I don't interpret it as an endorsement of anything, G-Bro. I can see where your statement is a valid generalisation from the perspective you intended it to be seen from. But it seems that "politics" is a notion that extends pretty far beyond its ordinary connotation to include anything with political motivation or rammifications in any area. E.g., "Global Warming" would ordinarily be science (or not) but, since money's involved, it's "politics." History and economics are likewise "political" (exempt from any expectation of honest coverage there).
Then there's "Institutional Politics." I read their account of Wilhelm Reich once and never encountered so many "alleged"s and "purportedly"s in one place before. His thinking still, all these years later, not only annoys people, but threatens their institutional assurance that "we have this all figured out. There aren't any more cards in the deck than the ones we're playing with." Reading through its account of the paleoindian era, the last time I checked, they still came from Siberia with evidence to the contrary buried under an avalanche of "pooh, pooh" (so to speak).
I guess the bottom line is that I don't see it as the kind of monument to objective knowledge you seem to see it as. It's useful, sure. But I trust it like I trust the New York Times.
Didn't mean to annoy you for no good reason.
:face:
