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, April 24, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Aftermath of the 1960s?
by Thomas Sowell
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Someone recently said that mass shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School, are largely a phenomenon of the 1960s and afterwards. If so, these tragedies can be added to the long list of disastrous consequences of the heady notions and extravagant rhetoric of that decade.

What was there in the 1960s vision of the world that could possibly lead anyone to consider it right to shoot at individuals who had done nothing to him?

Collective guilt is one of the legacies of the 1960s that is still with us. We are still seeing a guilt trip for slavery being laid on people who never owned a slave in their lives, and who would be repelled by the very idea of owning a slave.

Back in the 1960s, it was considered Deep Stuff among the intelligentsia to say that American society -- all of us collectively -- were somehow responsible for the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther King.

During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else's fault -- society's fault. If you were poor, whether at home or in some Third World country, you were one of the "dispossessed" -- even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess you of.

The urban ghetto riots that swept across the country during the 1960s were all blamed on society. This view was formalized in a much-hailed report on urban violence by a national "blue ribbon" commission headed by Governor Otto Kerner of Illinois.

President Lyndon Johnson likewise blamed urban violence on social conditions, saying: "All of us know what those conditions are: ignorance, discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs."

This sweeping and heady vision made it unnecessary to stoop to anything so mundane as hard facts -- which would have included the fact that urban riots struck most often and most violently when and where this collective guilt vision prevailed.

Southern cities, where at that time discrimination and poverty were more pronounced than in the rest of the country, were not nearly as often or as hard-hit as cities outside the South.

Detroit, which suffered the most deadly of all the ghetto riots of the 1960s, with 43 deaths, had an unemployment rate among blacks of 3.4 percent -- which was lower than the national unemployment rate among whites.

Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley was not buying the liberal guilt trips of the time, was one of the few big Northern cities to escape the wave of riots that swept across the country in 1967.

The kinds of mass urban riots that occurred all across the country during Lyndon Johnson's administration became virtually unknown during the eight years of the Reagan administration, which projected a completely different vision of the world.

But, then as now, facts often came in a poor second to heady visions and sweeping rhetoric.

If other people are somehow responsible for whatever is lacking in your life, lashing out at random against individuals who have done nothing to you personally can sound plausible to many people.

Whether or not the latest mass killings at Virginia Tech were a result of medically verifiable insanity, there have always been insane people but there have not always been mass killings with the frequency we have seen since 1960.

Nor is gun control the magic answer, as often suggested by the same kind of people who believe in collective responsibility instead of individual responsibility.

Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun -- which is easy to get illegally?

One of the many hard facts that get overlooked by those impressed by visions and rhetoric is that mass shootings almost invariably occur in gun-free zones like schools, workplaces, or houses of worship.

When has a mass killer opened fire on a meeting of the National Rifle Association or fired on a group of hunters?

Instead of banning guns, maybe we should rethink 1960s dogmas.

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
I was there
In the 1960s and recall being amazed at my hippie friends who spoke of "the revolution." I could never understand what we were supposed to revolt against. And I do recall the group guilt, which I also thought was nonsense, being Christian, I rejected the notion of corporate guilt. Thanks, Dr. S for your clear thinking.

You gotta love Sowell
This guy is always a refreshing breath of common sense.


Moral relativism
It boils down to moral relativism and a (as Larry Elder says) "victocrat" mentality.

1960 's
My generation, the birth of experimenting on drugs. The me generation. If it feels good do it. Revolting against the government.
It is a sad legacey my generation has put upon our country.

The Truth shall set you free!
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/11/24_williamsb_hmongshootingrea/

Court documents filed on Tuesday show that the 36-year-old Hmong immigrant suspected of killing six deer hunters in Wisconsin last weekend told authorities he was called racial slurs and was fired on first. Hmong leaders gathered to condemn the shootings and express sympathy for the victims. But some say racial tension between white and Hmong hunters is not uncommon.

St. Paul, Minn. — Chai Vang told investigators that he didn't know he was on private property when he was confronted by the hunting party. He told the authorities he was walking away when someone fired a shot that struck the ground 30 to 40 feet behind him. Vang told investigators that's when he started firing at the group. However, law enforcement authorities say Vang was the aggressor and hunted down the victims.

Killed were Robert Crotteau, 42; his son Joey, 20; Al Laski, 43; Mark Roidt, 28; and Jessica Willers, 27.

Right on the mark
As always Dr. Sowell. And today that same collective guilt scenario is constantly used by Liberals to push a Socialist agenda.

Goshawk
"As always Dr. Sowell. And today that same collective guilt scenario is constantly used by Liberals to push a Socialist agenda."

The socialist agenda is also what drives much of the anti-American hate both at home and abroad.

"It's amazing how much panic one honest man can spread among a multitude of hypocrites." -- Thomas Sowell


Aggressors are the victims...
The reason for the guilt is that we as a society are indeed usually always in the wrong. For instance, 9/11 occurred because we were not sensitive to the needs of Muslims. Because of our rudeness, we deserved the attack, and rather than be angry, we should be thankful that the Muslims stood up to us and bothered to show us the errors of our ways. Fortunately, as a result of unrelentless self-flagellation, many in the Democratic party have taken steps to show the radical Muslims that we are willing to debase ourselves to them as a means of showing our collective guilt and apologizing to them for 9/11.

Whenever someone takes aggressive steps toward you, it is your responsibility not to defend, but rather to learn about what you did to bring on your assailants anger. Then you can adjust your mannerisms, make amends, issue an apology, and feel guilty for having upset the person in the first place. Once you realize that any anger directed at you is your own fault, you will not see shame in apologizing and surrendering. The only shame is in the act that drove the person to do you harm in the first place. Thus, the only shameful act relating to 9/11 was our incondisderate behavior toward the Muslims. Thank Allah the Democrats are making efforts to correct that faux pas.


Loyal D
LD: Superb posting, as usual. And as usual, while you do beautiful satire, I fear this is the true thinking of the dems.

And they're also okay with Sharpton and Jackson, the two great dividers, because, well, because they're...what exactly are they? Anybody?

CC
"Anything positive?
I am wondering if anyone can name a positive social, poltical or culture trend that emerged from the 1960's counter-revolution. So far, I've not been able to come up with any."

They exploded the ignorant marijuana taboo. If it wasn't for the 60's counter culture people might still think the "reefer madness" hype. Instead, many states have legalized medical marijuana for sick patients, thanks in part to that.


CC:
Is that what you call satire? I never found that type of dishonesty clever, even though some of the left actually believe such nonsense. I knew a forum troll named "typical yank" that tried the same deal. He wasn't funny either. *shrug*


"And they're also okay with Sharpton and Jackson, the two great dividers, because, well, because they're...what exactly are they? Anybody?"

Not Republican, not socialist.

late night...
"Anything positive?" was tanabear and "Not Republican, not socialist" should have been "not republican, not capitalist."

G'night...


Sharpton and Jackson
"And they're also okay with Sharpton and Jackson, the two great dividers, because, well, because they're...what exactly are they? Anybody?"

"Not Republican, not socialist."

They are bottom feeders, creating and then sucking the life out of "social victims".

That creates some odious but accurate mental images...right out of "Night of the Living Dead".

LD
Unfortunately, it's all too easy to sell that position to the ignorant and witless - and it's being hammered into captive public school as well as university students day in and day out.

I wonder if it's truly the Christian thing to do: to offer one's head to those determined to chop it off. They didn't believe that at Tours, Lepanto, Vienna, etc. Is cowardice all that comforting?

BrianR
Unfortunately, Dr. Sowell's common sense isn't so common anymore.

Hammer
"They are bottom feeders, creating and then sucking the life out of "social victims"."

I get this picture of two fat, old crows cruising around looking for road kill dinners. I'm also hoping to see them taken unawares by a semi so they'll be some other crow's meal.

America: Land of opportunity!

Positve results of the 60s
Due to civilrights legislation there is now a sizable and growing black middle class in the US, despite the instituionalized victimhood fostered by the Gov't beauracracy. The personal computer and the internet were created by 60s idealists whose ideals included equality and Power to the People,which they tried to foster by making computers available to veryone,instead of just big gv't and big business. It's no accident that the first PC s were developed so close to San Francisco,by Apple. IBM had no intention to sell computers to the general public. Stanford is the source of the brain pool for the computer revolution,and the psychedelic subculture. That the mass media and gvoernment totally distorted these developments should come as no surprise.For some reason no one remembers how much 60s activism was oppsed to big government,and central control,and was for freedom,and personal initiative The really interesting thing is that while the engineers and designers who were out to make computers available to everyone,were connected to the subculture,the money to create the internet came from DARPA,the Pentagon research agency . So the internet revolution was the fruit of two opposing sides. ( of course it was also the gov't which started handing out the LSD in the same area,years before it was illegal. BTW I'm very impressed with these displays of accountability in which everything wrong is blamed on liberals and 60s wackos.I'm learning so much about personal responsibility.

ALL of the truth shall set you free!

DriveByPosting – What you posted from your linked article discredits the value of being armed when attacked by an armed murderer.

To be truth though, you have to tell all of the relevant parts of a story. You forgot to include these paragraphs.

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2004/11/24_williamsb_hmongshootingrea/

Vang admits chasing at least one of the others into the woods, and that he shot at least one unarmed man in the back.

Vang says he saw three more hunters coming on ATVs. He says he reversed his blaze orange vest to a camouflage side, and reloaded but did not shoot, because these men were armed. These men took some of their companions out of the woods.

*** Did not shoot because these men were armed ***

Then two more hunters approached on a single ATV, Vang says they chased him, and went past him; one man preparing to shoot. Vang says he shot both off the ATV.

In my opinion, these two were not trying to play Annie Oakley by shooting from an ATV. Based on Vang’s earlier comment, these two were probably bushwacked.

Not only will the truth set you free DriveByPosting – it will give you a better chance to protect yourselves and others.

Sam
I grew up in the 60s, and puzzled for years about the dichotomy in its aftereffects.

I remember on the one hand, people railing against Big Government and for individual freedom - "do your own thing", "down with the establishment", etc. I saw a lot of what was going on as liberating the individual from Big Brother, but at the same time, there were movements to centralize and establish new attitudes en masse.

It was only years later that I realized that what the majority of activists wanted was not to tear down Big Government and leave a world of individual freedom, but to tear down the existing Big Government and replace it with their own version of Big Government. They have succeeded.

Positives from the Sixties
This is the most well-travelled generation in the history of the world. Only 6% of Americans own passports, and a very high proportion of those people are Boomers. I have had a passport for 40 years and have travelled everywhere except Africa (have been on every continent.) There is nothing like actually living in a foreign country, even if it's only for a couple of months, to make a person understand that not only is the rest of the world not like the United States, NO country in the world is like the USA.

The Sixties Generation has seen the earth from space before it became routine. And the Sixties kids were the first ones to stand outside the gates of Cape Canaveral and watch men leave Planet Earth for the Moon -- and sit up late watching those men set foot upon another ground than that world on which they were born.

These two events have changed the focus of the vast majority of the Baby Boomers who are not in fact focused on their own and other peoples' wee-wees; although the USA remains insular and parochial in many ways, it is possible to see the World Cup and the 24 Hours of Le Mans, and to follow Formula One -- the most widely followed sporting events in the entire world outside the boundaries of the USA -- and thus begin to join the world in some way besides being forced to go to war for and against it as our fathers did.

The Sixties Generation is the first that can take Christ's Great Commission literally and carry the Gospel to all lands. And we are doing it, because we have actually seen and visited the world, with an understanding impossible to previous generations of missionaries.

Yes, the small group of loudmouthed, obscenity-riddled, spoiled brats, and the fatuous Marching Mommies whose response to the wider world laid before them is abject terror, have been allowed to rampage unchecked for way too long by the rest of the generation that has made the world as accessible (or more so) as the next town. My sister said to me once, "You talk about flying to London like I talk about taking the bus downtown." This is the reality of the Sixties Generation.

P.S. We are also the last functional literates in the country. Imagine if you will, the world as it will look when that Michegoss of Muppetry put out by the Virginia Tech Murderer is the standard by which we are known to the world. It's coming.

What we need , is a method
to bring about a state of equalibrium public discourse. I recommend The "Insult-Offset Card"

http://kilroyreport.townhall.com/g/f037019c-c8cd-4783-a935-649c406e3f07

tanabear/loyal democrat
Grace Slick, Jefferson Airplane/Jefferson Starship, Janis Joplin, flowing skirts, Berkenstocks, that's about it.

Love your postings, love'em


Last thing
The 60's brought us the Johnson administration's war on poverty. The real beginning of big government and the social welfare programs.
How's that war working out for them?

Loyal Democrat

Most of your postings are fun. However, you may want to rework that first sentence:

Quote: The reason for the guilt is that we as a society are indeed usually always in the wrong. Endquote.

Well....which is it? Are we "usually" in the wrong, or are we "always" in the wrong?

Please stop this fence-sitting and be plain and clear. Inquiring minds want to know.

Liberals
of the 1960s will begin collecting social security soon.

