One can only imagine the heartbreak and frustration experienced by those like Walter Williams, cursed with clear sight and intellect, able to see the naked emperors that virtually nobody else sees. God bless you, sir! Anybody would think that it's rocket science to imagine that paying teenage single mothers more and giving them more SNAP on their EBT when they have the second child would cause them, at best, NOT to avoid the second child.

Dr. Sowell is virtually unique in the way his intellect transcends "group think." He is, to use Duke Ellington's words, beyond category. And that is his strength. So when you hear people dismiss him as a "mouthpiece" for some industry, political party, media outlet, or whatever, you know they lack the ability to develop and articulate original thoughts, and that they have no arguments up to the task of countering those of Thomas Sowell. We here at Townhall.com have heard and seen it all. I've personally read Dr. Sowell's syndicated columns for at least 40 years, probably closer to 50. He is one of the clearest thinkers and writers in the history of mankind. I just wish more people could quiet their brains enough to understand and accept his wisdom. This would be a better world if more people were capable of thinking as he does.

I believe it is both. There are the Alinskys of the world, and then there are the "useful idiots."

Another thing that drives me crazy is the way politicians and the media now refer to the NRA as the "gun lobby." The NRA was founded in 1871, and although they have always staunchly defended the 2nd amendment they never lobbied until 1975. Why did they form the ILA and decide to lobby? Because gun rights came seriously under attack. I maintain that gun control can easily be accomplished only by repealing and changing the second amendment. "...shall not be infringed" seems pretty unambiguous to me. Any attempt to pass some BS "gun control" law without addressing the constitutional right is bogus, political posturing at best. And it is clearly as illogical as arguing to pass a bunch of laws without enforcing existing laws, passing a bunch of laws that were already in effect in Ct. when the Sandy Hook shooting took place, passing a bunch of laws that arguably would not have stopped a single mass shooting in history. That's politics at its worst, and it is completely dishonest on its face.

grrr! I apologize for the typo. Second line should read "...they're unintentional," of course. My fingers get ahead of my mind.

This is a great column and a pretty good "Debate!" I'd like to have seen ericagain return to his sources and acknowledge his gross errors. I assume their unintentional, but they show how distorted the media reporting on this issue can be. My local paper editorialized along these lines, referring to the "gun show loophole," etc. eric, did you ever "get it"? The percentage of sellers at a gun show who may be un-licensed, private sellers may be 25% (although I suspect that number itself is an exaggeration), but this does not reflect the number of guns sold. Admit it. There is no "gun show loophole." I recently saw a statistic that I don't think has yet appeared among these comments: the percentage of guns used in crimes that were purchased at gun shows is 1%. Evidently, gun shows can't compete with the horse race track and "gentlemen's clubs" for the business of those with felonious intentions.

I certainly don't lay claim to any special insight in this area. But nevertheless it seems appropriate to say: I am SOOOOO glad I'm not a woman. A woman can't be too attractive or too unattractive. A woman can't have a Harvard degree or not have a Harvard degree. A woman can't dress like Talbot's or Anthropologie. A woman can't have a regional accent! (What's up with that?) It's really not fair.

Not that liberals judge people by their appearance... well, except for sex, race, age, ethnic origin, first language, sexual orientation and "coolness"... But you know what I mean.

lol

I mean, compared to intellectual elites like Candy Crowley (see photo, above), isn't she just OBVIOUSLY inferior? She could never get into the best schools looking like that (well, maybe as a cheerleader).

Poor Sarah Palin! Who could take her seriously given her unfortunate physical characteristics: pretty face, thick hair, fit body, good posture... Ugh!