Talk:Thomas Sowell

	This Economics related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

(create an archive)

Is this

Is this the same (African-American) Thomas Sowell who is linked as an argumentum ad verecundiam to eliminate welfare (much in the same way that Clarence Thomas is cited to prove that Affirmative Action isn't needed)? Osaka Sun (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Very much so. Libertarians have a weakness for tokenism, for whatever reason. Kind of ironic, considering that they love to call liberals "obsessed with race." ClothCoat (talk) 01:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Holy fuck. I've seen this guy quoted by "respectable" libertarians all over the place and I always had the impression that he was a common Chicago schooler. Osaka Sun (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep I saw him on youtube and figured he was just another libertarian, so I was indifferent. While researching for this article I discovered how crazy he really is. ClothCoat (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Not quite as crazy as this page written about him. A lot of his more controversial views are very well argued, though not always perfectly. Claiming he is "crazy" is ludicrous. Let's set biases aside in these discussions. ^{— Unsigned, by: 110.174.137.169 / talk}

"Let's set biases aside in these discussions." How about you follow your own advice first and then we'll proceed from there.MAGA Repellant (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Strengthening the article (aka troll-bait)

As it stands, the article is mostly a collection of his nuttiest op-eds. Don't get me wrong, that needs to be there, but it would be much stronger if we also provided criticisms of the main ideas of his more "respectable" work. I'm not aware of any of his original contributions to Chicago-ite economics, though, if he made any. I do know that the sociologist William Julius Wilson was heavily critical of his work, e.g.: http://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/24/books/hurting-the-disadvantaged.html Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, last time I read about him on Wikipedia was him accusing the Great Society as an attempt to get blacks dependent on welfare (which can be easily debunked by comparing stats in other developed nations). Osaka Sun (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

On top of improving the article by criticizing Sowell's cranky work (the gov't created more unemployment than the stock market crash, really?) I'd appreciate it if systop's kept an eye on this article to protect it from vandalism if necessary, since Sowell's fan boys may try to screw with it when it gets more popular. ClothCoat (talk) 06:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell repeatedly cited and with detailed information and sources cited how those who embodied the progressive vision had promoted ideas that were quite destructive economically and for foreign policy including but not limited to the stagnating effects of the new deal, the effect of great society programs on black employment, destructive policies and misinformation on crime and gun control, use of the media to promote the progressive vision, often with the use of inaccuracy and downright lies, misrepresentations of the Reagan administration, and most of all progressives thinking Hitler was no big deal. I'd say that's what's really irrational. He also points out, that considering the state policies and the economic policies, and the eugenics, there was, in terms of policies very little difference between the two. But what can I expect from a cite claiming to be rational while also claiming there was a difference between the brutal statist controlling, economically centralized policies of Hitler or Stalin, when by any measure they were exactly the same. This all has the distinct tone of someone who hasn't actually read any of Sowell's books but been told what to think about them from a person who thinks the right way. Claiming that Hitler was a traditional small government conservative really casts you in a bad light. I noticed rationalwiki had no problem citing Richard Epstein as a reliable source for their rule of law page, when he is very similar politically to Thomas Sowell. They better take it down, lest people will think that they consider such an irrational man rational. Why would rationalwiki associate themselves with Richard Epstein but dismiss Thomas Sowell when both are the same politically? Welcome to denailwiki Burkean (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Get out of the Untied States. See the world. (Also, most of all progressives thinking Hitler wasn't a big deal? FDR's descendants are going to laugh at that one.)

