Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Random Thoughts
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Random thoughts on the passing scene:

Seeing the Pope driven around in a bullet-proof vehicle reminds me of how much times have changed over the years. I can remember when President Franklin D. Roosevelt rode through Harlem in an open car.

A reader's response to my column about the mandated change from incandescent light bulbs to CFL bulbs: "It would be far better to exchange the corrupt hacks in Congress for some winos from the Bowery. Such a transition should open a new bright era for America."

Even if you think our presidential choices this election year are between disgust and disaster, anyone who has ever been through a real disaster can tell you that this difference is not small. It is big enough to go vote on election day.

One of the ways in which people are similar is in the lengths to which they will go in order to show that they are different.

Over the years, slowly but surely, we have painted ourselves into a corner on a whole range of issues, where we can no longer say or do what makes the most sense to us, but only what is considered to be politically correct.

The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. The big catchword this election year is "change"-- and it has already stopped many people's thinking in its tracks.

It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political left amount to.

Unlike most politicians, Barack Obama does not waffle. He comes out boldly, saying mutually contradictory things.

At one time, to call someone "green" was to disparage them as inexperienced or immature. Today, to call someone green is to exalt them as one of the environmentalist saviors of the planet. But it is amazing how many people are green in both senses. Some people who think it is wrong to tell children to believe in Santa Claus nevertheless think it is all right to tell adults to believe that the government can give the whole population things that we cannot afford ourselves. Believing in Santa Claus is apparently bad for children but OK for adults.

The best explanation I have heard as to why Hillary Clinton is continuing to campaign, at a cost of millions of dollars a month, is that she wants to damage Obama enough for him to lose the general election this fall, leaving her as the obvious front-runner for the Democrats' nomination in 2012.

Even drugs which have been used safely for years in Europe or elsewhere cannot be sold in the United States without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration-- which can take years, while people suffer and die from a lack of that drug. Why not allow such drugs to be sold with a bright red label that says: "THIS DRUG IS NOT APPROVED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION. NOR IS IT DISAPPROVED"?

The phrase "war on terror" is an unfortunate choice of words. It is the terrorists who openly declared war on us. Whatever the reasons for going into Iraq, that is where international terrorists have converged to fight their war against the United States. Pulling out of Iraq will not stop the terrorists' war on us, but only give them a huge victory as the war shifts to another front.

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated.

"McCarthyism" is a term used to dismiss the threat of internal subversion and espionage. But whatever the sins of Senator Joe McCarthy, the efforts of others showed that Alger Hiss was not a figment of anyone's imagination, nor was the espionage of the Rosenbergs that turned American atomic secrets over to Stalin, or the espionage networks to which Michael Straight, once editor of the New Republic, belatedly admitted being part of.

Whoever said that overnight is a lifetime in politics knew what he was talking about. Just 6 months ago, the big question was how Hillary and Giuliani would do against each other in this year's presidential elections.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Lonely Conservatives?
Subject: Lonely ?
Peter J. Wirs, "The Maytag Repairman" of TownHall.

Your chosen title will be an instant turnoff to many dissatisfied customers.

"Uniting McCain and Conservatives", will never happen until we are all on the wrong side of the daisies, looking up.

Try running conservatives for a while, then you won't need to try uniting. We will do that for you.

I will try the site you mention if I can access it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From
Uniting McCain and Conservatives: Here's How We're Going to Do It
By Peter J. Wirs
So, here’s what we are going to do. Go to

http://www.GOPonDemand.com.

Click the GRIPE page and specifically elaborate

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gripe site...
OK, the link worked.

By the way, this is about the lousiest format I've seen yet.

Try black letters on white background, and larger font.

That is, if we curmudgeons are allowed on the site.

Love "Random Thoughts"
Your column is always a MUST read for me.
5 stars, again.

Wonderful, just Wonderful!!
"If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated."


Just What We Need....
in an election year with so much to bring us fear, anger, and uncertainty. Your column brings us smiles, widom, and definitely politically incorrect conclusions.
Fabulous!

Love your random thoughts!
If Conservatives don't get out the vote on Election day we will be doomed to repeat 2006. (How has the last two years been going for Congress? Enough said.)

I hope everyone wakes up before November.

Last two years?
Well, as far as I can tell, Congress has done absolutely nothing since 2006. I can't see a down side to that.

Yes we should hail Bob Barr running
because this will increase the turnout which in some cases will increase votes for conservative congressmen.

I can't bear it...
If Mrs. Clinton's actions are designed to establish her starting blocks for 2012 ("I'll be back"), the image of The Terminator transmogrifying into a dumpy older woman with dyed hair and bone-deep hostility is stuff of children's bad dreams.

How True!
The great Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that a good catchword could stop people from thinking for 50 years. The big catchword this election year is "change"-- and it has already stopped many people's thinking in its tracks.

Absolutely on the button! If I hear "change" one more time,I am going to vomit1


Go, Tommy, go!
Thomas Sowell for President!!! With his vast knowledge, strong, charismatic personality and his immense thinking, speaking and debating skills, he could easily defeat Obama and become the finest president we have ever had. Dr. Ron Paul could be his perfect vice presidential running mate. What a great team to lead our nation into a marvelous resurgence of manly integrity, constitutional government and sound Austrian economics.


macro-polatics
Your over veiw is always refreshing.
Thank you, Tim

The wisdom of Sowell
Thomas Sowell has in one article brought forth much reasoning on many subjects giving much wisdom in the brevity of words.
1. How uncivil we have become as a society
2. How little our scientific world's inventive fortitude has little impact due to the corruptness of Government
3. That this election on 2008 has huge consequences in depending on who wins.
4. How at times our differences overshadow our similarities to a fault.
5. How we have virtually given up of liberty and freedom for the sake of being one of the crowd (politically correct)
6. How so many people will follow any sound that offers "change" without regard to what that change really leads to.
7. How the far left in politics who leads that dance have no accountability personally for being wrong
8. how Obama is not hiding his deception, but is covering it up his hidden agenda by being openly deceptive otherwise.
9. How words define one day, but in the blink of an eye mean something else, yet can be still the same. Santa Claus to the children is as is Government to an adult.
10. Hillary is running for the 2012 presidential race now. (I disagree with this one. Hillary knows the rules of electoral college)
11. How the FDA has become dictator rather then advisor.
12. How we have come to think of it as 'War on Terror' when in reality it is 'Terror at War' with us.
13. Obama would have been much better talking his bowling game then actually doing or in essence, can his talk be better then his game?
14. The illusion of the abuse of McCarthyism has made the American embrace communism unintentionally and the doom that it will bring coming without a wake up call.
15. In politics, one day can change the entire direction of it's reality, so in essence, it is not too late for the light of wisdom to dawn forth.
***
Thomas Sowell is one of the wisest men alive today. We should listen to him.

Thank You For The Laugh !
Very few posts make me laugh out loud.
Thank you, Sir or Madam ( OK or Ms.)

Dr. Druhl
Location: MA


"I can't bear it...
If Mrs. Clinton's actions are designed to establish her starting blocks for 2012 ("I'll be back"), the image of The Terminator transmogrifying into a dumpy older woman with dyed hair and bone-deep hostility is stuff of children's bad dreams."



Did you omit the 'riding of the broom' on purpose?

Sounds like Shakespeare's version of 'Ride of The Valkyries', and the Number 1 witch in MacBeth.

Can you imagine that 'Nam era film of "Apocalypse Now", hear the music, and watch the Queen *itch soaring in on her broom?

And, instead of Napalm, you smell Brimstone?

Yeah, she brought billy with her.


RgeorgeDunn
So true. Dr. Sowell is a prophet who has an absolute genius for summarizing concepts in a few, crisp words. Would that we would be so fortunate that he would choose to run for elected office.

Belief

Dr Sowell, the conservatives will awaken when they believe what they hear. When Congress actually shows there is a Republican Party left to vote for.

The Farm Bill and the Military Bill show America that there is not in fact a Party left to support.

They just aren't getting it. The "except for Me" mentality is eroding the ground John McCain stands upon.

Catchwords are in. Thinking is out.
I hope this article brings thinkers to the forefront and people don't simply say, "I love you, Sowell!"