This means that many of them will be gone within the next 20 years.

Assuaging Guilt
I submit that we should apply the insightful reasoning of Loyal Democrat to the alleged ecological emergency that is so prated about these days. To all who preach about global warming, heed the admonition, "Save the Planet, kill yourself."

DocJ & Countryman
I also came of age in the 60's and bought into the "revolution," at least at the periphery. Rebellion against parents easily translated into railing against the "man," because I was fairly certain that in spite of "his" many lies, marijuana never hurt anyone.

These feelings were aggravated by service in the Army, a vestige of early indoctrination towards patriotism and obligation to my father's idealistic country, which he fought for in WWII. An inner conflict between the old values and the new paradigm was fed by rules of engagement, which tied my hands and kept my M14 silent, and bogus body counts whereby the enemie's casualties were exaggerated and our own were minimized.

After one week in during which my unit was under heavy assault, Stars and Stripes listed 100 enemy killed as opposed to 5 GI's, which I knew was completely inaccurate because our battalion alone suffered 37 casualties, including 11 killed that week. Thinking our combat report was too late to stop the presses, I anxiously waited for the next issue to see if we were accounted for. Our fine Armed Forces paper reported 0 Americans killed or wounded for the preceding week. What the heck was going on? Were not our sacrifices even worth noting? How demoralizing and frustrating this was to those of us still in the field.

When I returned to the "world," like many of my comrades I was spit upon and called vile names. I watched John Kerry testify before Congress and condemn all Nam vets as murderers and monsters of mayhem. More confusion; which side was I supposed to be on? With my government, who lied to and manipulated us, or this new movement which was lying about what we did inside the fog of war? No wonder I began to drug and drink to excess.

After my Father passed away in 1979, I started listening to a man who could express Dad's ideals and beliefs more clearly, or at least I was hearing them better. That man was Ronald Reagan and after his election I joined the National Guard and rediscovered the service to country ethic instilled by my upbringing, long buried under confusion, but now in full bloom.

Now retired nearly 10 years, and with the clearer vision that comes with age, I see the same liars manipulating and distorting reality. The "man" is as he was 40 years ago; dishonest media and cynical and self-serving politicians, only more flagrant. They seek the defeat and humiliation of their own country, again.

I have a very good friend, younger but much wiser than I was at his age. He was a rich, nere-do-well after serving in the first Gulf War, but his Father's suicide forced him into the real world, tasked with taking the reins of the family business and picking up the pieces.

His Mom, a great lady, gave him a plaque for his desk, which is from the Bible I believe, but expresses his character and attitude better than anything I can think of. It says, "That which thy fathers have bequeathed to thee, earn it anew if thou wouldst possess it."

What we lack in our softening and increasingly base culture is those who understand that freedom isn't free; it has to be continually earned, defended and fought for. Our sick society has produced all the girly-men we can use. Like the Marines, what we need is a lot more GOOD MEN.

1960s
I remember the 1960s. I was in junior high and high school. I remember going out on the prairie with my .22, canteen, and half a package of Fig Newtons. I went by myself because of three things: respect, responsibility, and trust.
I was taught respect for other people's property. And I had to get permission from the neighbors to hunt on their property. I was responsible for what I did. And my parents trusted me with a firearm and had been instructed on how to use it. There was no malice in what I did. It was my ritual of solitude to spend an afternoon on the prairie. Life is not as quiet as an afternoon on the prairie by myself. But as for the 60s, the great majority of us never did the things that got coverage. How many finished high school, got jobs, went into the military, got married, had children and not partake of what the 60s are supposed to be known for. It's the same with the Beat generation, Kerouac and that bunch; they were the same age as my Dad and his friends. But they were farmers, ranchers, steel workers, teachers, govenment employees at the Pueblo Army Depot. What remains of the 60s is what is printed and viewed as video. My cousin and I built a raft to float on the irrigation canal in 1965. That was the great triumph of the 60s for us. And we even have pictures. But it seems that those who scream the loudest get noticed. And those who just go about the business of life are just a line in the phone book.
Dr. K

Repulsed by Capitalism
Sam:
Let me see if I remember this right? Wasn’t it that high priest of psychedelic machinations Timothy Leary who said, “Tune In, Turn On, Drop Out.” Yep, that was the battle cry down on the farm alright.

The sixties generation didn’t revolt against big “g’vt” in pursuit of individual responsibility. They were too stoned to develop such high minded ideals. No, Dr Sowell is right, they wanted collectivism to rule. The wanted absolution for their guilt by passing on materialism for some foggy notion inspired by too many ethereal dope trips that communal living would be the solution.

They’re angry at the man, which was and still is capitalism.

AudiR10:
Great post, especially the part about marching mommies! You and I are usually more in phase, but not on this one. It was my generation of the seventies that did the heavy lifting on computer development and especially distribution. We were the first to grow up not knowing there was life without television. We embraced technology for fun, profit and delivering Christ’s message to the world. Thanks for standing up to salute what was possible, as those first space ships left the planet.

Loyal Demo:
“Faux Pas”: meaning false step, you’ve done it again.

Good from the 60's?
How 'bout the rise of Reagan's political career?

The 60s and working-class white males
The 60s were a disaster for lower-class and lower-middle class white males. In 1960, they were the focus of the left, and they were thought of as exploited. By 1980, they were thought of as "privileged," as the equivalent of the Rockefellers, and were mostly ignored.

It's impossible these days to get through to leftists that my lower-middle-class background counts for something, that I am NOT privileged. Professors these days want diversity in terms of race and gender, but NOT class. They think of themselves as progressive, but they have a long way to go to be fully progressive.

I came of age in the 60s, and it all seemed like a good idea at the time. It wasn't until much later that I realized what a skewed view of the world emerged from that decade.

The liberal boogeyman
The liberal boogeyman is to blame for all things that go wrong. Beware he's around you all the time. BOO!

Thomas Sowell
Sowell wrote, "Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun -- which is easy to get illegally?"


Absolutely correct!

The system works this way: Something bad happens. People start yelling, "We have to do something!" Legislatures pass laws that actually do nothing. Congressmen get in front of TV cameras saying, "We've fixed the problem!"


A little while later, the same problem arises and people start yelling, "We have to do something!"


60'sTeen
Too young for the war during the 60's...went to anti-war rallys as a 15 year old looking for 'Free-music' and there was plenty of it, 'Free-love' didn't find any but I had high hopes that I would every weekend...oh well.

The 60's came and went for myself and my friends BUT the 70's meant it was time to get serious. Time to enlist for some. Time to finish school for others. The Draft Lottery ended and the counter-culture had no place to go but into Politics...
The 60's Radicals are now running the Dem/Socialist Party and organizing protests of a different war. They are the Blame America crowd. The PC Police. The Pro-Abortion lobby...etc.

Funny how some things change and some don't.

The 60s and working-class white males
JFP has something there. When I left the ranch I had a suitcase, an alarm clock and a get it done attitude. And as I progressed through the 70s I found out I didn't have any veteran preference points, and employers were looking to fill their diversity spots which I could not fill. But I still had a get it done attitude. And as I progressed into the 1980s I noticed that the graduate school wanted to retain people who had no business being in graduate school. Was this a diversity program or a retain people who pay program? But I prospered and I will say that the student loan program was good to me and I paid them all off: BA, MA, Ph.D. And who from history would I spend an afternoon on the prairie with, my grandfathers.
Dr. K

Great article.
I was one of those people who came of age during the 60's. As,at the time,I partook in some of the extravaganza.I also embraced the rhetoric to assist those in need,womans rights,anti-discrimination movements,and anti-war protest.The democratic party also embraced the growing passions generated from the various movements,protest.A party that took the turbulant situations under their wing,and soared to the top.I,we,were satisfied with giving a little more in tax dollars,has government programs,and factions grew.The left wings plumage increased,displaying brilliant colors,has we all sat in awe.Now we could all feather our nest in security has the left wing acted to calm,and cover,the turbulance.
That is exactly how the democratic party gains status, and power.They keep turbulant situations alive,and they provoke turbulance.The passions expressed during the 60's,to correct problems individuals faced,is the lefts bread,and butter.The factions created during that time to address,and correct,the problems grew from the problem.They need the left in power to receive their due.The government programs created to deal with the problems need the turbulance to continue.The need for these factions,and programs should not be growing,they should be shrinking. Their embrace to solve the turbulance is an embrace to continue the turbulance.

AudiR10 writes:
"P.S. We are also the last functional literates in the country. Imagine if you will, the world as it will look when that Michegoss of Muppetry put out by the Virginia Tech Murderer is the standard by which we are known to the world. It's coming."

You've got that right! Those of us who were there remember that, at the very least, the hippies of '66-'69 were educated and, for the most part, respectful. It was the younger brothers and sisters, turning 18 in the early '70's, who picked up on the sex, drugs, and rock and roll, but couldn't be bothered with education and bettering one's self.

Once the "Yeah, dude! ROCK N' ROLLLLLLL!!!!" era started, it's been down hill ever since.

We wanted the freedom, but we didn't want the responsibility that comes with it.

JFP wrote:
"I came of age in the 60s, and it all seemed like a good idea at the time. It wasn't until much later that I realized what a skewed view of the world emerged from that decade."

That about sums up my viewpoint as well.

One last time
Seriously, this is the last time I'll say this, but, the older I get, the smarter my dad gets, and the dumber John Lennon gets.

Not My 60's
I'm sorry, I don't remember the '60's the way most of you do. I DO remember the late '50's as a time of personal responsibility, not the pop psychology of the '60's which defined that criminals were just disadvantaged people.

Also, I remember having black, upward-mobile neighbors in the 1950's. The '60's turned my neighborhood into a ghetto with the real-estate blockbusting, the use of illegal drugs, and the insistence on turning whole subdivisions into urban renewal slums.

I also remember watching Detroit burn, the hate of H. Rapp Brown, the murder by Bill Lann Lee and his cohorts (yes, the Clinton HUD Undersecretary was part of a murder plot which should have had all conspirators electrocuted). I remember the SDS and like-minded students spitting on and throwing rocks at ROTC students in formation (I was one of them who got juiced, so to believe they didn't spit on returning Vets is nonsense). My campus had voted 80/20 to retain ROTC and Reserve units on campus; didn't stop the behavior of that "majority".

Now these '60's leaders are the leaders of the Democratic Party. The results are that we have tried to buy our way out of poverty here and in the rest of the world, rather than doing the hard job of teaching responsibility, hard work, and patience. Is it any wonder that the world is as screwed up as it is and that we are blamed?

As to Sharpton and Jackson
Hammer has nailed it

During the 60's
I was a practicing mental health professional and felt like a fish out of water in that environment. I knew that the wholesale elimination of a lot of the values, institutions, customs,and beliefs would be harmful to us as a nation. We were indiscrimatingly throwing out those things that gave us guidelines and security. What do we now have...relativism, humanism and do your own thing. We are a crude and vulgar nation adrift in a sea of uncertainty.

Voice from past
Right on Sowell!

As the whole Virginia Tech sadness unfolded I could not help remembering a voice from the past. When our daughter was entering Virginia Tech nearly 10 years ago, my husband and I attended a parent orientation at the school. The moderator said something like, “Do you remember in the 60s when you were all marching around demanding your rights? Well you won and now we cannot even send your child’s grades to you. Students have rights and only if they want you to know something will you find it out.”

That sends a chill through my body as I remember those words. I assume that the officials at VT were not permitted to even contact Cho’s parents when he was in trouble. Instead of ranting about guns, let’s look at changing some of our policies and attitudes in this country.

I am scared to death for my grandchildren as I watch this country decay.

Collective Guilt
To see the hypocrisy of the liberal left ask yourself, How many proponents of collective guilt support its corollary -- collective punishment?

LD
was great once again. I actually liked the "usually always" thing.

Another Superb Column
I would eagerly wager that even Dr. Sowell’s shopping list contains more wisdom and insight than the collective total of every word ever typed at the Huffingtonpost or Dailykos.

Sowell for President in ’08!

AudiR10
Your arrogance knows no bounds -The Church has been evangelizing for 2000 years. Christ was brought to China, South America, and Africa long before the 60s generation was born. The blood of Martyrs paves this road which stretches back to the 1st Century. It is the height of egoism of the 60s generation to think they are the anointed ones who started evangelizing. Countless missionairies who quietly spread the Gospel using St Francis's dictum "Spread the Gospel at all time, and if neccessary use words", devoted thier lives to this end. No, they didn't have cameras, books, not media adulation. In many cases they gave thier lives to this end.

Also, I wouldn't get on your high horse about being the last literate generation. What did you do with it? You took the great wealth of Western Tradition and trashed it. You deconstructed the entire Tradition and labled it racist, sexist, and totally bourgoeis. Your generation trained the following generations to treat theat literary tradition as nothing but the domain of Dead White European Males. Today's youth are only reacting to what they've been taught by thier "elders"- the former hippies. There is not one writer born between 1944-1964 that will stand the test of time.