EDIT: Who the hell is calling Hitler a small government conservative? And the fact that you equate Sowell with Burke (who himself wasn't so pro-democracy either) is terrifying. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 15:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Burke is considered quite a rational thinker from people of all stripes, or so I thought. I enjoy Sowell but I in no way implied he held a candle to Burke. Many thoughtful men were skeptical of the mob rule mentality and ability to violate one's freedom when politicians whipped up the masses. Not too insidious, I don't think. And this rational website is sprinkled with "Ron Paul is a Nazi" garbage. Check it out for yourself. Burkean (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

So explain the current state of the American right. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I realize ad hoc stuff like this is probably insightful to you. As many have pointed out, those who are part of the media or contemporary culture shape thinking, so whether or not an idea has merit or is the truth isn't nearly as important as "Look at what this conservative did". Richard Epstein, who rationalwiki seems to think is worthy to quote him on one of their law pages, says, as Thomas Sowell and others do, that misinformation concerning foreign policy, or the economy or the many horrendous things liberals say, are not nearly as important as sensational sound bytes designed to prove that the conservative cause is invalidated. Someone may have said something silly, but this is taken by people who are supposed to be evidence oriented as proof of an idea being invalidated. Such thinking is juvenile and beneath someone who claims the mantra of rational.Burkean (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Try again. The progressives praised dictatorships and why shouldn't they. The economic formula they called for was very much in sync with their own. The economic program, from fixed wages, to unions, to control of profits, to abolishing private schools, limiting the power of both parents and religious institutions. FDR praised Mussolini's economy (shows how much he knew) and more communists and socialists praised Hitler than any handful of so-called conservatives, and those so-called conservatives who did praise him certainly weren't free market. Of course, once Hitler betrayed their precious Soviet Union, only then was he intolerable. This is of course ignores the larger issue of how atrocious the leftists track record of appeasement was in the 30s (after they pushed hard for the devastating and pointless first world war in the name of their glorious progress and internationalism). Much has been made of supposedly conservatives being appeasers when most of those who called for armament were conservatives. But of course the people didn't want that. Mob rule for you. The idea that Hitler was some sort of Edmund Burke of 20th century Germany shows just how desperate the left is to explain their poor track record on this issue, if they're even aware of it at all. Burkean (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... Hitler created fixed wages and protected unions? Limited family values and religious institutions? Not protecting big business? Loving Marxists? You might want to look at your history. And you seem to suggest that any state intervention = totalitarianism. Suggest you read slippery slope.

"Much has been made of supposedly conservatives being appeasers when most of those who called for armament were conservatives." You just said you disliked internationalism and World War I. Also suggest you read cognitive dissonance. 173.32.30.79 (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, false assumptions from the supposedly rational. Internationalism, redrawing the map of Europe, was promoted by the same people who hated patriotism and national pride before the war and continued to do so after. They'd gone from war to pacifism, but they still placed all their faith in internationalism. You proceed towards the false assumption that world war 1 happened because of particularism and that it was internationalism that won the second world war, neither of which is a true notion. It has been well documented that after rabidly supporting the first war, the progressives turned to pacifism and considered nationalism and pride in one's country to be horrendous and people who expressed such sentiments and called for rearmament were regarded as Neanderthals. Of course, when you believe in cultural relativism, it's probably easy to believe that national pride for England or France is the same as for Nazi Germany. All nationalism is the same, I guess. French children were taught between the wars to denigrate patriotism as toxic, and that the problem was not aggressors but war itself, which I guess is okay, as long as there's no bad guys in the world which is a little naïve. As for the economy, I was merely pointing out that progressives and new dealers like what they saw (the "I've been to the future and it works" kind of thing) and thought that a centralized, state run economy was the way to go and respected the dictatorships on that basis. It seems to me that someone who believe there was any actual left/right difference between communism and fascism would have to be guilty of, ahem, cognitive dissonance, as you call it. Both were national and international. Both were obsessed with race, as was the progressive movement. Fascism itself, as opposed to the Nazi kind, was more distinguishable by it's oppressive economy than anything else, because the racial component was, to say the least, much less pronounced in the Mediterranean fascist movements (for some bizarre reason, even jews were prominent there). Religious institutions suffered under all dictatorships. The more one reads, the more conventional myths become hard to maintain. I suggest you folks actually read Sowell's books, instead of taking insightful things he said out of context. Burkean (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Drink! And stop with the "You must read his book!" bullshit, you sound like a postmodernist.