For that would be ashame.

I've been so fed up with non-thinkers
that I named my store Whoa! Nellie!

Its hospitable welcome sign greets patrons with, "This is a store to delight you. For it thinks for you. You must excavate it."

Nellie
Good morning. Dr. Sowell has established his bona fides by a long career of predictig what will happen and being proved correct. The oncoming election, and the following hard times no matter which dolt is elected, will demonstrate that Sowell's simple, reality grounded principles work as surely as gravity. Some of these principles, ignored or denied as being politically incorrect are: Men and women are different. Actions that are rewarded will increase, actions that are punished or taxed will decrease. People will do what they consider to be best for them. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Priorities are important, some things are more important than others, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. Govt can not give anything it does not take first. Conservatives believe these things and Dr. Sowell gives clear, thoughtful expression of them. As for thinking, your post is not clear. Whom do you wish to inspire to begin thinking?

Santa Claus
Even when I was a child who believed in Santa, I knew that Santa and the Sears Wish Book had no connection whatever. That is, although I knew Santa would not forget me, he was not going to bring me what was in the Wish Book.

Today at Christmas we are barraged by people demanding that we, who are already forced to feed, clothe and educate children that are not ours, provide those same children with everything in the Wish Book, new and unwrapped, lest the world believe we are not only selfish but Racist.

Today there is a Santa Claus, and he comes to our house and takes things away from us and hands them to others, at gunpoint.

Ho ho ho

Parasites


AudiR10 - The Federal Government should be restricted by enumerated powers.

The is the path paved with good intentions however half way down there we are realizing our destination.

Sowellian thought
Thank you, Doctor Sowell, for another lesson.

Oh, great!
We get to put up with Hillary's broom idling for the next four years.

Pass more idling laws...

#18 Savage99 Thinking requires
just that. Inspiration? Did Dr. Sowell inspire my response? What are you saying, sir?

That I'm not respecting him? In principle, I mostly agree. So why do you choose to target me/my style, I wonder?

Have you inspired me?






Doc
Is your nurse still coming twice a week?You sound like a "Lunatic".Trying to derail Mr. Obama with this diatribe is sad.I could not believe, that you discounted the reason for going into Iraq,with a "Whatever the Reason".You and by now,everyone with a brain knows, that we went into Iraq,to save our economy.If Saddam had been allowed to continue his campaign against the "Dollars",we would be Toast.I know, you are not that "Dumb",Doc!!!Or is it Dementia setting in?

Nellie

My guess is that Savage99's concern is with the vagueness of your comments. I don't pretend to possess any better than average IQ, but I'm also at a complete loss as to what point(s) your are making.

Wise Guy!
Again, how I wish someone with the wisdom of Dr. Sowel would be running for president instead of the field of politically correct dimwits presently in the race.

On the other hand, Nellie

At least you're not completely disconnnected, such as our friend "killer".

If only it was you Dr. Sowell, instead..
...of McCain or Obama!

You would win in a LANDSLIDE!!!

And I would be one happy voter.

"Sowellian"
Now there's a term that has all kinds of good implications-I love it! :)

At least Santa Claus doesn't steal from the productive to buy votes from the unproductive. Give him that much! ;)

Great column, as usual!

Killer?
What an idjit.

Thojmas Sowell
I Love your Random Thoughts. It is always one of my favorite columns on TH. Thanks for another great excursion into the absurd times we enjoy here. May favorite quip from your column:

If Barack Obama had given a speech on bowling, it might well have been brilliant and inspiring. But instead he actually tried bowling and threw a gutter ball. The contrast between talking and doing could not have been better illustrated.

Cordial Invitation
to all to visit my blog. If you enjoy humor, you may find my latest parodies will give you a smile. I am an equal-opportunity parodist. I skewer both the Left and the Right, Obama, Hillary and McCain, as well as Congress, the tax-man etc.... Hope to see you all there!

http://mrspaddy.blogtownhall.com/default.aspx

The wonders of Sowell
Dr. Sowell has to be one of today's greatest thinkers as well as communicators. What he puts down on paper is without a doubt well thought out and is presented in simple terms that make it easy to understand.

He should be required reading in school, but as long as the left runs our education system, that will never happen.

Basic Economics
I just finished Sowell's book "Basic Economics." Every American should read this book. I learned more about American economics in the first 50 pages than I ever learned in school. It's outstanding!

Keep Shing your light Dr. Sowell
Dr. Sowell wrote: "Over the years, slowly but surely, we have painted ourselves into a corner on a whole range of issues, where we can no longer say or do what makes the most sense to us, but only what is considered to be politically correct."
================================================

Americans have been duped by the "Politically Correct" thought police.

Liberals champion free speech for NAMBLA and the mult-billion dollar pornography industry that brutalizes women and children and treats women as sub-human objects.

Liberals champion free speech for race baiters and racist bottom feeders like Jackson, Sharpton, Mentor Wright and Farrakhan but want to charge those who oppose 'legalized racism' with hate speech crimes.

Para hablar en Espanol, Oprime el numero uno

Press 2 for English

wsbowles
Try reading his book Applied Economics. It is an excellent follow-up to the one you just read.

My Random Questions...
Can anyone tell me why liberals do not want to drill for oil here in the USA? Also why the public is not clamoring for more drilling? Have we all been duped by algore?

Killer
Just shut up!!!

oil drilling
It is not only liberals that don't want us to drill for oil.There are alot of rinos,including Arnold swartzenegger and Jeb Bush ,Susan Collins Oldlympia Snow.

Congradulations Dr Sowell
Once again you have taken purportedly complex situations and explained them in simple enough detail for all but the most politically correctly challenged people to understand.

Killer and the dementia parade
The DNC will hold their 'demented' parade this summer in August led by Killer.

Farrakhan and Dennis will lead the 'tin foil' hats that visit with aliens - they will hold a flashlight in each hand shining them on their hats singing "This Foil Hat of Mine, I like to make it shine".

These represent the intellectuals of the DNC and make them proud.

The gay clowns will follow resplendent in their costumes along with the 'sadists' and their
'masochistic' followers complete with dog collars and chains that will cause a hush in the crowds when they realize that they are in the prescence of DNC nobility.

Obama will speak of prophetic visions of hope and change while Obama-ites begin to faint all over the building with followers experiencing 'leg shivers' and involuntary 'orgasms'. Orgasm wipes will be handed out by the thousands while they chant "Yes We Can" and scream I love you Obama.

Tickets are going fast - get yours today!

Para hablar en Espanol, Oprime el numero uno
Press 2 for English

NOTE: Mentor Wright will lead a section in the audience screaming "God Damn America" in seven different languages.

SaulSaul the answer is simple
The greens would have us revert to the 11th century. I suppose one good aspect of that would be we would be on a par with Islam.

I started working
at a bowling alley at 14. Lied about my age. They didn't care as long as my parents were ok with it. I threw a 279 game as a high school senior, hung a ten pin in the ninth frame, and helped my residence hall team take the all university title from the Sigma Nus who had held it for years. Picked up the 6,7,10 split twice during the finals. I have probably only bowled about 10 games total in the last 20 years. I prefer golf. The last one was a 210 however. I wonder if Obama can play any sport well? What was he doing in high school?


Thomas Sowell -- a breath of fresh air!
As always your have the insight to issues that should be read by all THINKING Americans. Thank you and keep your commentaries coming!

Says it all!
"It would be far better to exchange the corrupt hacks in Congress for some winos from the Bowery. Such a transition should open a new bright era for America."

I would think random people selected from the phone book would be a bit better...but the idea is the same. This country and all of us are being sold down the river a bit at a time by all the corruption in all of government.

Like I keep saying, we are headed for a Revolution. The only thing we don't know is when...

nellie and Obama
"Islam can be compatible with the modern world. It can be a partner with the Christian & Jewish & Hindu & Buddhist faiths in trying to create a better world." Barak Obama 2008 Democratic Compassion Forum at Messiah College Apr 13, 2008

compatible = capable of existing together in harmony.
Islam is a 700 AD religion and has NO rights for women.

partner = to join as a partner.
Islam and the Jewish religion partners?
================================================

Of all the things Obama has said this is by far the dumbest.

