conclusions from his articles.  So, while the tone of Thomas’ article describes himself in altruistic terms, in reality, his motives are far from altruism.

Examples might include this opinionated statement from that linked article:

It is not a "fact" that the invasion of Iraq was fraudulent, it is his opinion that it was.  If Thomas were truly a seeker of truth, he would state his opinions as such, rather than as fact.

How about this strange statement:

I don’t know where Thomas gets his survey information, but all of those people are very popular and respected by millions.  I understand that a person can be both popular and unpopular, depending on whom you ask, but I would be surprised if more people claimed to dislike any of these people than would claim to like them.  I expect that the largest group from such a survey would claim to not have an opinion either way.

I know this distortion seems trivial, but I’m trying to make the larger point that Thomas is not as unbiased as he implies.

On the other hand, if you read my posts, both here and in the Rebuttals section, I am typically exposing the distortion of my target, not disagreeing with the opinion supported by the distortion.  If Thomas thinks the Iraq invasion was fraudulent, I don’t care; he just shouldn’t state that as fact when it’s opinion.

He frequently makes similarly distorted statements about Israel.  He states as fact that the U.S. government and politicians are subservient to Israel.  He states as fact that Israel has intentions of Middle East expansion.  He states as fact that Jews stole Israel from Arabs. Those are all opinions.  Thomas is not an ideologcal agnostic.

	Web useless-knowledge.com