"Internationalism, redrawing the map of Europe, was promoted by the same people who hated patriotism and national pride before the war and continued to do so after. They'd gone from war to pacifism, but they still placed all their faith in internationalism." Wait, so progressives, which you believe supported Nazis and Soviets (two of the most murderous out-spurts of nationalism in history), were intentionally stinking hippies so they could invade their countries? That's quite a bit of a conspiracy theory there. Canada entered World War II with the majority of votes of a Liberal pro-New Deal government (even more so than FDR) and all but one vote from the CCF labour party. Are you willing to say that this was because they wanted to lose?

Yes, everyone was united by then. I never claimed liberals refused to participate in the war once it started. I was talking about the sentiments of much of the left throughout the 30s (pacific) in France, England and the US. Of course, if one is a relativist, one thinks that nationalism from a country which is supposed to defend western values (France, England, US) is the same as the nationalism which emanates from a totalitarian dictatorship. I'll be addressing that while confronting the nonsense below. Burkean (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, where's the evidence for this "cultural relativism" throughout the 30s? There has always been pro-pacifist factions in the left, but did they appease Hitler? Are you one of those "Orwell wasn't a real leftie" American wingnuts? 173.32.30.79 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, many derided the need to re arm as our own culture's evil war mongering. They acted as though there were no difference between free western culture and the dictatorships, or that we were ostensibly worse (which I guess isn't relativism so much as reversalism, so I stand corrected). Such men included but were not limited to Herbert Croly, John Dewey, DH Lawrence, George Bernard Shaw, HG Wells and many many others. As is common with the vision of the anointed, the evils of the world did not come from men, but from those institutions which had brought a civil society out of barbarity (rule of law, religious traditions and of course private property and patriotism or as they called it, "the refuge of a scoundrel"). Orwell stood up to these types, but it would be wrong to lay claim to him as a fellow conservative or libertarian. Orwell, because he felt it was the way to help the working class (let's face it, a brilliant writer, but the man was not an economist) was through the social democratic party. Whether or not Orwell would've maintained that if he'd understood how free markets created prosperity for many and a way out in the 19th century and what a role the state had played in leaving the poor with no options is anybody's guess. But the fact that he had left sympathies doesn't make his novels any less of a compelling defense of liberty. Incidentally, while the left are always shit caning the right for supposedly trying to claim him, which we don't, they still don't seem to have a problem with heaping scorn on him during his lifetime, as many lefties did, or after his death; See the contempt they threw upon him for standing up to communism by reading what contemporary progressives of the time (many of them appeasers) had to say about him. Also, see the communist dupe Cockburn clan. Claud Cockburn of I, Claud fame and his disgusting now thankfully dead son, or the hateful morally obtuse anti-capitalist rant snowball's chance by John Reed, using Orwell's world and characters for his own message with a hateful forward by Cockburn. Major copyright violations by co-opting characters from animal farm and distorting it's message to write a shallow immature story with characters from Orwell's own book. Class act. Burkean (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you say to Winston Churchill, who blatantly supported eugenics? Are you going to call him a progressive commie-fascist? What about Calvin Coolidge, a fiscal conservative and passer of the most infamous anti-coloured immigration bill in US history? On the other hand, are you going to call Emanuel Celler, the liberal Democrat who ensured that that same bill disappeared, a racist? What about Lancelot Hogben, the Fabian Socialist that insured the UK welfare state wasn't eugenicised? The Progressive Era was much more nuanced than you think it is. Read a goddamn history book.