Obama thinks Hamas and Iran can become partners with America and Israel?

Is this what he is talking about negotiating with the madman from Iran who has stated in no uncertain terms that America and Israel will be destroyed im Ahminajeads lifetime?

Sell this in your store nellie?

Mick answer soon
Just need the spark

The Green Paragraph!
Another stellar random thoughts, hope you do another Barbarian's book to include these new thoughts.
Green is the new liberal think it's their inimitable way of combining environmental issues and "huge" Govermment. You may notice I didn't say "big" Government, liberals tend to over do everything, thus their expectations are "huge".
They're expecting that huge Government we give the entire ninth ward in New Orleans huge gratuities for living below sea level, because, well it's the birthplace of Jazz and those people down there are really nice people, especially the politicians, so nice that if you try to get a beer out of the freezer or some meat for barbeque you might just hit the lotto.

Brand New Parody
my blog! Based on Dumbo's Happy Roustabout song.

saulsaul
check out the patriot post for some of their T-shirts etc. I have one that has a polar bear wearing a hard hat, pointing to an oil derrick in Alaska and saying "I'd tap that!"

It is great fun to wear, especially here in California!

FDA Approval of Anything
A popular misconception is that the FDA has the power to approve a given drug or device for sale. While it is true that a "drug" or a "medical device" can not be sold without FDA intervention in the "Approval Process", the FDA has NEVER approved a "drug" or a "Medical Device" for sale in the United States. What the FDA really says in it's "Approval Notification" is that you are free to market the "drug" or "Medical Device" but that you, the manufacturer, are subject to possible mis-branding should the "drug" or "Medical Device" cause a "problem" or lead to a "problem" NOT INDICATED in the "Warnings and Precautions" statement included with the "drug" or "Medical Device". The end result of this "so-called-approval-process" is that the FDA has never approved anything "that has caused us harm"...To the contrary, it has also not approved anything that was beneficial...

RESTRICTIONS
Post #20 The Federal Government should be restricted by enumerated powers.
The 10th amendment ensures just that, the problem being the federal government ignores it.
Here's my random thought- if Newt Gingrich ran for POTUS and selected Bobby Jindal as his Veep, would he win 55 of the 57 states obama has been to?

Some Random Thoughts

I love the title of the column, Random Thoughts, so I will add my Random Thoughts, concerning thoughts already mentioned by Dr. Sowell. Well, plus one.

On February 15, 1933, a bricklayer, Giuseppe Zangara, from Ferruzzano, Italy attempted to assassinate President-elect Roosevelt, in Miami, Florida. He killed the mayor of Chicago, Anton J. Cermak, instead, and Zangara was executed a month later, March 20, 1933. The death penalty was swift and effective. Zangara never killed again!

If you think the death penalty doesn’t work, next time the doctor prescribes medicine for a serious illness, don’t take it, just put it on a shelf. Occasionally look in the bottle, shake it once in a while, and after 15 years of suffering, take the medicine. Then you’ll say, “That medicine didn’t help.” Both medicine and the death penalty work best when used immediately, not 15 years after the fact.

In the early 1950s I was a secret spy for the FBI, looking for members of the Rosenberg Spy ring. All my reports said, “Nothing to report.”

I once bowled 10 strikes in a row. The problem was, it was from the middle of game 1 and the middle of game 2. But I was proud.

Mrs Paddy, you like verse. At

http://www.travel-tidbits.com/tidbits/002865.shtml

you will find a 1931 European Travel Journal, written completely in verse. An amazing document.



Right on Retired Geek!
You are on a roll today, my friend.

I ran across Killer yesterday. When asked to review history and the success rate for reasoning or negotiating with enemies intent upon your destruction, the response I got was to the effect that "mankind has evolved".

Looks like just another Utopian idealist with child-like Obasmic fantasies.

Keep up the good work....the liberal parade post was pretty creative....

I remain,

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

Random Thoughts
Is there a book of these? I just love them.
It is encouraging to see that there are still people out there with intelligence and common sense.
Keep up the good work Sir and we shall keep reading.

One thought: Do you see some similarities between Bill & Hillary and Barak & Michelle, Just asking?

Oil drilling
Jax33:

Add McCain to the list of opponents of drilling. He not only opposed drilling in ANWR, but he likened it to drilling in the Grand Canyon.

Question
Does it get any better than Dr. Sowell's Random Thoughts.

Dr. Sowell
I have a random thought about the liberal strategy. If you already have the leftists (including partners, MSM, celebrities, minorities, unions, gays, women's lib,academia) why not move to the center to completely fool the middle class conservative independents? They've fooled blacks and Jews for decades and now they've gotten Christians to fear George Bush and (if they listen to Oblaba) McCain more than Ruth Bader Ginsberg who would tear down every cross in America if she could.

I disagree with Dr. Sowell
on one point. It's rare that I disagree with him on anything.

The "war on terror" is more than just an "unfortunate" choice of words. It is a deliberately deceptive, politically correct choice of words that shields the true enemy. After Pearl Harbor, we didn't declare a "war on sneak attacks by carrier-based air forces."

The true enemy is often described as "radical Islam" or "fundamentalist Islam."

I think that the best description of the enemy is "traditional Islam."

There may be some "moderate" Muslims, but they don't seem to have much support in the Koran or the historical practices of Islam.


Truer words never spoken
"It would be hard to think of a more ridiculous way to make decisions than to transfer those decisions to third parties who pay no price for being wrong. Yet that is what at least half of the bright ideas of the political left amount to."

Go Thomas! Go Thomas!


Words That Work
If we were all to heed Thomas Sowell's words our society would work so well--that's SOWELLIAN for sure!


Dr. Sowell's Brain
Jeremiah Wright's assertion that the African American brain learns differently makes me wish that Dr. Sowell could bequeath on us all the wisdom he has so succinctly illustrated in this article.

GG-AZ
You might find this article interesting. I got the link from American Congress for Truth.

Kafir Dreams

By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | 5/7/2008

OK lefty trolls!
Let's have all your insulting "Uncle Tom" comments!!

Lisa: Enumerated Powers
In case you didn't know, the Founders' idea of enumerated powers went out the window with the Supremes' decision in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803), which you may read at http://supreme.justia.com/us/5/137/case.html.
No lesser a light than Thomas Jefferson said that if the 10th Amendment meant what the Marbury majority said it meant, the states would have NEVER ratified the constitution.
The 10th Amendment is de facto dead. All the politicians and judges have been lying about, and denying, that for decades, while the fascistic neo-feudalist "globalists" smile and fill their pockets with stolen loot.
Just a little tidbit of history to pass along to any of your friends who might be interested. :-)

Obama's Bowling
Continuing the analogy--looks like Barack has coordination and athleticism but not much experience. Might we expect "gutter balls" in foreign and domestic policy that would make Jimmy Carter's Presidency seem relatively effective? How dangerous can it get when one's enemies feel that their actions will not be met with strength, perseverence, and the will to win?

Here's another one for you
"To criticize popular taste is to invite the charge of elitism, and to defend distinctions of value - between the virtuous and the vicious, the beautiful and the ugly, the sacred and the profane, the true and the false - is to offend against the only value-judgement that is widely accepted, the judgement that judgements are wrong."
Roger Scruton

Food & Drug Administration Comparison
Mr. Sowell,

I thought that you were headed in a different direction when I began reading your paragraph, "Even drugs which have been used safely for years in Europe or elsewhere cannot be sold in the United States without the approval of the Food and Drug Administration--."

I thought you might have added instead, something to the effect, "liberals made sure of that. But a European opinion is regarded as something we can't afford not to immediately implement in the USA for fear of appearing to other nations as backward thinking."

PapaStowe

dr sowells problem
the man is a genius with the rare ability to reduce his points tp such clarity they are instantly understandable.

But the left has pegged him a traitor to the cause because unlike their other black puppets he doesn't reside on the dems plantation of entitlement and doesn't mouth the same chants as those voiced by the race hustlers.

thank goodness we still have voices like dr sowell to bring sanity to any discussion

"Politically correct" phrase
Many of you are probably too young to know that this phrase was invented only about 10 years ago, probably by a conservative think tank.