The boomers created nothing, consumed everything, and destroyed much. The boomers have not one thing they can point to other than making gobs of money (whatever happened to thier strident Marxism?) and enjoying themselves to the max. The boomers will be the first generation in American History to leave thier children and grandchildren nothing. They now build 5000sq Ft McMansions, drive $300,000 RVs, take Eco trips to rain forests, and winter in Aspin. During the next 15 years they will retire to thier gated communities where they will consume thier last of thier wealth in solitude, while they listen to the Rolling Stones and smoke weed. I'm sure the last check a boomer will write will bounce.

The boomers will be remembered for 3 things: Abortion, Acid, and Amnesty.

We were the first and last
My sisters have reminded me of some other things that the Sixties Generation (that would be all five of us) have to be proud of.

Many of us are the first in our families to graduate from high school, let alone from university. Daddy went to Cornell on the GI Bill for some courses, but I was the first to graduate from a university. And I graduated from one in California which was 3500 miles from my home. I was the first and last in my family to take a round the world cruise, own a motorcycle and ride motocross (in the 1970s!), and get certified as a civil engineer. My sisters have similar "firsts" to be proud of.

We were the first generation in our family to go to a school that had more than two rooms, to experience satellite television (and see things as they were happening and not at the movie theatre a week later), to have credit cards, passports, cars, and (because we are girls) to wear pants to school.

We are also the last: to go back and forth to university on the railroad (and to know what Railway Express means); to fly overseas on a plane that had pullman bunks; to drive Route 66 when it looked the way God intended it to look; to use typewriters, teletype (TELEX) machines, shorthand, carbon paper, Super 8 film and fountain pens in school. We are the last to own steamer trunks and "train cases" (I still have mine from university days.) We were the last to see stock car racing (except for Speed World Challenge) and the last to look down the Formula One grid and wonder which two drivers would be killed that year. And we were the last ones who ever learned Palmer Penmanship and whose handwriting can still be read. Take a look at the autographs of athletes in the 1970s; then look at the ones you may have to buy from them today.

Mathew
You nailed it dude! Reagan did cause almost all our crime. We should have seen it coming.... America was doing so well under Carter, and then that damn capitalist came to power.

Everyone knows...if you slash unemployment, cut taxes, lower lending rates, lower inflation, and increase the GNP...you're asking for an unprecedented wave of crime. The fact that he also gratly slashed crime is just a "smoke and mirrors" tactic by conservativees.

Keep spreading the word!

To The Moon
Well, it is too much to ask Thomas Sowell to buy a brain? At a least a computer? I recommend a trip to the Smithsonian Air & Space museum where, yes, you too can stand 2 inches away from the very command module that went to the moon and back in 1969.

In the 1950's the freeway system was started but most of it was accomplished during the 1960's.

We have a holiday named after a guy who a Republican thought was so influential.

MLK once said, "The pace of technological advancement is such today that we have guided missiles and misguided men."

The problem with Sowell's essay is it is flat out fantasy.

The breakdown of the American family can be easily traced to three technological advancements:

1.) The automobile
2.) The telephone
3.) The television

Unlike Sowell's ignorant hyperbole, the research is long and complicated and fills entire text books. Before the automobile the social concept of a "stranger in town" existed. The concept of neighbor and neighborhood were strong. Weddings, funerals and other main social events were commonly attended not just by friends and families, but also neighbors.

Something like 70% of all Americans were still engaged in agriculture occupations around 1900.

The concept of stranger is essential to sustaining community mores and values. Strangers in the pre-automobile days were often scorned and rejected because they were usually men and generally running away from something.

It wasn't liberal politics in the 1950's which started the "no fault" divorce trend. It was the break down of society, the loss of stranger, and everyone, liberal or conservative, wanted it. The "no fault" divorce trend started in the 1950's and can easily traced back to the advancement of technology, not liberal politics.

Here is how laughable Sowell's stupidity is.

Imagine a country, a United States, where there are conservatives and liberals throughout its History. From Hamilton to Reagan, from Lincoln to Bush, from Jefferson Thomas to Jefferson Bill.

Now imagine the year 1960 rolls around. And the Tooth Fairy, in waving its Tinkerbell wand, accidently strikes all conservatives dumbstruck instead of replacing a tooth with a nickel. Conservatives form then on just go about their lives with this glazed over look, helpless, hapless, and robotic for about 25-30 years until the great savior, Rush Limbaugh, wakes up one day and starts snapping conservatives out of it, one-by-one.

Because that is the kind of stupid fantasy on has to believe to think Sowell has said anything even remotely intelligent.

The next time you run into Sowell, why don't you ask him, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE GORRAM CONSERVATIVES DURING THE 1960S! Did the turn into turltes with painted shells? How is it that THEY let the liberals run roughshod over conservatives so bad that liberals now run the media and universities so completely?

Ask Sowell what happened? Did conservatives just become appeasers? Should we just lamblast conservatives of that ERA as communist appeasers for letting McCarthy hang out to dry?

Appeaser is the new Nazi in today's conservative venacular. Let's just call all the conservatives who lived in that ERA appeasers and hate them for ever and ever for letting pacifists, crybaby liberals beat them up.

Sowell's op/ed is complete fantasy.

Ronald Reagan, a conservative, enabled, encouraged and promoted women working as a way to beat back recession and stimulate the economy. More women went to work under Reagan's years than any other President. The result of which is the breakdown of the family dinner. Which socialists have attributed further erosion of the family unit.

Was it just liberal women who went to work? Ah, noo. Did feminists have some special power to magically take over the minds of conservative women and force them to work. Ahh noo.

Conservative women wanted to go to work! Just as man conservative women today work as do liberal women. Yet, conservatives will take zero percent of the responsibility for having made that choice and instead cop out and blame liberal feminists.

Which is what Sowell's diatribe is all about.

I say, as a conservative who lived through the last 30 years, I take responsibility for all those decisions and I do not blame liberals for having co-opted my mind.

Conservatives are supposed to be about taking personal responsiblity. Something Sowell doesn't do. So it is not hard to imagine that Sowell then sees no role for the conservatives over the last 30 years in being complicit or responsible.

It's just blame liberals. How pathetic and in reality, its pure fantasy because facts dictate otherwise.

In other words, "AudiR10"...

...it really is all about "YOU"!

Matthew
"The killings in Virginia Tech weren't caused by the freakin' 60s. Get real. How about the school murders in, say, Germany? Were those caused by the 60s? Japan? Scotland? How about the fact that the biggest mass murder in a school in U.S. history happened in...1927? Was that caused by the 60s?"

Yes, there were a few school killings before the 60s, but most came after. Counter-examples from Germany and elsewhere prove nothing, since they were affected by the 60s, too.

The reason for choosing the 60s is that the 60s were a cultural revolution that changed the attitudes of our culture, and these effects are still with us.

1. The 60s emphasized rebellion. If your culture is constantly urging you to rebel, to shock people and to transgress boundaries, shooting people at a school is a pretty good way of doing these things.

2. The 60s introduced a secular mindset, which is very hedonistic. Prior to the 60s, it wasn't uncommon for people to say, "We weren't put here for our own pleasure." Difficulties were thought of as trials sent by God, and one was encouraged to put up with them.

Today, however, those attitudes have all but vanished. We expect that life will be pleasant, and when it isn't, there is no God to blame.

3. Society is to blame. If there is no God to blame, and one's own self is not to blame, then one's unhappiness must be society's fault. So why not take it out on society?

All of this makes school shootings much more likely than in previous eras.

sdan / Mongo
I plead....1:41 AM is my excuse.

Now my feelings are hurt. When can I expect to receive a government check to compensate me for the pain?

Say "loco"...

...would you agree that the "tipping point" of the Sixties came with the passing of the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963? I ask because you mention that you were a practicing mental health professional at the time and would have been a first hand witness to the exodus of the mentally ill out onto the streets.

It is my belief that this caused the rise of drug use because the mentally ill were now free to medicate themselves with street drugs, create a sellers market and introduce those persons, who were not otherwise prone to drug abuse, to these drugs.

Don't get me wrong, I have no malice toward the mentally ill, the homeless or the drug addicted. To the contrary, I would like to see them cared for, even in the old institutional setting that the CMHC Act sought to eliminate. I know that some psychiatric drugs have terrible side effects and I have no objections to treating some types of mental illness with with opiates in a confined setting. Whatever calms the voices and dissolves the demons in their brains so that at least they have some peace until science can relieve their afflictions.

JPK
Regarding your critique of AudiR10's comments and defense of the 60's generation, you are right on. What she named were a lot of things that were made available to them or which they were able to experience and/or enjoy due to the contributions of previous generations. The space program was hardly their contribution. They themselves, as a generation, have acted like pigs let loose in the grain bin.

What is their big contribution? They travelled? sheesh. They also gave us liberalism - a hodge-podge mix of socialism, Marxism and fascism, and made millions creating group social conflict. They embarrassed their own parents by imposing on us nazi-like racial laws - the very thing those parents fought against. They've celebrated anything anti-American and the slaughter of millions of this nation's potential citizens.

There's much, much more that could be said and none of it would be very complimentary.

Actually, mystic7

As a teen during the 1960's I thought John Lennon was pretty much a moron. Wrote nice tunes, but his lyrics were daft. I didn't think much of my father, either, as he walked out on my mother and his three children in 1957.

Little has happened during the ensuing 50 years to change my opinion about either one.

Loyal Democrat

You shall receive proper recompense when the minions at the U.S. Department of Redundancy Dept. formulate the proper pain scale to evaluate your suffering. Thereafter, proper forms must be completed in triplicate and submitted within 60 days.

Please be sure to notify both your state and federal representatives. We care.

To AudiR10
Carbon paper and fountain pens...argg. Some things are better forgotten. But I do miss stock car racing. How many people remember Fireball Roberts? I laugh when people talk about the cars of NASCAR racing now as being Fords, Chevies, etc.

http://www.fireballroberts.com/

BTW I hear fountain pens are coming back now!


my 2 cents
I was there too. Fortunately for me I put in 3+ years in the military, aka the real world, between 1964-1967 prior to returning to college.

When I got back to college I gravitated to the left for no reason other than that was where the dope and sex was, I'm not proud to say. The years went by, we all scattered this way and that and when we had a reunion of sorts a few years ago I just got up and left early. I didn't make a big deal of it but when someone struck up "The Draft-Dodgers Rag" I had had enough.

We sewed some very bitter seed in those years and they are still yielding some very bitter fruit.

NBC = STUPENDOUS STUPIDITY
One aspect in this tragedy is the NBC complicity resulting in the broadcast of the exclusive tapes. Below is the letter I’ve written to Steve Capus, President of NBC News.


I would urge those reading this to post it on to as many web sites as possible and forward it to others, urging them to do the same and perhaps sent similar comments to Mr. Capus.


Steve Capus - Pres. NBC News
NBC Executive Offices
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York NY 10112



Mr. Capus,
When I learned of your decision to broadcast the “Exclusive” video and accompanying rant mailed to your news office by the deranged individual responsible for VA Tech shootings, I refused to view it and all subsequent NBC coverage of this event. I realized your decision to broadcast the tape was self serving and only facilitated this person’s agenda by giving him the public platform he desired, while encouraging others to follow. In allowing him to achieve this ultimate agenda, you are culpable. Subsequent events confirm this. Within days following the event, others seeking similar notoriety have made threats to schools around the country. Why? It’s not just that they’re deranged. Should they act on their threats, they achieve international "recognition" and “fame” they crave, due to news media executives who are thoughtless and stupid enough to broadcast their videos and rants; thus providing additional inducement to carry out their plans. The forum you provide facilitates this. In the likely event of copy cat incidents, encouraged by airing this tape, you will share some of the responsibility. It’s also likely the families of future victims will sue both NBC and you personally, claiming your reckless indifference in airing the tape encouraged others to claim their moment of fame. Should this happen, I’ll be the first to urge such litigation on as many web sites as possible. Your shortsighted decision to broadcast the tape was based primarily on your quest for ratings. Your greed and indifference is despicable. Well, you got your ratings. And I suspect greed and indifference are integral parts of your character.

Normally, I write letters that are civil and polite, regardless of circumstances. My upper-middle class background encouraged this. My education and subsequent professional career reinforced this requirement for civility and politeness (in most cases). However, in yours I must make a rare exception. Your monumental stupidity causes me to tell it like it is. The truth is; you’re a reprehensible, self-centered, greedy little prick. You could care less about the likely result of your ill-conceived decision. The consequences should be evident to any intelligent person. But as President of one of the largest news broadcasting networks in the world, your complicity in the agenda of a deranged person, by airing his tape, is inexcusable. As President of NBC News, you’re charged with the responsibility for balancing the Public need to know with Public welfare. You have grossly lost sight of this responsibility and overstepped the bounds of balance.