One more thing: since the notion of any government is scum to you, what do you think of Weimar Germany? Were the pro-Jewish social democrats that pressed for the eight-hour work day, expansion of the (already decades-old) universal health care and public pensions (and were killed off by the Nazis first) secretly allied with Hitler? Why didn't eugenics pop out then? What about the political party that dominated Israeli politics for its first 28 years? Were the they Stalinist/fascist? And to engage in your crass generalizations, what do you think of Social Darwinism? (Both the notion of "survival of the best" have been embraced by fascists and libertarians, despite the clear ideological differences between the two on the notion of government.) 173.32.30.79 (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the first 28 years of Israeli political history, I may disagree with them, but I wouldn't make such a connection. Many scholars have pointed out that jewish socialists often supported policies that hurt jewish interests (see the self hating jew), not to mention the economy. Considering what Israel is up against, it was quite understandable that a party with a tougher foreign policy would emerge (and I assume, by your attitude, more free market oriented as well). Winston Churchill may well have had affinity with such ideas as eugenics. I don't remember him advocating the gassing of undesirables, as did George Bernard Shaw for instance, mac daddy of the Fabian socialist movement. Since you encourage me to not be so ignorant (read a GD history book, I think it was) it might behoove you to remember that the devil racist Calvin Coolidge stood up to the KKK, rejected notions that this was a white man's country, praised the blacks who served in uniform, signed the Indian Citizenship Act, and put a great deal of pressure on the south to pass anti-lynching laws. Compare that to Woodrow Wilson (southern partisan, eugenics, white supremacy, birth of a nation, etc.). Of course, thinking that unchecked immigration might be bad for the culture or for maintaining a societal cohesion is of course racist.

I'm sure that alongside Hitler's quest for world domination, extermination of all jews, and who knows what else, that it was really all about going after the public pensions and universal healthcare. My God, you are an idiot. Hitler supported similar economic policies to these others of which you speak, railed against capitalism (not least because it was so tied to the jewish community) and called for the same destructive counter productive class warfare economic platform advocated by both communists and progressives. They all had contempt for tradition (while also trying to exploit it) and they all saw the masses as needing to be lead by an elite, who knew what was more constructive for society as opposed to that toxic individualist mentality that John Dewey spoke of. While we're invoking false equivocations (like say between libertarians and fascists), I might as well point out that what Occupy says about capitalism is quite similar to what Hitler said about it. One could say Fascism is less honest than communism since the Fascists pretend there is private ownership when they dictate what is made, when and where and take the money for the state. Nothing outside the state is I believe how Mussolini put it.

As for survival of the fittest, the notion of private individuals and private transactions being the primary source of societies vitality doesn't seem to me to translate into shunning compassion and caring as a weakness. The inconvenient truth here is that conservatives (even those with less money) give much more to charity (according to several studies) than do liberals, who probably have the apathetic can't government do it attitude. The economic consequences of state enforced broad based charity often times brings about counter productive economics (doesn't get to the needy, squelches initiative and job creation, isn't tied to individual incentive to better oneself, not connection to church or wider community). It should also be noted that those whom we give it to who are considered in poverty often have more than they can eat, stove, fridge, heating/air/, washer/dryer. The pervasive wealth of our society has distorted us so much that we think such people are actually needy and should be given welfare when it isn't even a good idea economically regardless.

Individual initiative and merit meaning greater wealth for oneself over someone else is much more preferable to the biggest strongest brute taking hold. Allowing those who are intelligent and adaptable to move to the head of society is a bulwark against their bullying by a strongman. Hitler hated and resented the jews' talent, brains and success so he had to attack them and money. It's the same culture of envy we've seen time and again, only worse. Such merit implies nothing to do with genetics (survival of the fittest). Just because the pro-jewish folks as you call them were against Hitler didn't mean they didn't have their own genocide denial going on, as concerns Russia. It also doesn't mean what they advocated for economically is good sense. The point about work weeks ignore that more productive firms were out competing others through more innovative production methods, and by underselling, offering more to consumers, at better prices (helping to create a middle class) and becoming more prosperous, then hiring more people. In order to stay competitive, employers would offer greater incentives (more pay, less hours) to workers to attract them to their firms.