The is a lily-livered, cowardly phrase. Rather than deal with sincerity and integrity about an issue, conservatives sarcastically dismiss the issue with the term "politically correct," so that they don't have to do the tough work of articulating their position on issues.

PL
Example, por favor?

wonder if:
I wonder does Dr. Sowell; fine man-- ever peruses the threads following his random thoughts?

He's probably too busy. Maybe somebody in his immediate family reads them.

You know if we email his addy; we are likely one email in 5,000. Fat chance he'll actually see it.

Thomas-! Let us know if you're looking at this --You might think of a code name to use; in which we might see-- THIS IS HE ~~~~~~~~~~~~~Yeah!

Proud Liberal
How's this for you:
Liberals are liars who continually insert themselves into my personal life trying to control what I eat, what I drive, what I wear, how I light my house, what I buy, where I work, and what I can say. And I'm tired of it!

Clear and Sincere enough for you?

Proud Liberal
Which PC issue are you so proud to have dealt with?
This?
http://www.christmasghost.com/archives/2006/01/washington_s tat_1.html

Or this?
http://www.santorumblog.com/index.php/2006/10/06/demand-tha t-democrats-condemn-the-aclu-and-nambla/

Or this?
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\\Specia lReports\\archive\\200508\\SPE20050825a.html

This is a good example of Liberal problem solving.
HIDE IT BEHIND EUPHEMISM!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29 612

Liberals hide their heads and refuse to even look at real problems.
They invent ficticious problems to fantasize solutions for.
Agrarian Global Warming is a perfect example.

Proud Liberal
Since I tend to see most modern "liberal" policy as prone to hurtful results, I'm at a loss to see how anyone who's not a sociopath could be proud of it.

[Note that I said "modern" liberal policy, which has little to do with the classical liberalism of, say, a Thomas Jefferson. Indeed, it has little connection to the 20th century liberalism of an Adlai Stevenson or a JFK.]

Modern liberalism is about the imposition of a police state so that the society's more thuggish elements can take the property and the bank accounts of their more productive neighbors.

As I said, only a sociopath would be proud to take such a Stalinist stance.

Redhead
Ditto and more than tired of it

among the thoughts
I marvel at seeing two random thoughts here; Dr. Sowell ought to contemplate.

Opening paragraph, his recall of our Holy Father in his Popemobile; when he visited here. Without much comment except for the bullet-proof glass.

Then shortly he mentions Oliver Wendell Holmes, whom he calls the Great Supreme Ct Justice.

Justice Holmes was great. He also was a virulent anti-Catholic who would've hated the Pope. Well; other great men have hated popes. But Dr Sowell may not know Oliver Wendell Homes seemingly saw no scandal in government sterilization of "inferior human beings." I saw this in a blogsite called Subway Canaries. Dr. Sowell should search and check it out.


Proud liberal
I think it would be far more accurate to say that the libbys dismiss clear conservative thinking as "living in the dark ages", "angry white male" or, in Dr. Sowell's case, "Uncle Tom."

Fred, PA
I'd suggest, if you want to be taken seriously, that you need to learn to think more specifically.

For example, give me specific information on these "thuggish elements" and specifically how they either have or might possibly take over the bank accounts of the more productive people.

You might also want to be specific about how these people become more productive than others.

As it stands now, your post is purely generalized fantasy.

PMcQB
I have never called Sowell Uncle Tom. But I have referred Town Hall readers to page 113 in his Vision of the Anointed. There you will find a most shameful declaration.

What Sowell says, (I'm paraphrasing) in that conservatives care nothing for consequences but everything for processes. If the processes are working the way Sowell thinks they should then the consequences are irrelevant to the conservative mind.

Now, Sowell does think that the processes, i.e., the free market and democracy, will produce the best possible results. But, he also makes a big point of saying that trade-offs cannot be avoided and, if you read carefully, he says that the people with the economic and social power are the ones who will determine what the trade-offs will be, i.e., who wins and who loses in the processes. In essence, he believes that the flaws in the processes are what determine society's winners and losers.

Shameful?
And how is that bad? Isn't that consistent with conservative thought? Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome. Liberals, on the other hand, tend to clamor for equal outcome, regardless of what the individual has put into the process. "Fair" is in the eye of the beholder.

MyOpine
As I said in my just published post, both Sowell and I agree that trade-offs are inevitable, a fact of life.

Now, the one PC debate which I have some feeling for is the one about one group of people on a college campus publicly denigrating
another group of people.

Conservatives think that denigrative speech is protected speech, and on an emotional note, that the people being denigrated should "just get over it, show some cojones."

My view is that this is an area where a trade-off cannot but help be made and I come down on the side of stuffing the free speach of the denigrators, for the following reason.

College can be one of the biggest deals of a persons life. It may shape a person's life for another 40-50 years, so it is a very big deal.

It's hard enough to do well in college when there are no people publicly denigrating you. It can be very upsetting to be denigrated and can easily affect your ability to concentrate on your studies. This can certainly impact the next 40-50 years of a person's life.

I say this is very serious. And the trade-off between the momentary verbal masterbation of the denigrators and it's effects on the next 40-50 years of a person's life is easy to call.

College
I don't know what college to go (went) to, but most colleges I know are havens of PC. Anyone who "denigrates" - or says something that is PERCEIVED as denigrating to - someone in a group that falls under the golden parachute is severely taken to task. Despite holding different beliefs, I don't agree with saying hurtful and nasty things to people. But too often the "hate speech" is defined by the "victim". And there are too many out there looking for a reason to be offended. Disagreement does not equal hate.

Proud Liberal
Not to put too fine a point on it, but 'political correctness' is a lot older than 10. In fact, a parody of the prevailing winds to lampoon the notion of 'political correctness' was published in 1994 in the form of Politically Correct Bedtime Stories.

In point of fact, political correctness is a way to marginalize speaking anything other than euphemistic platititudes lest someone be offended by hearing the truth. It does more to diminish honest discussion and suppress open exchange of ideas than anything else our society has embraced.

Political Correctness will be the death of us all.

I think the original impetus of this recent wave of political correctness can be laid at the feet of the Feminist Movement where we could no longer use terms like Mankind, Chairman, Postman etc., lest we not be inclusive of women.

Arguing semantics might be a way to draw attention to an issue, but the underlying result is to eliminate debate by making everyone walk on eggs.

correction...
First line should read: I don't know what college YOU go(went) to...sorry.

Off topic, but...
if I eat this ham sandwich I am looking at, does it mean I am murdering polar bears?

...just wondering...somebody help me understand what in the h... is going on....please...

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

PMcQB
You're simply repeating propaganda which you have heard conservatives say, when you say "equality of opportunity" rather than "equality of outcome."

Jefferson said something about equality in the Declaration. Then politicians have argued since then about exactly what "being created equal" by our Creator really means.

A famous debate between two conservatives took place, in articles, in the 1960s. One of them argued that equality is the foundation of America, i.e., the very foundational principle. And that our equality consists in that aspect of our souls which is superior to animals. The other conservative said that since equality was never mentioned in the Constitution that the Founders didn't consider it to even be a goal for our country. Then Willmoore Kendall described 14 different possible meanings of equality. Another conservative said that our equality consists of our "moral faculty" (Bill Bennett).

The ultimate question here is whether God specifically determines the consequences for each individual or whether there is caprice in the universe.That's the long argument.

Where do I rate...
on His Obamaship's greeny scale if I drive a Corvette really fast and spend my weekends with the AC on full blast with the patio door stnading open while grilling big hunks of meat with really smoky charcoal?

I still get to do this stuff after His Obamaship takes office, right?

...just wondering, ya know?

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

Everyone
Stop by the Abbey, and check out the TOP 10 LIBERALS OF THE TWENTIETH CENTURY list I just posted.

Click on my name and let me know what you think.

See y'all there!

For the blogger who thinks
censored speech on college campuses is a good thing because it *hurt* his/her feelings and interferred with studying--I can give you exact nitwit examples of liberal college *thinking* that is actually entirely birdbrained:

On the subject of Ward Churchill, now deposed head of an ethnic studies program, who was denied native Indian affiliation by every tribe in America: my lib. colleague said, "But he looks Indian!" (I think she meant ugly. That was surely not PC.)