This letter will be published on numerous blogs, with recommendations that NBC be boycotted. No American with any intelligence or sensitivity should watch your network. And the NBC Board of Directors should fire you for your reckless and callous disregard. And that, “sir”, is about as polite as I can be. Don’t like my tone? Too bad. You’re welcome to contact me and discuss it. But we both know you won’t. It’s unlikely the sycophant admin assistants you hire to read your mail will show you this letter. In your obsession with ratings and disregard for the consequences, you will disregard public opinion as well. But perhaps the opinion of the NBC Board of Directors and some of your major sponsors, who will receive copies of this letter, may get your attention.

BOYCOTT NBC 4 RECKLESS DISREGARD

Blame it on society
How ironic that the defining word on the subject came from a liberal (well, at least he wrote the music...)!

West Side Story: "GEE, OFFICER KRUPKE"

Music by Leonard Bernstein.
Lyrics by Stephen Sondheim.

http://www.westsidestory.com/site/level2/lyrics/krupke.html

Loyal Democrat:

Hmmmm... maybe we have got it all wrong! Maybe what's ailing us as a socety is Sleep Deprivation!

1:41 AM?!?!?!?!?!

Since we're on the subject
... of what came from which generation.

1. Gabby started out with a good thought, then sort of went downhill. How DID the "Greatest Generation" produce the Boomers? (Other than in the animal reproductive sense of giving birth to them.)

The generation that saw its childhood, teens, early 20s in the Great Depression, and fought WWII, went on to raise the most morally feckless bunch of whining, privileged brats in history.

How did this happen?

2. The Boomers make a lot of noise, but there's a real, distinctive "generation" between them and the Xers: those of us (I call us Gen W) who were under 10 in the '60s, even if we were technically born before the end of the Baby Boom in 1964.

We aren't Boomers. We think Boomers are morons. We thought they were morons in the late 1960s when they "protested" the Vietnam War while we followed it on TV, and in our Weekly Readers, pulling for "our guys."

We thought they were morons when they showed up as junior academics in our college years, losing it in class because they saw a white guy driving a Ferrari that morning.

Through years of seeing them celebrated in the media for "defining America" -- whether in pursuit of cosmetic surgery, cookware that cost as much as a car, government "benefits," or self-realization-through-hating-Ronald-Reagan -- we have thought they were morons.

We aren't them. We saw no reason to "lose it" when we were in college, and we see none now. Many of us served in the military. We're a quiet generation, but we are literate, hard-working, responsible, and today we are heading traditional families, providing most of the financial support for churches and charities and worldwide missions, and sorrowful that our choices among candidates for political office are so poor.

We know that government won't save us from the societal breakdowns of the 1960s -- but that government can make the problem worse, by being hijacked to reward destructive behavior at our expense. We know America was constituted as a republic -- not a democracy -- for precisely the purpose of preventing hijackings along these lines.

We are not the Boomers. The editorial mantle of the Boomers' philosophical outlets -- network news, the Grey Lady -- will not pass to us, because we don't want it. Seeing other people as "masses" who need to have their lives ordered by the more "intelligent" is something we consider, well, moronic.

The Boomers aren't old enough to be our parents, and the Xers aren't young enough to be our children. We identify with neither of them. We're heading for 50, and our time is coming; but it won't come through the Disneyfied media, because we're a th'owback, indefinable by primary-colored moving graphs.

The true ideas of America live with us. We are the opposite of "sound and fury, signifying nothing." Watch for us. We're here.

Boco
The rise of liberalism in the 60's along with the development of designer drugs led to the dismantling of the mental health system of institutions, support facilities and clinics. Liberalism touted the theme that everyone has rights even the most profoundly disturbed and designer drugs allowed many mentally ill people to exist outside of the institutions. The trouble is that it became harder to hospitalize anyone (They can sign themselves out) and the support to make sure medication is taken as presecribed no longer exists. Many of our current homeless standing on street corners talking to themselves are mentally ill unmedicated people.

To dyerje
Why do you believe the MSM of the 60s? Do you believe the MSM now when it talks about Iraq? The so-called culture of the baby-boomers in the 60s is a myth. The overwhelming majority of the people were normal everyday conservatives.

In fact, I would venture that the public as a whole was more conservative than it is now. The Dems had not yet been taken over by the anti-US left wing socialists. They were just plain socialists then.

memory
I also remember the 60s in a little different angle. I remember being from a small town where we could depend on our neighbors, leave our doors unlocked and not worry if the kids weren't seen for an hour. I also remember the latter part as thetime of my voulentary enlistment in the army as I felt the love and duty to my country. I went to RVN, again voulentary, and am still proud to this day that I did. The slap in the face came later when the dems welcomed the draft dodgers back with open arms, in essence telling me that they were more important than the HEROES who died over there. That is one thing I will never forgive them for.

None Dare Call it Treason?
To get to the Tom DeLay VIDEO of him describing Reid and Pelosi as being "very, very close to treason, go to my site (click on name) and follow the instructions at the top of the page.

steve

Vic
If it were just the media -- if there had been no "there there," behind the media's constructions -- that would be one thing. But each Boomer pathology in my list was one I actually encountered with live Boomers.

Of course the whole "Boomer" generation isn't characterized by the media's favorite traits. But trademark Boomerism is what gave us the ultimate choice for defeat in Vietnam, what prevented us from dealing better with Social Security in any of the decades since the 1960s, and what has weighed our schools down with non-education brainwashing. Among a number of other things.

Like many here, I remember the '60s as a time when I lived a safe, happy childhood. We never locked our car in a parking lot. Children spent summer days riding bikes, roller skating on sidewalks, and playing well out of sight of moms. Middle class kids could safely go to a public pool (or a public school!), where there were no drug dealers or perverts. My entire family was just normal then, and would be called very conservative today.

But the element that gave its name to the '60s manifestly DID exist. In my world we thought of them as alien. They never represented "us." But the media weren't fabricating them from thin air, and they do with incidents in Iraq.

P.S. Carbon paper and fountain pens? :-) Sixties-era schoolchildren would all remember the smell of mimeographs, and that purplish ink.

hammer
"They are bottom feeders, creating and then sucking the life out of "social victims"."

They are that, indeed, but it's their selective outrage and moral relativism that makes them scum.



sdan:
"Loyal Democrat
Most of your postings are fun."

Like I've said before:
I don't find his brand of dishonesty funny. I find that much like the moral relativism I was just talking about. I'm sure he has an ignorant excuse for his lies but they are still lies because he's not what he claims to be. Whatever helps him sleep at night.

Would that Dr. Sowell were
at least half as brilliant as some nobody guy going as drivebyposting.

As a younger member of the baby-boomer generation, I have continuously been amazed at how the "Greatest Generation", (our parents) could have possibly produced what has now become without question the worst generation.

Unbelievable!!

Things Boomers take Credit For
1)PCs and Internet. The microprocessor came into being in the late 50s early 60s. The advances in the field of CPU and memory design came in the 60s and 70s. Only when the economics of scale occured in the market place did the PC really hit; however, all of the major theoretical discoveries predated the PC age by 15-20 years. The grandfather of the internet, the Unix OS was orginally written by 2 Bell Labs scientists in 1968. They also wrote the first C Compiler and applied the revolutionary theories of Object Oriented Programming. All of this was done by men in thier 50s -that is a full generation before the 60s. The communications protocols TCP and IP were orginally developed in the 60s by the DOD.

The Civil Rights Movement. Most of the people who fought for Civil Rights did so in the late 40s and 50s. The rabble rousing that gets so much attention occured after the 1964 Civil Rights Act -which was written and signed mainly by aging politicians born at or before 1920. Most of the ground breaking legal battles occured in the 50s by people who got not one shred of media attention. The was a definite break between those who older civil rights activits who labored decades for no money or self acclaim and the "younger turks" who took to the streets AFTER Congress outlawed racial discrimination. To tell you the truth, most boomers were too self indulgent to worry about Jim Crow; the late 60s rioting by white boomers was just cheap grandstanding. Full of incoherent Marxist sloganeering, acid, the recipients of free Media, these long haired stoned-ponies had a great time playing Robespierre at the barricades.

The Best and The Brightest. There is some degree of truth here. The boomers probably received the best education known to man. Back in the 40s, 50s to the mid 60s, schools were much more difficult; standards were very high, and the boomers in college had some of the greatest minds of the 20th Century to learn from. The mid-late 60s was the last time foreign languages were taken seriously -by serious I mean a mastery of a language where the student could not only speak it fluently, but also absorb the cultural icons as well. It was very common back in the early 60s to see even a math or science grad student converse fluently in 2 languages. But, what did these students do with such an education? What are they leaving behind as they themselves now approach retirement?

The Sexual Revolution: The boomers have this down pat. Never in the history of Man has a group put so much effort into self gratification. Nothing stands in the way to thier enjoyment of sex; not marriage (divorce and adultery), children (artificial contraception, abortion), nor old age (Viagra) will prevent them from thier pursuits. In the wake is the wreckage of 2 younger generations. Divorce, suicide, rampant STDs, and 1 million abortions litter our landscape. But hey, we are liberated, aren't we?

60s and logic of the article
Overall, I have to say the 60s were
good for one reason they made us
skeptical of our government and made
us more ready to question authority.

Oh and another thing going for the 60s
the music - rock music, Motown, British
Invasion, etc.

Point 2 - Sowell starts off writing
against "collective guilt" and then
ends making a case for collective
guilt for the 60s? Did I miss something?

I was 14 in 1966.
I remember thinking the Vietnam War was silly, to think that we could not occupy Hanoi whenever we chose. Then the "Greatest Generation" dilly dallied and more and more of my contemporaries were drafted and nothing was accomplished. That more than anything I remember started the anti-government movement. We children knew we could win and could not figure out why our elders would not take the necessary steps to win. If we were not going to fight to win, we wanted out.

Nothing is black and white, and the 60's had much that was good and much that was bad, just like now. The fact is that the 00's have much good that is occurring. Every generation has to determine its own course. The baby boomers are coming into power. Truly there are reprobates in our leadership, but there are also good and strong men and women. The battle against evil never ends until we face our Creator in judgment. It is too easy to point fingers and whine and complain, far easier than to get off our lazy butts and make things better. God bless all of you.

There should be
a "Draft Dr. Sowell" campaign going on, although I know he is getting up in years. It isn't stopping McCain, though.

Total Nonsense
Name the nationally known Black columnist before the sixties. Right, you can't. Stinking liberals.

I agree the sixties were bad. Now we have women and minorities asking to be taken seriously!

And hey, we can't even beat our wives without the guvment butting in. Next thing you know blacks will be asking to vote and live in white neigborhoods. We'll have open drinking fountains and coloreds sitting beside whites on trains. Bet they might start giving girls college scholarships. No self respecting conservative will ever be a part of such nonsense. The sixties would have never happened if it had not been for evil liberals.


I hate the sixties.

Something Like the Sixties Generation
Gabby, I don't know where you got your history
education, but I would go back and ask for a refund!

always Right
I see LD has competition.

Wouldn't it be easier to *not* pretend?

What good came out of the 60's?
I grew up in LA in the 60's. I ended up going to RVN for 2 years. After I got out of the Army I fled from the city to "get back to the land" up in North Idaho. There were a bunch of us city kids that left the city for the "freedom" of the communes and small farms.
The biggest and most important thing that came out of the 60's was the moving of God's Holy Spirit that gave us the charismatic movement and Calvary Chapel and the other evangilistic churches that grew up. Those hippies up in North Idaho were looking for "peace, love and freedom" and God saw our hearts and gave us REAL peace, love and freedom!
The Holy Spirit blew through those communes and those hippies got "saved". We all started wearing shoes and throwing away our drugs, getting jobs and we even got married to our "old ladies". Most of us are now grandparents and mostly are conservative, we are giving back to our communities and our churches and have been doing that since we got saved.
Out of all the darkness of that self-satisfying generation came God's light for those who wanted to see it. Those evangelical conservatives that the Left hates and loves to vilify came out of the 60's

The other good thing that came out of the 60's is the Beachboys....

Gun Control Side Effect
Another side effect of gun bans that you don't hear mentioned very often is that it not only ensures criminals have a monopoly on gun use, but also ensures that criminals have a monopoly on gun distribution. Since gun bans increase the market value of guns by creating an artificial shortage, the prices of guns on the black market will rise. This in turn channels more money into the criminal sector of society, which is involved in not only selling guns on the black market but also using the guns to commit crimes. More money equals more power to expand thier enterprise and engage in even more crime.

The ban on drugs is a perfect example of how morality police have given criminals a major source of funding, allowing them to amass far more capital than they ever could with traditinoal street crimes. Black market operatinos are far more profitable and safer than robbing people or banks. So profitable, in fact, that gangs, mafia and other forms of organized crime will pool their efforts together in a battle to control the market. This in turn leads to a drastic increase in both crime and corruption. When money is pouring into the hands of undesireables, they aquire the power of self preservation and expansion, using their funds to pay off police, judges and anyone else who can be bought. The money trail also leads to undesireable foreign dictators, terrorists and other war lords who utilize the profits from black market items to fund their armies. Those armies eventually grow into bigger problems for us later on, usually costing us massive amounts of tax dollars and even lives to deal with.

The more items that get cast into the realm of black markets by benevolent politicians trying to save us from ourselves, the more power we transfer to the scum on this Earth.

-Kyle

To dyerje
Yeah, who could forget good old mimeograph ink? The huffers of today would have a fit with that stuff.

I laughed when I read your post and remembered everytime the teacher passed out a test everbody immediately put it to their face and sniffed.


To always Right
Name ANY nationally known columnist before the 60s.

60s -Liberalism
Ya'll who keep talking about the rise of liberalism in the 60s have been getting your ideas from political rhetoric,not history . The rise of liberalism happened in the 30s.FDR was elected ,and reelacte aned reealetcted to deal with the mess caused by the 3 years of republican administrations preceeding. Talk about pigs loose in the grain bin. The 20s was and incredibaly greedy selfindulgent. Unlike the 60s they werent calling for more Honesty in government,equal rights for black and poor people,or using our rising technical abilities to end war,they were calling for more Champaign,and Cocaine.Drug use was widespread enoug that teh drugs were made illegal.

Countryman The Democratic party,gets it's support by supporting the outsiders,disenfranchised,underprivileged,so when activists squeek the Dems rush with the oil.That doesn't mean they serve the goals the activists had in mind The whole commune thing was based on the attempt to take personal responsibility for livliehood,food production living in community ,and the upper middle class kids who tried it ,and didn't know anything about prctical skill,adn tool use learned alot.
JPK I didn't say the 60 generation invented the computer, I said they in their idealsim for equality ,and against central authority and hierarchy,invented the Personal Computer.It wsn't just economics, Apple set ou to make computers for everyone ,they were laughed at.Up until IBM started making PCS too.Read the history. And lot's of the engineers who came up withthese innovations used LSD. when it was still legal.Crick and Wtson who discovered the double helix formation of DNA,which has allowed the human genome project and all the genetic technologies,which are just barely getting started now,were on LSD when they made their discovery. In fact alot of technical innovations and science were influenced by this. As Isaid the LSD movement was started when the CIA started experimenting with it in the 50s.
The 60s generation also started the Ntural Foods movement which is now the fastest growing part of the Ag economy and has caused a revolution in nutrition ,which wasn't well studied ,(at least for humans) before. MDs don't have to know nutrition .Can you imagine a Auto engineer not knowing about the fule the engine uses?

Vic
"To always Right
Name ANY nationally known columnist before the 60s."

Does it have to be the fake? I can name 2, off the top of my head. ;)


Sam
FDR's New (RAW) Deal was the first time socialism made political gains but there were socialist experiments, even here in America, in the mid 1800s and in England before that. Robert Owens influenced Engals, who influenced Marx. Modern liberalism is merely a reflection of socialism and communism is the redheaded step-child of socialism.

Socialism is slavery.

Blaming the 60s
Let's not fall into the habit of blaming everything wrong on the 1960s just as liberals blame nearly everything on slavery. 40 years ago isn't quite as faded as 140 years ago, but while many of us were alive in the 1960s, myself included, there are adults who were not.
New generations have grown up in a different context and those of us who were there went on to deal with other things in other ways -- not that many in influential positions were there and have not changed.
But conservatives who blame everything on a time rapidly falling away will become as dangerously irrelevant as liberals who do the same thing...

Nonsense
The Virginia Tech shooter was, by all accounts, severely mentally ill, probably psychotic and probably a delusional paranoid schizophrenic. Can Thomas Sowell produce evidence that schizophrenia is caused by liberal social policies of the 1960's? No, because there isn't any. In fact, current thinking is that it's caused by an imbalance of brain biochemistry. But facts never get in the way of conservative rhetoric. So far in the last week on townhall I have seen Cho's rampage attributed to evil, absence of Jesus, liberal politics, political correctness, a silly curriculum, affirmative action, and now, liberal social policies of the 1960's. One townhall rant said essentially, you think that was a massacre, but the real massacre is of Christians in the pulpit.

If you want the world to take you seriously, conservatives, stop publishing nonsense.

Moral Relativism
Patriot; you are spot on with your comment:

'It boils down to moral relativism and a (as Larry Elder says) "victocrat" mentality.'

Is it not ironic that 'Moral Relativism' is used by the Left as the means by which they presume to occupy the moral highground by having declared that there is no such thing?

Anything Positive From the 1960's?
Ask Dr Sowell. Before the Civil Rights movement of the 'fifties and 'sixties, many a fine black scholar was working as a janitor. And many a conservative tried very hard to keep him in that job.

While you're at it, ask him if he has much trouble these days registering at a nice hotel, attending the theater, being seated at a nice restaurant, or trying on a garment in a nice store. Ask him if his purchase of a home is limited to a black neighborhood. Ask him if when his children apply to Harvard or Princeton they are politely diverted to Howard or Meherry. Ask him if he's been addressed as "Boy" lately. Ask him if he is stopped by the police when he drives into a majority white neighborhood. Ask him if his sons and daughters have been arrested for dating a white person.

All of this was commonplace back in the days of racial segregation. The liberal climate of the 1960's did much to improve life for minorities in the United States. I see by Sowell's bio that he is three years older than I am, so he knows what I'm talking about. We both remember the way things used to be.


To killer
Lilly is correct on this score..Cho was clinically insane. So is socialism. To say it is "good economics" when implemented correctly ignores the obvious fact that it has NEVER worked. Any country that implements socialism sets itself on a road to failure. The time it takes to fail is directly proportional to the degree of socialism implemented.

curious
Sowell considers it significant that racial riots of a particular type were more common in the North which he attributes to their acceptance of collective guilt. But he does not seem to think it is significant that these kinds of school shootings, from Columbine, to Arkansas to Kentucky, to rural Virginia are happening in exactly the opposite kinds of places.

This does support the idea that cultural differences play a role in how violence emerges, and that there are cultural differences between what we now call the blue states and red states (although it might be better to think of areas within the states). It does not, however, support the idea that the '60s (by which he means blue state culture) is responsible for the school shootings.

Ray
"Is it not ironic that 'Moral Relativism' is used by the Left as the means by which they presume to occupy the moral highground by having declared that there is no such thing?"

Speak of the devil:
"Socialism is not "SLAVERY"!Socialism is a legitimate approach to resource distribution,when properly instituted."

Moral relativism at it's finest. :D

Socialism is slavery. It's an attempt to make people equal in ways they are not, by force. I shouldn't have to pay for a debt I do not owe. Forced redistribution of wealth is slavery. The opposite of that is called charity. Much of todays anti-American attitude is because American capitalism stands as the superior alternative to socialism and liberals cant have that.

That some would sit and try to defend socialism in a Sowell column is amusing. He's certainly no socialist either. Smart man. :D




lilly
"Ask Dr Sowell. Before the Civil Rights movement of the 'fifties and 'sixties, many a fine black scholar was working as a janitor. And many a conservative tried very hard to keep him in that job. "

To quote Dr. Sowell:
"Democrats are the only reason to vote Republican."

At least he's not a deluded liberal. :D

Like, LSD, man!
Crick and Watson on LSD? Are you serious? Who's next on your fantasy list? Albert Einstein? Edwin Hubble? Stephen Hawking?

I tink you've had too much LSD; you need to come back to Earth. Wait a minute, what am I saying? Never mind. Stay where you are and give us bi-weekly reports ;->

Lily
I find it astonishing that Boomers take credit for the Civil Rights Movement. If you consider that most of the Landmark cases, not to mention the Civil Rights Act of 1964 occured before most boomers will able to vote, thier assertion is absurd. The student riots of the late 60s had nothing to do with Civl Rights. Dr Sowell's right to eat at a diner or sit at the front of the bus occured because of what activists did in the 50s and early 60s, not in 1968 or 1969. The race riots had nothing to do with the Civil RIghts Act, as the rioters were wanting a new kind of segregation. The civil rights activists of the 50s and early 60s were intergrationists.

In contrast, the boomers were self indulgent, Marxists-idealogues. Their kind of equality was of a Marxist kind (still is), which required a giving up of liberties (still does). Please, get off the internet and read a few history books.

Vic
Since you never replied I'll answer your question about nationally known columnists before the 60s.

1) Ann Landers
2) Dear Abby

Sisters by the way...

Medicine, anyone?

I like the way people who have no medical background are diagnosing someone as "psychotic", "schizophrenic", and "insane".

This little VT creep was a psychopath, a sociopath, but he certainly was not schizophrenic or psychotic. Someone who is psychotic is delusional, and not capable of organizing a group of girl scouts to the rest room, let alone methodically hunting down and killing 32 people.

A schizophrenic does not have a "split personality". This is a Hollywood fabrication, and often used by the MSM who would do well to do a little more research. A schizophrenic is delusional, and thinks that Martians are talking to him, or that his dog is driving him around in his car. A person who is psychotic is mostly a danger to themselves, not other people.

Sixties...
I was in college then. For 90%+ of the sixties rebels, it was nothing more than a rationalization for easy sex and drugs. In the process they were useful idiots for the handful who manipulated them for a socialist political agenda. Before socialism could be instituted, they first had to create anarchy. The sixties generation obliged.

Out of anarchy comes the rule of the biggest thug; in the case of the USA, the one with his hands deepest in your pocket redistributing YOUR wealth to buy votes. We had a short reprieve in the '80s with Reagan and a few years in the '90s with a Repub lican Congress. As of now, those very sixties radicals have a majority in congress, run Academia, and most of the media.

We ow have a society of aggressive ignorance shouting down any voice of reason; trying to decide foreign policy visa vie coutries they can't find on the map without Mapquest.

Why isn't the Statue of Liberty weeping?


The Historian
Thank you for setting the record straight.

The myths about the 1960's abound; the past isn't as wonderful or as terrible as the people today are told it was.

I, too, lived in the 1960's, half as a student, the other half as a soldier.

Regarding the "revolution": socialism was in vogue (again) as the panacea for all the world's woes. Che was the romantic hero of the revolution, regardless of the fact that he was merely a killer. That, and the black civil rights "movement", the Vietnam War, a huge population spike in young people (boomers) and the normal youthful rebellion converged to create an above-normal period of civil conflict.

In this century, socialism is again coming to the forefront, regardless of how successful capitalism is. This time, however, there is no baby boomer generation to swell the numbers. Remember, the 1960's had no cable TV or Internet; rumors and propaganda are short-lived, debunked by availability of instant communication.

Easily Debunked: Rudiments of Argument?
Whoa: This is one wrong-headed article! [Parts of it are actually idiotic.] And the assertions are so easily, in most cases, dismantled:


Aftermath of the 1960s?
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/04/24/aftermath_of_
the_1960s
Someone recently said that mass shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech
or Columbine High School, are largely a phenomenon of the 1960s and
afterwards. If so, these tragedies can be added to the long list of
disastrous consequences of the heady notions and extravagant rhetoric of
that decade.

Well... the school shootings had zero to do with the 1960s. I'd say that have much more to do with the fact that a known mental patient could easily buy automatic weapons, unlike anywhere else in the industrialized world.


What was there in the 1960s vision of the world that could possibly lead
anyone to consider it right to shoot at individuals who had done nothing to
him?

Answer: absolutely nothing.


Collective guilt is one of the legacies of the 1960s that is still with us.
We are still seeing a guilt trip for slavery being laid on people who never
owned a slave in their lives, and who would be repelled by the very idea of
owning a slave.

The guilt trip is over a SOCIETY that allowed -- no, embraced -- slavery for 200 years, then restrictive civil laws for another hundred, all against a class of its citizens, due to their skin color. And still cannot come to terms with that fact, or help the people whose ancestors were literally owned and had everything of value stolen from them.


Back in the 1960s, it was considered Deep Stuff among the intelligentsia to
say that American society -- all of us collectively -- were somehow resp
onsible for the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers and Martin Luther
King.

I don't know a single person who believed that. And no one thought such ideas were "deep".


During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were
lacking was someone else's fault -- society's fault. If you were poor,
whether at home or in some Third World country, you were one of the
"dispossessed" -- even if you had never possessed anything to dispossess
you of.

Those countries are known as "kleptocracies" for a reason: a ruling class sought to control all resources and means of production. The US was NOT a good example of that. But even Saudi society today is. Does this guy know nothing about world history?


The urban ghetto riots that swept across the country during the 1960s were
all blamed on society. This view was formalized in a much-hailed report on
urban violence by a national "blue ribbon" commission headed by Governor
Otto Kerner of Illinois.
President Lyndon Johnson likewise blamed urban violence on social
conditions, saying: "All of us know what those conditions are: ignorance,
discrimination, slums, poverty, disease, not enough jobs."

"Urban ghettos" were all black. I'd say the widespread poverty of black people in the 1960s just might have had a little to do with them not having civil rights. They were rioting for the rights that white males had since the founding of this great land.


This sweeping and heady vision made it unnecessary to stoop to anything so
mundane as hard facts -- which would have included the fact that urban
riots struck most often and most violently when and where this collective
guilt vision prevailed.

This is an extremely stupid remark by any standards, devoid of one piece of evidence, and falling prey to even simple statistical reasoning (correlation vs. causation). If
this is his standard of evidence, he doesn't have a standard.


Southern cities, where at that time discrimination and poverty were more
pronounced than in the rest of the country, were not nearly as often or as
hard-hit as cities outside the South.

OhmyGOD: is he a TOTAL MORON? The Southerners were MUCH MORE VIOLENT. Blacks there were kept under control by decades of Jim Crow laws,
lynchings, beatings, lack of anything approaching civil justice... one can go on and on. Northern black people felt much freer to riot because they had actual rights there
for so much longer. It's such a simple explanation, and he completely ignores it.


Detroit, which suffered the most deadly of all the ghetto riots of the
1960s, with 43 deaths, had an unemployment rate among blacks of 3.4 percent
-- which was lower than the national unemployment rate among whites.
Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley was not buying the liberal guilt
trips of the time, was one of the few big Northern cities to escape the
wave of riots that swept across the country in 1967.

What are we supposed to conclude from these two facts?


The kinds of mass urban riots that occurred all across the country during
Lyndon Johnson's administration became virtually unknown during the eight
years of the Reagan administration, which projected a completely different
vision of the world.

Correlation? Causation?
We had economic prosperity during the Reagan years. Riots tend to peter out when there's lots of money floating around.


But, then as now, facts often came in a poor second to heady visions and
sweeping rhetoric.
If other people are somehow responsible for whatever is lacking in your
life, lashing out at random against individuals who have done nothing to
you personally can sound plausible to many people.

If he's trying to tie 60s rhetoric -- which isn't what people were saying then AT ALL -- into VATech, he's doing a horrible job. I've seen tenuous connections before, but this takes the cake.


Whether or not the latest mass killings at Virginia Tech were a result of
medically verifiable insanity, there have always been insane people but
there have not always been mass killings with the frequency we have seen
since 1960.

Could getting guns -- and copying the acts of people who have them -- play a role, ya think?


Nor is gun control the magic answer, as often suggested by the same kind of
people who believe in collective responsibility instead of individual
responsibility.

Let me tell him something: it IS the answer. This guy was AUTISTIC and CERTIFIED CRAZY. If we had even the simplest checks on gun ownership, this would NOT have happened. No guns = no mass murder. This guy needs to ponder that simple equation.


Since murder is illegal everywhere, why would someone who is unwilling to
obey the law against murder be willing to obey a law against getting a gun
-- which is easy to get illegally?

It is NOT easy to get illegally in countries that have actual gun control? Only in AMERICA -- with 200 million guns -- is it "easy".


One of the many hard facts that get overlooked by those impressed by
visions and rhetoric is that mass shootings almost invariably occur in
gun-free zones like schools, workplaces, or houses of worship.

Because those are all REPRESSIVE regimes, where people seek revenge. The same rules that keep everyone under control (e.g., not having guns) tend to dehumanize us. And we go back trying to kill people.


When has a mass killer opened fire on a meeting of the National Rifle
Association or fired on a group of hunters?

Another idiotic question, since no one is seeking revenge on those people; they don't have personal relationships with them.


Instead of banning guns, maybe we should rethink 1960s dogmas.

Or maybe you, Mr. Sowell, should learn the rudiments of argumentation and evidence.

aw

afriKKKa
"Whoa: This is one wrong-headed article! [Parts of it are actually idiotic.] And the assertions are so easily, in most cases, dismantled:"

"Or maybe you, Mr. Sowell, should learn the rudiments of argumentation and evidence."

I was thinking the same thing about the small portion of your reply too. Perhaps if you actually used "quotes" to quote Dr. Sowell, it would have been worth reading through and further replying. With a name like "afriKKKa" and your constant victocrat mentality, it's easy enough to dismiss you.

"Blacks are more racist than whites" -- Larry Elder

Let me remind you
Mr Sowell. As always, I appreciated your article but I must take note with one glaring point. Although Chicago did not burn and was not the site of any riots in 1967, rioting was in the streets of Chicago at the Democrat Convention in 1968, one year later. It is this that we and specifically the once proud democrat party of John F Kennedy and Scoop Jackson are paying for today. Those on the outside rioting in 1968 have since 1972 been in control of the democrat party.

I remember the 60's quite well. I had my share of debates with the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) on my college campus. They promoted anarchy. They didn't want to solve anything. They only wished to destroy what our forefathers had created for us. The only thing I was never able to understand was why.

Conservative Ron
"They promoted anarchy. They didn't want to solve anything. They only wished to destroy what our forefathers had created for us. The only thing I was never able to understand was why."

Why is easy. Anarchy and socialism relieve them of the responsibilities of life and their own actions. American capitalism demands such personal responsibility and the left want nothing to do with it.

Hope that helps...

Pathetic article. Here is a challenge:
The above Sowell column is pathetic. Poor thinking, poor presentation, stale ideas.

I will contribute $20 toward hiring a professional editor or Stanford grad student to review Sowell's article with respect to logic and presentation. Let's find out how good or bad Sowell's work is.

I'm not interested in comments from participants in this forum. Let's collect some money and get an opinion from a skilled outsider.

I estimate that about $200 would be sufficient for the proposed task.

Who else wants to contribute? Assuming there are some other contributors, I'll volunteer to help with the mechanics of getting the task done.

I want to reconfirm my view that Sowell's work has become highly erratic. Probably time for him to retire and go fishing.

Hey Poor Richard
James Watson said they were on LSD,don't you think he would know?

Pal Sixty
Ah! The 1960s. I was in high school, college, and the Navy during the 1960s.

Dr Sowell, I wasn't big on politics, but I did attend a rally for Bobby Kennedy. I didn't know who he was other than John's younger brother and the nepotised Attorney General. I wasn't impressed.

I knew there were race riots and other unrest around the country, but I didn't pay much attention to it. It wasn't in my neck of the woods, and I saw no nearby manifestations of the problems. Not an admirable attitude, for sure, but then I was young and not particularly worried about anything outside of graduating and marrying my sweetheart.

I agree in part with some previous posters on a number of their sentiments. Okay, here we go with the confessions. I didn't smoke marijuana or do drugs, and I didn't know anyone who did. There were no scandals in our school, nor were there any prominent expulsions. Pretty weeny? I didn't think so at the time. I thought we were all pretty normal. The worst we ever did was drink beer and go to Florida and the Bahamas during spring break.

A lot of social and technical progress occurred during the 1960s, and I agree that the impetus often came from the 1950s. But, I remember taking a non-credit course in programming that new thing-a-ma-jig in the big cabinets, we had our ruby laser that did---actually I don't know what it did on campus---and JFK and LBJ managed to get us involved in a war---which today's Liberals like to misrepresent as not being a Democrat creation. And then came the Great Society.

I didn't like the Great Society social programs then, and I don't like their aftermath now. It was a colossal, misdirected, series of programs that could never work in real life. And they haven't. Say, Harry Reid! You want a lost war? Try the War on Poverty. Your progenitor Liberals/Democrats didn't do so good, did they?

Just look at what we have to live with now. We still have the same number, if not more, poor. Our education facilities are sub-par in quality if not in physical plants. Welfare has spiraled into a never-ending quagmire. Generations can claim to be drawing from it. Fewer and fewer people find the desire to actually work for a living. [Vive la France!] Leave the family and let Uncle Sam pay the bills. On welfare? Sure...there are plenty of ways to work the system even in the modern era.

But, the legacy from the period can be seen everywhere. They may not be called flower people or revolutionaries anymore, but they're just as misguided today as in the past---now in the guise of Liberals. Just read some of the postings here. A lot of misinformation and misunderstanding of real history dwell in these marbled [town]halls. No more VW buses; today's Liberals drive SUVs and complain about oil dependency.

Roadmaster and Dr K, you have provided fine posts. Thank you. And JPK, you make some valid points, too. Well done.

Matthew: wah wah wah yourself. Stop looking in the mirror, and you'll be cured of your brain freeze. Perhaps some of your cranial cells can be saved.

Butterfly62, I'm sorry you're so concerned about your grandchildren. I fear the future for mine as well. But, all we can do is bring them up as best as we can and hope they'll survive. My parents worried about me and mine as well. We have to continue our positive attitudes and work to correct what we can while we can. We won't be around in 30 or 40 years from now, but they will. And what we can give them is a good rearing in what's important, true, and workable. After that, it's up to them.

Drivebyposting: I read your usual rant; you never change. Sad.

Sam, take a few dollars and buy yourself a third-grade speller.

Lilly: Your misunderstanding of everything still amazes me. I suppose you realize your friend, Bob Byrd, Democrat West Virginia, was thoroughly involved with the Ku Klux Klan in or near the 1960s---but I'm sure you haven't thought of that. Why wake up from a dream?

Just found! On my blog is the Liberalist Manifesto and my recent visit to the Daily Kos. Enjoy.

To JPK
If you read my post again you will see that I don't mention boomers. The Civil Rights Act was 1964 and the Fair Housing Act was 1968. The Freedom Riders are associated with the year 1961. King's "I Have a Dream" speech was 1963. Voter registration of Southern black citizens went on throughout the 'sixties. It was white liberals who marched and sat in with black people and registered new voters. It was white conservatives who stood on sidewalks spitting on and screaming at black children trying to get to first grade. The songs "Blowin' in the Wind" and "We Shall Overcome" were constantly heard on the radio.
Trust me, all of this was actively going forward throughout the 1960's. I was there.

No need for a history book, son. I lived through this era and was intimately involved in it.

Strikes me that while Thomas Sowell enjoys the fruits of those years, he has forgotten to say "Thank you".

To DavidMac
Where did you get the idea that the VT shooter was autistic? Autistic people are seldom associated with violence. Being delusional is not usual in autism. Please don't give autistic folks more troubles than they already have. Or do you think that "autistic" is just a synonym for "mentally ill"? Google autism and learn something.

To tmmccoy
According to Byrd's online bio his participation in the Ku Klux Klan was not in the 1960's but from 1942-1952. And what makes you think he is a friend of mine? I think he should have retired long since.

Unlike liberals crazies understand guns
These mass murders are usually prepared to die and take their own life after killing as many other unarmed people as they wish but avoid a gun battle with the armed authorities chasing them. Isn't that another sign being armed is all empowering only in an unarmed setting even if you are nuts?

To sdan
1) How do you know the background of posters to this board?

2) You are dead wrong if you think a psychotic person is not a danger to others. Indeed he or she may be. Psychosis is an extreme form of mental illness in which reality testing is lost. The person lives in a private reality which is real to him but not to others. Sometimes that reality includes instructions to kill. Sometimes those instructions are carried out. Or the person who is killed may be perceived as something or someone dangerous who must be destroyed. Or the patient may delude dangers from which the victim must be "rescued" through death.

jpk
That's one million abortions:

A YEAR!

Watson on acid
Name your source, with page numbers.

lilly

Thank you for your comments. I infer the backgrounds of other posters based on their comments, of course, just as do you. I see a lot of medically erroneous comments.

Obviously a person who is floridly psychotic is a danger to both him(her)self as well as others. HOWEVER -- this is a tiny minority of the general population. You are statistically more likely to be struck by lightening than harmed by a person who is psychotic.

I always object whenever anyone talks about a schizophrenic as having a "split personality". This alone indicates a lack of medical knowledge. And YES, I have a medical background, and worked for 30 years with over 20,000 patients.

"If so..."
I see no blanket statements in Dr. Sowell's article that claim an absolute. He is following a train of thought that, as he states, "...someone recently said..."
Dr. Sowell continues, "If so,..." in order to expound upon that thought.
He does suggest that we examine the wisdom of a central idea prevalent in the 60's:
"During the 1960s, the idea spread like wildfire that whatever you were lacking was someone else's fault -- society's fault."

I think it is central and legitimate dogma to examine - are we, as individuals, responsible for our own lives and actions?

Certainly the mere existence, or even the presence of an inanimate object was not responsible for the tragedy at VT. It was the perpetrator's state of mind, and his own statements blaming 'society' that demonstrate the failure of the 1960's dogma Dr. Sowell refers to.

That reasoning does establish, at least in part, some connection to the original premise suggested in the article.

Patriot
Yes, I can understand that academically but I cannot come to grasp with it empathetically. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly wish for the destruction of this nation and all it offers.

Dogmas Die Hard
Australia had a big mass shooting by a blond haired Australian at a food take-out in Tasmania in 1995. Prime Minister John Howard decreed that henceforth all guns in Australia were illegal and had to be turned-in to Federal Police. The only exception was single shot shotguns (over and under), single shot bolt action rifles. No magazines are allowed. Gun control zealots are heading in the same direction in America, only much more slowly.

Conservative Ron
"Yes, I can understand that academically but I cannot come to grasp with it empathetically. I cannot understand how anyone could possibly wish for the destruction of this nation and all it offers."

Socialism is evil and liberals are deluded. It doesn't actually have to make sense. :(

Hunters
"When has a mass killer opened fire on a meeting of the National Rifle Association or fired on a group of hunters?"
Wisconsin, a few years ago,one of the Hmong immigrants, opened fire on a band of white hunters and at least one was killed as I recall, and perhaps more.

Say, "eddie", you're right...

...the Vietnam War was silly. Tragically silly. The objective of the Johnson Administration was not to win, that is invade or defeat Hanoi, but to maintain the status quo of keeping the communists from taking Saigon until Lyndon Johnson could be reelected in 1968. That's all it was, a holding action for an election and nothing more. Your opinion of the situation in Vietnam as "children" was correct.

My first tour was as a draftee, my second as regular army. You'd think I'd have learned. But upon reflection, I realize I was nothing more than an unwilling volunteer on the first tour for the Democratic Party's "Campaign '68". The second tour was for myself and a career in the Army. I left after 10 years because the "Greatest Generation" still remaining in the army, continued to "dilly-dally" with the security of the nation as secondary to their retirement entitlements. The Baby Boomer's will be no better.


Is there a common pathology involved
When I was in the Navy world war 2 a kid came into a board room and shoot eight people to death. These angry nut cases have apparently been with us for ever. I wonder if there is some primitive drive or mechanism that is common to these cases.
So far it seems imposslble to identify them before they kill.

Columnists
Jack Anderson, William Buckley, Walter Lippman, Walter Winchell and really, many others. I was born in 1940 and as long as I can remember, read the newspaper, starting with the opinion page and then the comics, saving the articles so I could absorb them.

I am an army brat and have many family members in the military--5 in the Vietnam era, none of whom were spat upon or denigrated. Do you suppose it's because we lived mostly in the southwest?

Proper Nomenclature Helps

Quote JPK
"In contrast, the boomers were self indulgent, Marxists-idealogues."

No, sir. You're confusing "boomers" with "hippies". The boomers, for the most part were at college to get degrees to further careers and make an improvement on what they had been given. See Bill Gates.

The hippies are still with us. You can find them in odd "spiritual" locations. Still referring to everyone as "man", still complaining, still out of touch and still, mostly, drug-addled, oversexed imbeciles. See Jane Fonda

The hippies were a small vocal group of doomsdayers and naysayers much like today's enviornmentalist half-wits.

Reply To Thomas Sowell
"Someone recently said that mass shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School, are largely a phenomenon of the 1960s and afterwards. If so, these tragedies can be added to the long list of disastrous consequences of the heady notions and extravagant rhetoric of that decade (TS)."
***


Nope.

Rap is the direct result of the Conservative- sanctioned, so-called liberal Daniel Patrick Moynihan's "benign neglect," coming home to roost.
***

The Virginia Tech murders are the direct result of Conservatives holding up every other ethnic group as being better than blacks, yet blacks have never bombed four little white girls in their churches, blacks have never flown airplanes into the World Trade Center, and blacks have never murdered 32 students on a college campus.

Yet blacks are still treated like the scum of the American earth.




The 60's
I too am a product of the sixties. I spent almost all of it in a uniform. I got to see how the communists really act. I got to see real grinding poverty, not the only one TV set kind.

I also got to see a bunch of overfed, pampered, idle children, throw temper tantrums and get away with it.

Whenever I am supposed to feel some collective guilt about slavery, I get out my great-grandfathers discharge papers from the Union Army. I often wonder what he would think about it. I am here because he lived through it. My sons and daughters and grandchildren are here because I lived through it.

I am amazed at the audacity of people in this country. They take no part in the continuing price that is paid for our freedoms, but they cry and moan about anything and everything it takes to maintain it.

Nothing has ever changed in human endeavers. You still have to look monsters in the eye and kill them when you find them.

If you don't you will be ground under their feet like all the rest have been throughout history.

Sowell's Ludicrous Assertions
"Someone recently said that mass shootings, such as those at Virginia Tech or Columbine High School, are largely a phenomenon of the 1960s and afterwards. If so, these tragedies can be added to the long list of disastrous consequences of the heady notions and extravagant rhetoric of that decade."

This Sowell article is an embarassment. To take his fanciful notion- " liberal hippies of the 60's are responsible " is as idiotic as Limbaugh saying the Shooter must have been a liberal

It is more amusing how other posters take their anecdotes from the 60's and embrace Sowell

A strange world you live in. Reminds me of the miserable embarassment of a President many of you voted for

Countryman
Bingo.

Lily
And your point is? Sowell's OpEd had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Movement, and everything to do with the over-indulgent boomer generation. Perhaps, you should take a lesson in reading comprehension. Sowell said nothing negative about the Civil Rights Movement, but boomers always attempt to co-opt the Civil Rights Movement.


Repeat, most of the work of the Civil Rights Movement culminated in judicial action of the 50s. While everyone remembers MLK's speeches, few remember that JFK was luke warm to the movement, and the biggest obstacle to the 1964 bill were Democrats. If it wasn't for the energy of LBJ and GOP voters, the 1964 Civil Rights Act never would have passed; it just wasn't on the Democrat's agenda.

Reminders
#1 "The poor ye shall always have with you"
#2 "There is a time for every purpose under Heaven
A time to plant and a time to uproot
A time to build and a time to tear down
A time to gather stones and a time to scatter
A time to embrace and a time to be far away
A time to keep and a time to cast away
A time to sew and a time to rend
A time to seek and a time to lose
A time to dance and a time to mourn
A time to love and a time to hate
A time for peace and a time for war."
The world cannot be viewed or made to fit through a pair of Disneyland lenses, as much as we wished it could when we were children. It was this way, it is this way now, it will always be this way! We do what we can and we move on.



Everybody gots rights, right?
Many bad things came from "the sixties", but one of the worst was the idea that any identifiable group has rights and priviliges that must be respected. The root of this is actually racism. Since blacks improved their civil rights in the sixties, the logic seems to be, if N*****s have rights then EVERYBODY does. The violent criminal, the deviant (define it yourself), the mentally deficient, the insane, animals -- everybody. Black Americans are NOT the lowest benchmark in society below whom no one should be placed. The fight against racial bigotry is not a valid template to justify the "rights" of every other group imaginable

black knight
b.k. posted, "blacks are still treated like the scum of the American earth."


Nope. However, if blacks ACT like scum of the earth, they are treated accordingly.

b.k., you claim the killings at VT were a result of conservatives ". . . holding up every other ethnic group as being better than blacks."

I'm surprised that the monitors at TH.com allow you to post that racist B.S. here. You've posted so much racist remarks that you should have been banned a long time ago.

I've never flagged any poster as "offensive" but in YOUR case I'm going to do so because of your obvious and consistent racism.

Reply To DavidMac
"DavidMac writes: Sunday, April, 29, 2007 10:59 PM
black knight
b.k. posted, "blacks are still treated like the scum of the American earth."


Nope. However, if blacks ACT like scum of the earth, they are treated accordingly.

b.k., you claim the killings at VT were a result of conservatives ". . . holding up every other ethnic group as being better than blacks."

I'm surprised that the monitors at TH.com allow you to post that racist B.S. here. You've posted so much racist remarks that you should have been banned a long time ago.

I've never flagged any poster as "offensive" but in YOUR case I'm going to do so because of your obvious and consistent racism (DM)."
***


Yes, blacks who act like scum like the distinguished congressman Harold Ford, who was shot down by the Republican National Committees' racist Naked White Lady Tennessee ad, should be treated like scum, right?

We know the score.

Distingushed gentlemen like Ford and high achieving black women like the Rutgers women's basketball team get treated like scum all the time by white men like Imus, and rightly they should be, right?
***

The world can see these conservatives Republicans for what they are.

If one doesn't agree with them, then one is branded a racist.

They can't attack the argument so they devolve into their bread and butter gutter tactics, the discredited politics of personal destruction.

They believe in the lowest common denominator.

So glad I knew the man that conservatives hate, the greatest President of the 20th Century, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, who believed in appealing to the highest common denominator.

Everytime conservatives attack me, I relish it, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the great President Kennedy.
***

Germany, see how these conservatives work.

France, pull up a chair.

Spain, have a sit down.

Sweden, here is a seat for you.

We won't leave out the Swiss.

Give a listen.

Notice how David Mac did not attack the racists who blew up the 4 little black Birmingham girls.

Notice how he didn't attack the 911 terrorist who flew planes into the World Trade Center.

Notice how he didn't attack the person who blew away 32 students at VPI.

Yet, he wants to attack me as a racist for pointing out Conservative hypocracies and inconsistencies; which means that this DavidHack doesn't know what racism is.

These are the same Strict Constructionist Conservatives who claim they love the Constitution, who claim they love Freedom of Speech, who claim they love the First Ammendment.

Yes, they love the Constitution as long as one agrees with them.

But disagree with their lies and then one has got to be banned.

That's their Facist efinition of Freedom of Speech.

Well I don't buy it and I'll never, ever believe in any of the lies they tell.

And if that makes me a committee of one,

THEN SO BE IT.!!!!

living in Tennessee
"Yes, blacks who act like scum like the distinguished congressman Harold Ford, who was shot down by the Republican National Committees' racist Naked White Lady Tennessee ad, should be treated like scum, right?"
the lady was not naked she was fully clothed standing on a sidewalk in a small town setting, I hate to burst your bubble but I think what cost Ford the election was his family ties to corruption

Black Knight
Come down off your podium. Seriously.

I'm not sure why you believe that strict constructionists are all against blacks. I think you're wrong. Sure, there are racists everywhere, but why do you think those that are strong believers in the Constitution and original intent are somehow all against blacks?

I understand that you may just be blowing a gasket and that's fine. We all do at times. But, what you're doing is nothing more than trying to place a big wedge between all of us. We're all Americans aren't we? I wish we could all get past this fixation on color and realize we are all on the same team, or should be. C'mon man, don't write off or red flag a whole set of people just because they want the Constitution followed. How is that any better than those who categorize all blacks for the actions of a few?

I for one am not your enemy.

Black Knight
I can understand why you liked Kennedy. I didn't for a plethora of reasons. I'll list a couple: one, the Bay of Pigs, two, he was more than eager to hand over some of our country's sovereignty to the United Nations, who has never been about anything else but global government.

"The United States Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World"
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17280

Reply to CH47 Jockey
"ch47 jockey writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 2:10 AM
living in Tennessee
"Yes, blacks who act like scum like the distinguished congressman Harold Ford, who was shot down by the Republican National Committees' racist Naked White Lady Tennessee ad, should be treated like scum, right?"
the lady was not naked she was fully clothed standing on a sidewalk in a small town setting, I hate to burst your bubble but I think what cost Ford the election was his family ties to corruption (ch47j)."
***


If she was clothed, then describe the clothes she had on.

AGGGGHHHHHHH
townhall deleted my post..... here goes again,
Although it may not be 100% accurate the woman was blonde,standing on a sidewalk,camera angle facing street from a building, there was a tree in a planter beside the road behind the woman. I believe she was wearing either a blue or shade of tealish green shirt. The fact that I can remeber this much is bothering me since it has been at least 5 months since those commercials aired, the months leading up to the elections were horrible all that was on were the horrible campaign commercials, the thing that I am pretty sure de-railed his campaign were his father and uncles http://www.wreg.com/global/story.asp?s=6419163
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6435301
these had much more to do with his defeat than any commmercial however the part of the commercial that got my attention the most were the hunter saying "Harolds right I do have too many guns" and the old man ststing "harolds right I don't pay enough taxes" those were the things that cost him the election.

Reply to Liberty
"Liberty writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 2:20 AM
Black Knight
Come down off your podium. Seriously.

I'm not sure why you believe that strict constructionists are all against blacks. I think you're wrong. Sure, there are racists everywhere, but why do you think those that are strong believers in the Constitution and original intent are somehow all against blacks?

I understand that you may just be blowing a gasket and that's fine. We all do at times. But, what you're doing is nothing more than trying to place a big wedge between all of us. We're all Americans aren't we? I wish we could all get past this fixation on color and realize we are all on the same team, or should be. C'mon man, don't write off or red flag a whole set of people just because they want the Constitution followed. How is that any better than those who categorize all blacks for the actions of a few?

I for one am not your enemy (L)."
***


Leave the gutter politics out of it, and there would be no need for anyone to be on any podium.
***

Do you know how Chief Justice Rehnquist described Strict Construction?

It's in John Dean's book-and it is against those plaintiffs who claim racial discrimination.

Which means that its intent is anti-black.
***

If Strict Constructionists are on the side of black people, show me one item on the black agenda which strict constructionist historically and to the present, are for?

(1). Anti-slavery

(2). Anti-Jim Crow

(3). Anti-Black Codes

(4). Integration

(5). Desegrgation

(6). Anti-profiling

(7). Civil Rights

(8). Equal opportunity

(9). Equal access to a quality education

(10). Equal access to quality jobs

(11). Greatest public dollars spent on greatest need
***

There is a gigantic Grand Canyon sized-wedge between us, which has nothing to do with my minor $0.000000000010 cents worth of posts; and started 300 years before I was even born.

So don't try and lay that Conservative initiated Lee Atwater invented wedge issue-lable on me.
***

If we are all on the same team and we are all Americans, then isn't it funny that only one member of the team, whites, can be President, after nearly 300 years and 44 chances to elect another team member?