This created more prosperity, more middle class people, and was done without government force. The 8 hour work week came before it was enforced. Of course, we can't praise Henry Ford. After all, since he was gravely mistaken about Germany, that probably means he delighted in the holocaust. You know, like the libertarians. And according to you guys, Ron Paul is a neo-Nazi, so whatever. Such enforcements on who one should hire, or pay, or enforced healthcare, squelch production, labor and exacerbate unemployment. But what do I know. I'm just another big C conservative, small l libertarian holocaust denier. You people really are too much. Burkean (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if you could put some paragraph breaks in this? As one enormous block of text it's almost impossible to read. Thanks.--Weirdstuff (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. That improves the readability.--Weirdstuff (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what Godwin's Law is?ClothCoat (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Coming from a community (assuming you are part of the rationalwiki community) who has called ron paul a neo-Nazi, throwing godwin's law into the discussion is, to say the least, rich. Furthermore, when HG Wells encouraged people to be enlightened Nazis, and when others encouraged people to capitulate, and even embrace, Nazi Germany, Godwin would be way out of his depth if he were to claim that it is fallacious to compare such people with Hitler, ignoring the similarities in what they promote or say or the fact that such people said we should give Hitler what he wanted. But if Godwin says it, it must be true.

And since conservatives are always falsely compared with Hitler by folks such as yourself (despite the fact that Hitler wanted state schooling, hated capitalism, that progressives themselves saw the political similarities which is why many supported him, and that conservatives haven't murdered six million jews), invoking Godwin's law is quite hypocritical in this case. Kind of reminds me of Rushdie comparing Thatcher's England to Nazi Germany. Of course one can see his point, what with all the low inflation and greater economic productivity we saw in the Third Reich. Plus we all know how much strong supporters of Israel like Thatcher really hate jews. Probably not even worth mentioning that six million jews didn't die in Thatcher's England, because in Rushdie's delusional warped mind, that would prove his point. Where was the beloved Godwin to call out this ridiculous BS? Probably scolding conservatives somewhere. And while we're just throwing out indulgent comments such as yours, don't forget that Godwin's people at EFF are basically the glorified lap dog to Julian Assange and the good people at wiki leaks. Ta! Burkean (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't aware our page on Ron Paul has called him a Nazi. And what about Thomas Sowell position on global warming denialism and entertaining the gold standard, that is nutty in and of itself. Plus, NOBODY HERE IS CALLING CONSERVATIVES NAZIS!!! Jesus Christ strawman much? We're upset because he compared Obama to Hitler. ClothCoat (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Your Eric Clapton page claims that people who supported Ron Paul deny that he's a neo-Nazi. Make of that what you will. After a whopper like that, any talk of climate change or the gold standard rings pretty hollow. Rationalwiki cites Richard Epstein as a good authority on the law and doesn't seem to mention how awfully idiotic they think he is and he too supports the gold standard and has also as many others presented a great deal of information as to why one might be skeptical of the global warming alarmism. But nice ad hoc mentality where anyone who disagrees with you is crazy.

Insofar as the overlap between communism, fascism and the goals of progressivism, and the squelching and demonization of opposite opinion, the comparison by Sowell was accurate. I don't remember him claiming that there were millions of jews being killed by Obama, as that truly would be a false comparison. Sowell has also accurately pointed out that our economic system becomes all the time closer and closer to fascism, where you have the pretense of private ownership, but the private owners are in bed with, controlled and manipulated by the government and they do the same.