On the subject of Don Imus: days of giggly elation thinking a cons. talk radio host had been eliminated on the basis of a racist remark.
The PC truth: Imus was NEVER a cons. Actually, he supported Kerry and had Sen. Dodd of CT on the old show repeaedly. (The idiot PC'ers don't know what a cons. is that they hate so much.)

Smoking is the great sin of the day. Sexual promiscuity and sexually incurable disease are terrific, but don't get caught smoking. My entire department wastes hours out in the parking lots smoking like chimneys. I haven't brought myself to remind them that smoking is so non-PC.

Colleges should never be PC, any way. If someone is going to learn to think, practicing PC is the last way rational thought would be developed.

Political correctness
Conservatives actually have no trouble supporting and trying to implement PC; they just do it from the Right and not the Left. The Wikipedia entry for "political correctness" is reasonably thorough and accurate, noting that the PC impulse can be found in a number of areas. The simplest way to understand PC is to think in terms of statements of any orthodoxy whatsoever. Thus, within any form of religion, there are things that cannot be said, or which are considered offensive.

Another way to understand PC is to note that it is a development of what used to be regarded as polite speech. When some of us (and certainly not everyone had this experience, obviously) were taught by our parents not to use derogatory terms for various racial or ethnic or religious groups, we were being conditioned into PC. When we hold our tongues, rather than indulge in the temptation to call somebody a dity, cheating (fill in the ethnic blank) SOB, we are exemplifying PC. When we call people what they prefer to be called, we are exemplifying PC.

I'm generally a supporter of PC--but conservaties reject PC because they would like to be able to use any derogatory word that they like, in any setting, to score points in ideological warfare. Except when the PC is conservative.

goodbye pl
Using others' words does not make them incorrect, and the fact that you disagree does not make them propoganda.

I must return to work.

I couldn't agree more...than to disagree with you.

thuggish elements
two that come to mind proud are eminent domain and taxes.

Mrs. Paddy
Well put, though confusing me as I read it. Two things must be distinguished. One is the belief or opinion or attitude which is stated by liberal professors or liberal media. The second thing is the labeling by conservatives of the opinion, attitude or belief as "Politically Correct."

I see this labeling within an historical context. Go back to the period where liberalism was dominant and almost unchallenged. There arose a group of people and think tanks whose mission was to dislodge liberalism and make conservatism the dominant philosophy. They devised many opportunities to try and accomplish their aim and they were predominantly verbal: redefining various words and ideas; coming up with short phrases; endless repeating in print and in congress their version of reality, etc. The label "politically correct" is a part of this historical endeavor. It's purpose is to undercut liberal dogma, not by reasoned argument but by emotional content. "Politically Correct" is said in a scathing, emotionally laden context. It is meant to win an emotional argument not a rational argument.

Proud Liberal
I have not read Vision of the Annointed, but I have read a number of Sowell's columns over the years and, I think you have likely mischaracterized his views.

Typically free marketeers state, as you paraphrase, that "the free market and democracy, will produce the best possible results." More specifically we assert that by "best possible" we mean most likely to produce greater wealth and future opportunity for the most participants. Further we would state that free markets correlate highly with free societies and tend to bolster one another. It is not that the consequences are irrelevant, but that the success or failure of any specific participants is not sufficient justification to restrict market forces, because of the wide-spread decrease in prosperity and freedom that generally accompanies government imposed market restrictions.

more below

George Washington
If you continue to act in that manner after the "anointed one" is elected you will be joining Nathan Hale

Hey Hagar!
...but what if I really, really, like doing this stuff and it makes me happy?

...won't that count for something?

I mean, I got nothing against polar bears...you know?

George Washington

LazyKingDave
The iconic ripost to the free market is the example of Jackie Robinson and demonstrates a few of the conflicting "goods" at play.

The owners of baseball teams ought to be able to do what they want with their property without government interference.

One of the reasons they didn't want Negro baseball players on their teams is that they thought they would lose money, since white patrons would choose not to attend games if they were forced to sit next to Negroes who also would start attending games.

This makes sense. It would be wrong to force baseball team owners to lose money.

But then there is the conservative principle of "just deserts" and of "meritocracy." i.e,. the best people should be hired for a job, whatever their skin color.

Also the conservative principle of "organic social change," i.e., wait for a long period of time and blacks will become integrated into society as society changes over a long period.

To cut to the quick: "The Market," in the guise of one Christian broke the barrier to Negro baseball players, but it wouldn't have happened without the second world war exposing the racism of the United States to where it could no longer be denied. It was social force, not market force that accomplished the deed.

Vote for President?
Would T.S. recommend I buy Lottery Tickets? Am I supposed to believe that my vote can swing the election. I stopped voting to elect presidents in 1968, and started voting to express my opinion. I don’t see how my vote for Harry Browne, instead of Bob Dole, was wasted.

My dear Proud Liberal...
You are correct in that political dogma is hardly a recent invention and the use of "catch phrases", etcetera has been used by virtually all political and social groups "sell" ideas in the public marketplace.

The concept of "political correctness" is quite a different animal and is of recent origin.

In short, the essence of PC is to prohibit the expression of opinion by labeling anyone expressing opinions to the contrary as socially and politically unnacceptable.

PC purports to label certain positions as absolutely incorrect, with no further debate allowed.

This is not the same thing as the mere chants of catch phrase back and forth by all parties in attempts to win adherents.

Your Most Obedient Servant,

George Washington

P.S. Even though I disagree with you, I like your "Proud" handle...

GW you only think
you are happy doing those anti social activities. Individualism is a horror to be eliminated. You must conform to the dictates of the Messiah

What am I to do?
I can't stand arugula and asparagas and chicks like the 'Vette a whole lot better than my four cylinder pickup.

I mean, like, you know, I'm just saying...

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

P.S. Whoops...here we talking about political correctness and I used a bad word...of course I meant ladies, not "chicks".

GW

Proud Liberal
(I'm Just back from lunch)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Your reply to my post failed to mention anything contained in my post and went off on a wild VERBAL MASTURBATION about restricting speech on college campus.
The Communist Left EXCLUSIVELY restrict speech on college campus.

Conservatives can always tell what you Communists are doing by what you LIE and accuse Conservatives of doing.

You still refuse to tell me why you are so proud to be a "Liberal".

This make you proud?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29 612

I bet you are proud of this!
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archiv e/200710/CUL20071008a.html

Proud of this?
http://www.urbanconservative.com/2007/02/24/what-does-the-a clu-nambla-and-child-porn-have-in-common/

There must be something you are proud of?
Or are you really disgusted and ashamed of everything about "Liberals"?

Proud Liberal
Continued: you write:
"But, he also makes a big point of saying that [1]trade-offs cannot be avoided and, if you read carefully, he says that [2]the people with the economic and social power are the ones who will determine what the trade-offs will be, [3]i.e., who wins and who loses in the processes. In essence, [4]he believes that the flaws in the processes are what determine society's winners and losers."

While any of the above four assertions above may be true, they do not follow from one another. Sowell or Walter Williams would do this better, but "trade offs" must be understood in terms of scarcity -- all goods (i.e. things/situations people want) are limited in supply, especially when they must be produced by people (i.e. pretty much everything).

"Trade offs" are made when individuals decide to produce something and not produce something else, or to exchange for one thing and not for another. Wealth tends to increase one's access to willing exchangers and ability to compete effectively with other consumers for the same goods (i.e purchasing power), as you suggest in assertion [2]. I would not suggest that those who have fewer market choices and less purchasing power are "losers", your assertion [3]. Instead, I would argue that, in a truly free market, all exchanges are inherently fair and there are no "winners" or "losers" -- each party wins, trading something of lesser value for something of greater value. And all participants, no matter how wealthy, face scarcity of resources and make choices about what and under what terms they will exchange.

more

Proud Liberal
Continued

Most importantly though, assertion [4] suggests that these are "flaws in the system." Quite the contrary -- the incentive to increase wealth drives the system. Why would we want to break this eminently fair system, by forcing individuals to exchange for goods they do not want or forcing them to relinquish wealth they have fairly accumulated to someone who didn't work hard/smart enough? Before you say it -- conservatives generally favor extending charity to those who are not capable of earning (producing valuable goods to trade to others -- which is not to say that they have no value, but that their fellow man will not trade valuable goods for what they may produce).

PL
“Political correctness” originally came from the old commie followers of Mao in the 1960s. Conservatives adopted it a few years later to describe the commie-like attitude the U.S. leftists had towards their policies and speech codes. Yes, it fits them well.

As for equal opportunity vs equality of outcome; equal opportunity actually came from the law that was passed in 1965 for the basis of the civil rights bill. The objective was to give everyone an “equal opportunity”. Equality of outcome came afterwards when the liberals, race baiters, and liberal judges began using numbers and quotas to establish prima-fascia evidence of discrimination. Thus, if an area had a 20% black population and a large company did not have a 20% black workforce, that was sufficient evidence to establish that “discrimination based on race was present”. If a grammar school started with 50% black students and only 10% graduated a few years down the road that was evidence that racial discrimination was present. The ways this was done and the examples are endless. The intent was equal opportunity but the practice was equal outcome. This was the work of the typical liberal. In the mind of the typical liberal EVERY difference was evidence of racial discrimination. It took several decades to get most of this stopped but some is still in existence today.

Yes, I am sure that you are proud of this insane behavior.

But Hagar....
...all of the people I hang aroung with seem to like doing this stuff too...

I mean, they don't seem to be faking it...

We can't all be wrong, can we?

I'm having a hard time imagining it being worth the whole get up and go to work thing if the payoff is a Prius and a lettuce sandwich, you know what I mean?

...I do get the bread for the lettuce sandwich, right?

...still confused....

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

GW no matter
how much you would like meat on that sandwich it is not allowed. Forget the Prius get a horse. Oh no you cant get a horse too much methane. On second thought stay home and use the horse meat on the sandwich. Oh crips now I got PITA after me! If you stay home you can go on the dole. My god (oops) now you are a liberal!

Who has the rulebook?
Who has the greenyworld rulebook, who put the rules in it, can I write in a few of my own, and if I don't like them, do I get to stop paying taxes?

...just wondering...

Your Obedient Servant,

George Washington

Proud Liberal
To respond to your Jackie Robinson example:

I would argue that Jim Crow laws are restrictions on the free market and ought never to have been imposed. They were government interventions to unfairly protect the purchasing power of some individuals from competion by members of a particular group. Free marketeers can oppose these types of restrictions without reference to race.

If MLB owners were free to hire black players, and they chose not to do so for whatever reasons, I think they were within their rights as exchangers.

I realize that the decision to hire Robinson was a principled one, but it surely wouldn't have been made if it did not also represent market opportunity. Time has clearly shown that any fears about loss of audience because of race mixing were unfounded -- probably mitigated by the superior product represented by having a larger talent pool from which to draw players -- though arguably only realized because of the exciting play and exemplary off-field behavior of Robinson, which probably calmed trepidations of white fans.

The market did its job quite well. Owners and players got wealthier, fans got what they wanted (exciting entertainment), though in a changed form -- and the society became a little freer. A government solution couldn't have worked out better -- and hasn't so far, as far as I can tell.

Thank you, Hagar...
for the enlightenment.

I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention, I heard a couple of things about some great hope and change stuff that was headed my way and, stupid me, I figured that meant a new pair of leather seat for the old "Vette" and maybe a bigger grill.

Geez, this stuff is starting to sound pretty serious...i mean, from what you're telling me, I guess I'm not supposed to be using electricity for my pool and hot tub either, right?

I don't know about this, Hagar...this Obama guy looks good on the tube and everything, and the hope and change thing sounds O.K, but...

...no 'Vette, no AC, no grilling big hunks of meat with charcoal, no swimming pool, and no hot tub...hell, them's fighting words, my friend...

...good thing I'm still managing to cling to my guns...might be nearing the time to march on town hall or something...

I mean, like, you know, I'm just sayin'...

Your Most Obedient Servant

George Washington

Proud Liberal's response to PMcQB
Proud Liberal, I must take issue with your profoundly inaccurate assessment of Conservative vs. Liberal focus;
you said that conservatives are concerned with 'processes' and liberals are concerned with 'outcomes'. Nothing could be further from the truth, if liberals were interested in outcomes, they would have doused the flame of socialism after the original Mayflower Compact, after the policies that prolonged the Great Depression, after the Great Society initiatives, after seeing communism fail the world over, but they haven't. Liberals clutch to failed ideas because Liberals focus on "good intentions" and the illusion that they haven't been allowed, as of yet, to do enough of whatever it is they think must be done to solve mankind's ills. Conservatives are outcome-based, evident in their adherence to what has always worked.
Understand this Proud Liberal, conservatives want everyone to start the race at the same time-those who have prepared and sacrificed for, taken the risks and used good judgment are rewarded for their efforts. Fairness.
Liberals on the other hand don't are SO concerned with the outcome that they don't want successful people to be ahead in the race, finish first or be compensated more than the last-placed finisher, liberals would require all people to be equally rewarded or equally miserable in spite of their efforts in the name of 'fairness'. This robs the free spirit of initiative and creativity that would otherwise be utilized to finish the race as best he/she can.

Political Correctness Stupidity
An Example of Political Correctness Stupidity

Foreign students of Arab ancestry take flight lessons. These students have no interest in learning how to land planes. Suspicion is aroused but will not be reported up the chain of command to the top because Political Correctness demands that no distinction can be made of students due to their ancestry. No one wishes to be called a Bigot by Proud Liberal and his Friends. Of course, by this reasoning Swedish grandmothers should draw the same scrutiny as Middle Eastern Men between the ages of 20 and 40. What a free gift to our enemies!

Proud Liberal
Sorry if my post was confusing to you. I think you are mistaken in your understanding of political correctness.

To say "You are stupid" is NOT politically correct

To say "You are mentally challenged" IS politically correct

(I am speaking in general, not specific to You, so don't be offended)

Sometimes PC language replaces common sense and decency (politeness, to use an archaic term). This is fairly benign.

However, when speaking out to condemn a behavior using explicit terms is labeled 'hate speech' as in (for example)

"She is a whore" NOT politically correct, but could be accurate.

Or "She is exercising her freedom of association" which IS PC, but certainly NOT accurate.

I haven't seen PC used as a label to limit debate. On the contrary, IMHO anyone who bends over to PC language is extremely limited in what they can say in a debate.

Back in the day, if someone made a smart-a#$ remark, they might get their nose punched. Now, we can't say it, if we DO say it, we can be sued for being 'hateful'

And nobody is willing to accept a punch in the nose for being a jerk because then the punch-er is up on charges for trying to give someone an attitude adjustment.

PC language is used to suppress free speech.

THE EVOLUTION OF SOCIALISM
CHANGE ETHICAL STANDARDS:

...1. From wealth is good to wealth is bad ...

...2. Environmentalism ie: Technology is bad ...

...3. Humans are bad for the environment: Global Warming

...4. Equality of opportunity to equality of outcome

...5. Western Culture is responsibility for all evil in the World

...6. All Cultures are equal: ie: Multi-culturalism


Science Classical Postmodernism
Liberalism
___________________________________________________
FROM: TO:

Metaphysics Natural Anti-realism
realism


Epistemology Reason & Relativism &
Experience Subjectivism

Ethics Individualism Collectivism

Politics & Liberal Socialism
Economics Capitalism

Human Nature Personal Socially
Autonomy Responsible

Psychology Personal Group identity
Responsibility & Victimhood

.....COLOSSUS ...

UnCiViL
You've been listening to conservative propaganda again and you said I said liberals are interested in outcomes, which I never mentioned. I just said that Sowell says that conservatives are interested in processes.

Yes, liberals are interested in outcomes. We choose - and as individuals we can choose whatever we please - to embrace the values of fairness and equality and justice and for us these are higher values than they are for conservatives. We don't roll over, throw our four legs in the air, grovel and say "The market made me do it," as conservatives do.

This conservative thing about everybody not being born with equal talents but everybody should start off the race at the same time, but the race should go to those who used the best judgment, worked hardest, etc. is just an illogical mess. Think about it.