I too would like to stop the fixation on color, but your side won't let it go.

You keep electing Senators and President who look like you.

Funny how so called color-blind, strict constructionist, conservatives are blind to any other color except white, when it comes to the highest offices in the land.
***

Yes, you want to follow the Constitution when it suits your purpose, but when it helps out balck people, you want to cry foul.

Do you know the number one, main principle of the Constitution?

"The rights of the minority are to be protected against the whims of the majority."

Were you aware of that?
***


You may not be my enemy, but tell your side's leaders to stop acting like it; as with the Tennessee Naked White Lady ad; etc.
***

Got to work in the morning. Can't reply to the other posts.



Reply To CH47 Jockey
"ch47 jockey writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 3:02 AM
AGGGGHHHHHHH
townhall deleted my post..... here goes again,
Although it may not be 100% accurate the woman was blonde,standing on a sidewalk,camera angle facing street from a building, there was a tree in a planter beside the road behind the woman. I believe she was wearing either a blue or shade of tealish green shirt. The fact that I can remeber this much is bothering me since it has been at least 5 months since those commercials aired, the months leading up to the elections were horrible all that was on were the horrible campaign commercials, the thing that I am pretty sure de-railed his campaign were his father and uncles http://www.wreg.com/global/story.asp?s=6419163
http://www.wmctv.com/global/story.asp?s=6435301
these had much more to do with his defeat than any commmercial however the part of the commercial that got my attention the most were the hunter saying "Harolds right I do have too many guns" and the old man ststing "harolds right I don't pay enough taxes" those were the things that cost him the election (CH47J)."
***


You are 100% wrong.

She was naked and wearing no clothing.

And the reason Ford lost that election was because of the cheater politics conservatives always practice; playing on the fears of white men vis a vis black men and white women.
****

Got to work in the morning. Finished posts for this evening.

really quick
did you actually see the commercial with your eyes or did you get your info from a 3rd party? I live in the state and the commercial was blasted over the airwaves wayyy too much. If there are any other posters who live in TN I would love your input

after a search
the woman is not shown to be fully nude or clothed all you see is her from the shoulders up. Sorry but I did not focus on that aspect of the commercial. if you will notice the part of the commercial that did stick into my brain was the ANTI_GUN bias that Ford has. I will concede that if someone wanted to view it as a nude woman they could though.

also notice I had the background correct
as well, guess I am not a p*rv.

Black Knight
"Do you know the number one, main principle of the Constitution?

"The rights of the minority are to be protected against the whims of the majority."

Were you aware of that?"
----------

Yes, I am, actually. Look, you can insist on making everyone who believes in the Constitution, your enemy, or you can step back and realize there is a huge divide in the Republicans and always has been.

You speak of the color of the person's skin that is brought before us in elections. The thing is, BK, I don't know what the color of someone's skin, regardless of what it is, has to do with them being good for office. Do you? All I care about is whether they will uphold the Constitution and the following principles:
- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

I frankly could care less what sex the person is, their color, age, religion or sexual preference.

I can only speak for myself so, if you honestly believe I like the vast majority of the presidential candidates put before us, you are sadly mistaken. I don't care WHAT color they are; the vast majority of them are sellouts to America. I would GLADLY vote for a black, or anyone else, who proves they support these principles.

Later in your post, you list several items specifying "equality". Equal this and equal that. I guess we really differ on things here, BK. Because in this country, I think we all should have the same opportunity to get out there and work our tails off to succeed. I do not however, believe in equality of OUTCOME.

Then, you list "Greatest public dollars spent on greatest need". BK, do you realize that this sounds plucked right out of Karl Marx's mouth? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Are you so sure you want this? Since you know that the form of government our founders gave us was a republic, I'm sure you also know that our Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to steal from one to give to another. They do it all the time, but it nonetheless is unconstitutional as all hell.

I'm still not your enemy, BK.

Black Knight
By the way, I am also against funding corporations with my tax dollars too.

Reply To CH47 Jockey

"ch47 jockey writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 4:23 AM
really quick
did you actually see the commercial with your eyes or did you get your info from a 3rd party? I live in the state and the commercial was blasted over the airwaves wayyy too much. If there are any other posters who live in TN I would love your input (ch47j)."
***



Nations, Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Kenya, South Africa, gather around.

This is getting old.
***

This is the precise reason I would never be a conservative.

They make up stuff out of whole cloth.

The truth be danged.

Notice how he describes everything but the fact that the woman was naked; and then he fabricates clothing for her:


"ch47 jockey writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 3:02 AM
AGGGGHHHHHHH
townhall deleted my post..... here goes again,
Although it may not be 100% accurate the woman was blonde,standing on a sidewalk,camera angle facing street from a building, there was a tree in a planter beside the road behind the woman. I believe she was wearing either a blue or shade of tealish green shirt (J).
***

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

A green shirt!!!!!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


I don't see how these guys face the mirror averymorning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


A green shirt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

This stuff should be on Leno.

It's too funny.!!!!
***



Yes, I saw the commercial many times.

Reply To CH47 Jockey
"ch47 jockey writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 4:28 AM
after a search
the woman is not shown to be fully nude or clothed all you see is her from the shoulders up. Sorry but I did not focus on that aspect of the commercial. if you will notice the part of the commercial that did stick into my brain was the ANTI_GUN bias that Ford has. I will concede that if someone wanted to view it as a nude woman they could though (CH47J)."
***


Nations, here they go again.

Notice how he lied and put clothing on the naked lady in the post above; and then after being nailed on it, concedes that the woman was naked after all; just like I said in the first place.



Reply To Liberty
"Liberty writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 9:09 AM
Black Knight
"Do you know the number one, main principle of the Constitution?

"The rights of the minority are to be protected against the whims of the majority."

Were you aware of that?"
----------

Yes, I am, actually. Look, you can insist on making everyone who believes in the Constitution, your enemy, or you can step back and realize there is a huge divide in the Republicans and always has been.

You speak of the color of the person's skin that is brought before us in elections. The thing is, BK, I don't know what the color of someone's skin, regardless of what it is, has to do with them being good for office. Do you? All I care about is whether they will uphold the Constitution and the following principles:
- limited constitutional government
- personal privacy
- personal responsibility
- strong national defense
- fiscally responsible government
- individual liberty

I frankly could care less what sex the person is, their color, age, religion or sexual preference.

I can only speak for myself so, if you honestly believe I like the vast majority of the presidential candidates put before us, you are sadly mistaken. I don't care WHAT color they are; the vast majority of them are sellouts to America. I would GLADLY vote for a black, or anyone else, who proves they support these principles.

Later in your post, you list several items specifying "equality". Equal this and equal that. I guess we really differ on things here, BK. Because in this country, I think we all should have the same opportunity to get out there and work our tails off to succeed. I do not however, believe in equality of OUTCOME.

Then, you list "Greatest public dollars spent on greatest need". BK, do you realize that this sounds plucked right out of Karl Marx's mouth? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Are you so sure you want this? Since you know that the form of government our founders gave us was a republic, I'm sure you also know that our Constitution does not give the federal government the authority to steal from one to give to another. They do it all the time, but it nonetheless is unconstitutional as all hell.

I'm still not your enemy, BK (L)."
***


I am nbot your enemy either L.
***

People know instinctively when they are being treated well.

Conservatives have been against everything blacks have been for:

Conservatives were for slavery.

Conservatives were for Jim Crow laws.

Conservatives were for the Black codes.

Conservatives were against integration.

Conservatives were against desegregation.

Etc;

And to now all of sudden pretend that conservatives are our friends; is dishonest.
***

Just have your side start telling the truth and maybe we can get somewhere.
***

Yes you may know that the Constitution protects the rights of minorities, but that's not the way the conservative movement presents itself; as friends of minorities and our rights.
***

Your side presents itself as strict constructionist the way Rhenquist defined it... as anti-black.
***

You as an indivdual may oppose Rhenquist's thinking, but none of the big guns, Buchanen, Chavez, Buckley, Thernstrom, D'Sousa, etc have ever come out and denounced Rhenquists definition of Strict Construction.
***

So the people who can influence issues have been silent on this issue; and are thus complicit in its implementation.
***

Its obvious that black people don't care what color a person's skin is when it comes to elections, as evidenced by the fact that we vote for white people all the time; yet the opposite is not true; the imperical evidence; the end result; the results we can see; white people have a problem voting for black people.

Since 1789, the establishment of the Republic, 218 years, there have been 100 senatorial slots X 218 years or 21,800 Senatorial slots and only 3 filled by blacks; and 21,797 filled whites.

It really doesn't matter what you do as an individuals; but the facts do not support your sides' professed color-blindness.

If you want to continue to cling to that illusion, that's on you.
***

Thomas Sowell believes in your principles; so why don't the color-blind conservatives run him for President?

Don't give me that crap about he doesn't want to run.

Eisenhower didn't want to run either. He was compelled by the big guns to run.
***

You know that really burns me up; for people to sit there and say that slaves never worked; or black people of today don't work.

See that's the disconnect and the dishonesty of conservatives.

The Tuskeegee airmen worked there tails off; yet couldn't get jobs in the airline industry after the war; what was the excuse then?
***

Betsy Coleman had to go all the way to France to learn how to fly. What was America's excuse then?

Before affirmative action, what was America's excuse then for not hiring blacks?
***

Equal opportunity does not mean equal results. Kennedy knew the difference; conservatives pretend that there is no difference.
***

Why would you build 10 fire stations in the suburbs; where there are already 20; when the ghetto has zero. Substitute supermarkets for firestations.

Call it Karl Marx if that makes you feel better; but that doesn't even make dog sense.

Corporations allegorically, would rather go to Iraq where bombs are falling than go to the ghetto, where two little runts with cap pistols are running around.
***

You complain because three old ladies in Katrina got 4 pairs of new Air Jordans from Wal-Mart; but then say nothing as the Savings and Loan scandal picked your pocket for $500 billion.

If you are against robbery, mount a campaign against welfare queen corporations, or initiate a southern strategy against General Motors; or do a naked white lady ad against Microsoft; as conservatives have done against black people; and then we can talk more clearly.

I'm not your enemy either; but call off the dogs who are.

Do me one big favor. You are decent person.

You attacked my arguments and not me personally.

You should be commended.

But do me one big favor.

Take one common sense test.


Conservative George Wallace said that he was not anti-black but wanted to protect states rights in not admitting blacks to the University of Alabama.

Let's test that.

States Rights trump Federal Rights, right?

Individual Rights trump States Rights, right?

We can agree then, that the qualified black students had an individual right to attend the University of Alabama, right?

So Wallace, and thus all conservatives of that era, should have been on the side of the black students long before asserting States Rights, right?

We can conclude therefore that Walace and fellow strict constrcutionist conservatives believe in constitutional rights except when it comes to black people.
***

You may reach a different conclusion, but that doesn't change history.





Black Knight
you obviously have lied in your previous post about taking "honor,country, duty" your actions show you hold none of the above in any esteem. Your claim of attendance at West Point may be refering to a grade school field trip as you display none of the desired characteristics of an officer of the United States Army.
As you will note I did concede a point, about a commercial that I had not seen in over 5 months,after review of the commercial I gave you the benefit of the doubt. perhaps you would like to describe a commercial that you have not seen for several months. There was no lie intended. However I fear I am wasting my time as you are so far entrenched in your world of paranoia that everyone is your enemy unless they embrace your point of view as their own.

Reply To CH47 Jockey
"ch47 jockey writes: Tuesday, May, 01, 2007 6:52 AM
Black Knight
you obviously have lied in your previous post about taking "honor,country, duty" your actions show you hold none of the above in any esteem. Your claim of attendance at West Point may be refering to a grade school field trip as you display none of the desired characteristics of an officer of the United States Army.
As you will note I did concede a point, about a commercial that I had not seen in over 5 months,after review of the commercial I gave you the benefit of the doubt. perhaps you would like to describe a commercial that you have not seen for several months. There was no lie intended. However I fear I am wasting my time as you are so far entrenched in your world of paranoia that everyone is your enemy unless they embrace your point of view as their own (Ch47J)."
***



Nations, Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, Sweden, Kenya, South Africa, gather around.

This is getting old.
***

This is the precise reason I would never be a conservative.

They make up stuff out of whole cloth.

The truth be danged.

Notice how he describes everything but the fact that the woman was naked; and then he fabricates clothing for her:


"ch47 jockey writes: Monday, April, 30, 2007 3:02 AM
AGGGGHHHHHHH
townhall deleted my post..... here goes again,
Although it may not be 100% accurate the woman was blonde,standing on a sidewalk,camera angle facing street from a building, there was a tree in a planter beside the road behind the woman. I believe she was wearing either a blue or shade of tealish green shirt (J).
***

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

A green shirt!!!!!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA


I don't see how these guys face the mirror averymorning!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


A green shirt!!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

This stuff should be on Leno.

It's too funny.!!!!

Loyal Democrat
A prime example to the downside of a free society.
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.