The race often goes to a relative, nepotism; or to a crony, cronyism; sometimes goes to the best politician in the corporation, which is, of course, a value that one might embrace as good; sometimes goes to the meanest man on the block; sometimes goes to the tallest or the prettiest man or woman on the block; sometimes goes to the luckiest; sometimes goes to the best connected through oldline family;often goes to the most articulate.

The conservative idea of "just deserts" and "personal responsibility" were created as evasions of racism. By placing responsibility for outcomes on individuals conservatives could take a moral high road and deny that social structure, history and attitudes had anything to do with outcomes; and this is false.

UnCiViL: "Good Intentions"
The conservative think tanks have brain washed you. They tell you that liberals think they have good intentions but that the good intentions go wrong and actually hurt, rather than help, the people they were intended to help. This is specious propaganda, UnCiViL.

Let's think this through. Let's start by looking at everyone's intentions and by looking at the outcomes of everyone's intentions.

Most people do have good intentions. It's just not liberals who have good intentions.

Most people's intentions don't hit the bullseye very often. The world is too complex and unpredictable. That's for everyone, not just liberals.

Then, the conservative think tanks turn around and tell you that something that no one individual controls, so no one individual has any responsibility for its outcomes, is the thing that will produce the best outcomes, without ever having intentions itself.

This is just plain ridiculous. It's a way of avoiding, not embracing, personal responsibility.

Liberals, at least, are willing to put ourselves squarely out front and try to do something positive and take the glory when it works and the blame when it doesn't. We at least have the b**ls to stand up and do something.

Conservatives, by contrast, cower behind the free market and crackle "I didn't do it. It was the market that did it. I don't have any responsibility for the outcome at all."

Killer,
You're another Jackass that needs to grow a neocortex before you waste any more bandwidth here at Town Hall.

Proud Liberal
Some of your post #116 are valid points. However, I take umbrage at your characterization of conservatives as embracing the lowest common denominator with regard to Fairness, Equality and Justice...[your bug on its back visual]

I don't know any Conservatives that are against fairness, equality or justice. We may have different ideas on how those things may best be achieved, but we don't view those things as unimportant. You may not take the moral high ground by saying "...for us these are higher values than they are for conservatives"

Secondly, 'Just desserts" and 'Personal responsibility" are NOT constructs to evade the notion of racism. Again, we may have different views on how to create a color-blind society, but we are not making up phrases to 'hide' behind.

In a nutshell, Conservatives (like me) think that Sh!t happens is a valid view of life.

Sometimes you are lucky. Sometimes you work hard and fail anyhow. Sometimes you are a snake and you win the lottery. It's called Life.

I'd rather play the hand I am dealt than let the government dictate how/when/where and who I need to deal with in order to live my life.

Since when is personal responsibility and personal acceptance of what you are unable to change a bad thing?

It sort of looks like Conservatives trust people to do for themselves, and Liberals trust Government to make people do what they should.

The problem, as I see it, is who knows best how to determine what is best for you? or me?

A "free market" analogy
You take an individual and a loaded shotgun to a mall with stores and people on four sides, placing him in the middle. You hand him the shotgun, blind fold him, twirl him around for our five times until he stops, then tell him to fire the shotgun. He fires the shotgun and blows out the windowns of a Sears and Filenes.

You take off the blind fold and congratulate him on creating the best possible outcomes.

He didn't have any intentions nor goals. Whatever happened was what happened. There is no definition of "a better outcome." By definition whatever happens is the best possible outcome.

Proud? Liberal
RE: #116 2nd paragraph.
That is an outright LIE!
Post a link to verify that LIE or retract it.
Post a link!

Like for instance if I were to claim that you Communists procure children for pedophiles as Party Policy I would post;
http://hollycrud.com/2006/10/nancy-girl-wants-old-gays-with -young.html

If I was to say you Communists are ENEMY COLLABORATORS I would post;
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=243261A 1-88CA-42DC-9CCC-27FE5B354913

or http://discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/themany.html

or if I was to claim you Communists were a bunch of puppets owned outright by a foreign citizen;
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={8 9BC7BB2-298F-4B8D-99DF-A9EA273A0559}

Post a link to verify your LIE or retract it!

Proud Liberal
your post #120.

For a minute there I thought I was engaging someone with a modicum of intelligence. However, that post is by far the most inane and stupid analogy I have ever read.

Who says that the Free Market has "no intentions or goals?"

Your little tale could more accurately be analogous to providing a handout to someone who only does what he is told and has no intentions or goals. Just give me my gun and tell me to shoot. Yep. Makes great sense!

The caveat to that is: the best possible outcome only comes from making a conscious decision. What about if the individual had made the conscious choice NOT to shoot...thereby actually making the best possible outcome?

That's called free choice (free market) with a goal of 'what is best.'

Proud Liberal LIAR!
You harp on intentions?
These are YOUR Leaders;
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29 612

These are the intentions published on their web site;
http://web.archive.org/web/20020215003619/www.dsausa.org/pc /pc.progag.html

This is how they intend to achieve those intentions.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your Post #116. 2nd paragraph contains a LIE.
Post verification or retract the LIE!

Mrs. Paddy
You have good points and I agree. Life happens. Some of us get lucky. Some of us don't.

The question that liberal philosophy raises is this: "Can we do something about life, even on a limited scale? Can and should we try to do something about life, even though we know the odds may be against us?"

Liberals say yes. We should purposely try to do something where we can.

Leaving potential improvements of life up to a mindless, soulless, intention less free market just doesn't sit well.

And, yes, we trust government to make us do what we should. It gets a little wearying I know, to keep raising race and discrimination, but we do so because it is such a good example. We felt that Jim Crow was immoral. Certainly much credit goes to the black people who confronted the white power structure, but it took the white power structure to start the demise of Jim Crow.

I was reading a history of the King years recently and the book made a point I hadn't thought of. Even though Jim Crow laws were struck down in the South the white power structure didn't change the next day. The sheriff was still the same sheriff. The governor was still the same governor. The power structure they had created wasn't much affected.

Yes, there's a difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe in taking purposeful action. Conservatives, it seems, put their faith in slow, organic change.

Proud Liberal
I don't agree with your premise. I put my faith in people doing the right thing. I agree that we use government to protect us all, but there is a difference between protection that allows freedom, and protection that subjugates the populace.

Often, the law of unintended consequences is the result of trying to legislate an equal outcome.

Bottom line: I view government as a necessary EVIL, you view it (I think) as a necessary GOOD.

Because I view it as inherently evil, I want it to have LIMITED power over me, let the chips fall where they may.

Because (I think) you view government as inherently good, you want it to oversee ALL decisions, make a level playing field, and overcome any deficits for any reason in order to have a homogenous society.

I would say it is only as good as those we put in power, and lately, I have been real underwhelmed by our politicians.

In the end, I would rather trust myself and my associations apart from government, as to relinquish my freedom (even my freedom to screw up and fail) to a bureaucratic nightmare.


MyOpine
Why not talk to me instead of putting up websites?

Gotta go
catch you all on the flip side.

Proud Liberal has left the building
You meant to say "Flea Market Analogy" right?
I can't believe anyone could concoct such a idiotic analogy and present it with a straight face. Go to your room. Better yet leave the building and go join Elvis. You won't be able to bore him to death since he is already dead. Or is he?

MyOpine
I've lost my numbers. Was the second paragraph you speak of the one about rolling over and groveling to the free market?

That may be hyperbole but it's not a lie.

To Whom Ever This May Concern
Those who swoon over every word Dr. Sowell writes might think about how those very same people citisize the supporters of Barack Obama [for appearing to understand and relate to HIS messages of clarity]. Can't different people relate to those who speak their language?

Is Dr. Sowell saying that HE would fail to impress his supporters out of his writing genre? Would he fall on his face in circles outside his followers? Maybe.

Why do you insist on labeling everybody and classifying them into groups? Can't people follow the rule of law and not agree with every interpretation of yours?

You assume those who support Obama are Liberals. Can't they be Independants or Republicans? Just because I disagree with one point Dr. Sowell makes, does that change my standing as a pretty conservative citizen? No.

Your preconceived ideas are yours. They are not right. To insult one person's opinion is wrong. What ever happened to respect and debate? Where people actually like to learn about other's viewpoints, instead of parroting the same? What can be earned from doing that?

Why don't you find out why Dr. Sowell will not run for President?

Isn't he wasting his talents and intellect on TH? He should listen to your requests and run.

Or is he afraid you will be his only constituency? Or does he like being the God you make him out to be in your limited world, here? I'm glad you enjoy him. But inspire? What have you done this day (Daily Bread) which directly resulted from today's article?

You have insulted some bloggers. Is that how he inspires? Like Reverend Wright?


Proud Liberal
I post links to illustrate the point that you post outright baldfaced lies and refuse to provide a verifiable source.

Hyperbole? I prefer to call it Communist fantasy.

Propaganda & Fantasy is all you post.
You write about our racial problem and you do not have any understanding of the problem beyond the propaganda you PARROT!
YOU Communists are a very large part of our racial problem and it is WILLFUL!
You don't want to see a resolution because keeping black people uneducated and dependent upon big Government provides THE major part of the Communist power base.

I understand how being a good liar is essential to a Communist and you must keep in practice but would you please try to understand this is TownHall, not CodePink.
When you post an statement insulting to Conservatives and portray it as fact we expect you to verify it when challenged.

Sort of like;
Democrats have such blind lust for power over the lives of others that they prostitute all personal honor by embracing the likes of;
http://americansfortruth.com/issues/the-agenda-glbtq-activi st-groups/national-glbq-activist-groups/national-glbtq-acti vist-groups/nambla/

And this;
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\\Specia lReports\\archive\\200508\\SPE20050825a.html

And this;
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/john-kerry-gained-fame-t hanks-to-phony-soldiers

And this;
http://hollycrud.com/2006/10/nancy-girl-wants-old-gays-with -young.html

And the list is nearly endless!

I think they are getting close to the point of self disgust though because the Communists among them are cowering behind various euphemisms like "Progressive" and "New Left" and "Democratic Socialists of America" and this list is nearly endless also.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/msg/66ead9217 cb955b

Nellie
RE: Your 7:47 post.
Is that incoherent obfuscation intended for general consumption or is it some kind of secret coded message intended for space aliens?

Nellie and Whatever
Just a couple of points to your rambling post. You mistake "swooning" over Sowell's words with admiration and repect that his followers communicate to him. Also, no one is "insulting" the opinion of those with whom they disagree. They are offering rebuttals and counterpoints. There is a difference. You may want to contemplate these counterpoints I have made to your post since your are so enthralled with your own thinking processes. Try not to be insulted, okay? In other words, don't give me permission to insult you. Unless of course you enjoy inventing reasons to be insulted because you are so weak-minded, inspite of your contentions to the contrary.

You insult yourself, Gayle
good night.

Nellie
I got some news for you girl.Theres a whole lotta people who are brilliant, forward thinking,hardworking and still don't want to run for POTUS or VPOTUS. It's a 27 hour qa day headache. It's a killer of sleep on many occasions. It's shaking hands with some of the lowest snakes in the world just because they run some little bankrupt spit-sized country at gunpoint. It's also working with some of those slime right here in the U.S. in D.C. in the form of senators and congressmen, not to mention judgesof the supreme kind. It Aint worth the headaches.

Gutter ball!
What's frightening is that that's the ONLY thing we have seen him DO... except, of course, give a speech.

A Great One
This is another beaut of a column by a smart man.

Lisa - How embarrassing -wrong citation!
Although Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is one of the most important cases in American judicial history, the "enumerated powers" decision I was trying to refer to, and which Thomas Jefferson condemned, was M'Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheaton) 316 (1819), the central bank decision (federalists vs. anti-federalists). You can read it at http://supreme.justia.com/us/17/316/case.html.
Sorry for the "Alzheimer's moment"! Hey, what can I tell you? I regularly work Sudoku puzzles and take Ginko to try to stave off our good friend "Al".
It didn't work this time. Sorry!
(Looks like Teddy Kennedy has a lot worse problem than I do. I guess that's all part of the circle of life.)

Proud Socialist (aka "Liberal")
Among other things, you wrote, "Yes, there's a difference between liberals and conservatives. We believe in taking purposeful action. Conservatives, it seems, put their faith in slow, organic change."
Socialism ("liberalism") = everybody competing against everybody else for the political power with which to steal labor (money) out of the "other guy's" pocket and put it into his own. As Frederic Bastiat put it, everybody tries to make a living off other "other guy's" labor instead of his own.
Because liberals don't want to address that nasty and impolitic specific mechanical reality inextricably attached to coercion-based wealth redistribution (aka "thievery", aka "stealing"), they (and you) can NEVER seem to talk in clear specifics. They just mumble amorphous stuff about "change" and "purposeful action", ad nauseum, and resort to toxic ad hominem hyperbole to demonize any person who disagrees with them.
The reason some "conservatives" resort to name calling on talk strings is because 1) the libs started it first as their standard operating procedure, and 2) libs' deliberate sophistry and polemic manipulations are anathema to intellectually honest communication, and, therefore, tend to provoke righteous anger to any intellectually honest person of intelligence, candor, and good will.
The actual difference between "conservatives" and "liberals" (I HATE those uselessly unspecific words), is that more so-called "conservatives" believe that the individual should be self-owning and self-determining so long as he does proactively harm or threaten the person or property of another.
I don't believe I have a moral right to steal your labor and run your life. In contrast, you apparently do think you have the right to steal my labor and run my life.

Random Thoughts
Thomas Sowell has great clarity of thought, how refreshing! Is he EVER on any of the news channels????? Why not replace Bill OReilly with Dr. Sowell??

Hilarious
"Rhetoric Bowling" - Have to try it sometime

"Boldly saying mutually contradictory things"

In the rational parts of the country we call that Lying, but not in Politicalese its "to misspeak"

There is nothing wrong with incentives.
Liberals incentivise they don't enforce, unless they are Prohibitionists.
Prohibitionists are the far left.
Here I am in the "Land of the Free"
A nation built on tobacco profits and I can't even smoke in a smoke filled garage.


Mrs. Paddy
Your description of the differing outlooks of the individualist and the socialist was most eloquent in its clarity and sincerity. I found it most refreshing. Thank you.

Republicans
Republicans have plenty of hope...

A Random Thought
O.P.M. (Other People's Money) is the Opiate of those who would be Your Masters.

Randomized Thought
Since the 2000 election, Democrats have continued their efforts to re-steal or re-do any election until they obtain the pre-desired result. Case in point, as soon as the ballots were dry after 2006, they advocated to front load the Presidential primaries to Coronate The Hillary, but when that didn't work because She had unexpected competition and Florida and Michigan moved just a bit too far ahead. The DNC advocated throwing out those state delegations, but The Hillary was losing the nomination so they switched again, trying to seat those same disqualified delegations. Take note that since trying to steal the 2000 election, the Democrats want to eliminate the Electoral College from the national presidential election process because it tends to keep the rabble from being roused, yet they have installed their own version of the College in their own party's convention. The SuperDelegate.

Thinking Randomly
I pay a modest sum of money monthly to have Cable TV fed to my residence. Each channel hnow has a spiffy little logo emblazoned in the lower right corner of the screen during the programming I pay to see. Okay, I really don't mind the logo because I may want to surf and want to be able to return to my start point. But, there's the problem- when they cut for commercials these channels don't continue to show the logo because they dare not interrupt the commercial paid for by the big corporate sponsor, though they have no problem showing the logo whenever the part I pay for is on screen, and then they have the temerity to have SPAM pop-up ads complete with animation and sound effects interrupt what I PAY FOR. Where is the FCC when you need them?

More randomotomy
Hollywood Liberals never cease to amaze. While continually trumpeting the Gun Control talking points, they seemingly fail to realize, nearly every month a new movie is released by them convincing the sane portion of the public why it is We The People must keep our weapons. The latest is "The Strangers".

Randomized Ads
Last weekend the in the European Champions Football League: AIG or American Insurance Group (in Europe to play Soccer) and wearing the red&white jersies beat Samsung in the blue&white by a score of 5-4.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.