This is not the same as saying that Obama is like Hitler, is responsible for a holocaust, and someone who claims the badge of rational/skeptic/freethinker/whathehellever should be able to understand that. While Obama certainly isn't perpetuating another final solution, some of his statements regarding Israel might seem a lot more scary to liberals if uttered by Pat Buchanan or somebody over at political cesspool. Kudos to rationalwiki for pointing out that Thatcher and Reagan stood up for Salman Rushdie while Jimmy Carter the humanitarian condemned him, though they barely acknowledged same. Double kudos for pointing out the idiocy of Germaine Greer and what she said on the subject. They also did forget to point out, that after Thatcher stood up for him, Rushdie, being a good liberal snake after all, turned around and compared Thatcher to Hitler, which is way worse than what Sowell said, given the policies and given that in Rushdie's case the comparison was way more blatant and unequivocal. So the outrage over Hitler comparisons seems to be quite selective on rationalwiki's part. I discuss the ridiculousness of Rushdie's claim on this page (see above) if you're interested. Cat calls of strawman is just a lazy way of dismissing someone when they point out what was actually said, as I did. I don't remember mentioning Jesus. Better do something about those voices in your head. Burkean (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

OMG that's a "fun" page it's not suppose to be taken seriously that's obviously an exaggeration and a red herring since it has nothing to do with Sowell. And I said Jesus Christ as an expression dumbass. "Rationalwiki cites Richard Epstein as a good authority on the law and doesn't seem to mention how awfully idiotic they think he is and he too supports the gold standard and has also as many others presented a great deal of information as to why one might be skeptical of the global warming alarmism" great so you're a climate change denier too! And citing Epstein on one issue doesn't mean we agree with him on everything, or have to for that matter. Why do you keep changing the subject from Sowell though? Sowell is: a global warming denier, DDT denier, has entertained the gold standard, and compared Obama to Hitler. Yet every time someone tries to bring this up to you you bring up Ron Paul or go on a Glenn Beck esque rant about progressives. Do you honestly think we should return to the freaking Gold Standard?ClothCoat (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this discussion grew out of talking about Godwin's law. Here, I was demonstrating that the outrage over Hitler comparisons ignores the truth of What Sowell said. As I've pointed out above, the outrage over Hitler comparisons seems to be awfully selective, as liberals do it quite often (see Rushdie against Thatcher, who defended him). I guess maybe he was angry at England for giving him sanctuary. Whatever. Maybe you think Norman Borlaug, who pioneered the green revolution is a whackjob too, because he also said that the banning of chemicals had led to more diseases in people's food, in the third world especially, because the chemicals were not available to treat them, not to mention the fact that as much food couldn't be grown quickly, so unnecessary starvation was perpetuated (see organic farming fallacy). But he's probably part of the right wing conspiracy too. As far as the statements on Paul being a joke, Considering all the damn whacky things rationalwiki puts out there, it's hard to tell when they aren't being serious, as the attacks on opponents can get quite ridiculous.

The insinuation was that Paul supporters denied his neo-Nazism. It was not phrased in such as way as to say that those who call Paul a Nazi are the irrational ones, but whatever. As for the Gold standard, Nixon took us off in the 70s, the results were less than stellar. I'll let history be the judge. But it's interesting how you talk about me changing the subject, because when I present evidence about the issue that was actually being discussed, you seem to act like a kid who can't take it, plug your ears and go "No! Thomas Sowell did this! Thomas Sowell did that!". Burkean (talk) 02:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with Obama's policies, fine, but that's no excuse to compare him to Hitler. I don't even see what is accomplishes unless you think anything Hitler did was wrong, which would includes animal rights, or that doing anything that seems even remotely similar to Hitler/fascism is a slippery slope to tyranny. I don't see what DDT bans have to do with organic farming, those subjects are separate from one another. Sowell lied because there never was a ban on DDT

You know how you know it's not a serious page? Because it says FUN in big letters in the title. ClothCoat (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, the tone of the piece was not "look at these idiots calling Ron Paul a neo Nazi". It was written as though those who didn't acknowledge it were in denial. I'm only using it as an example of the left's fallacious claims. I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter. The analogy with organic farming, since you seem incapable of grasping it, was that if organic farming were to be practiced on a wide scale, not enough food could be produced quickly enough over a certain amount of land, and the consequences would be disastrous. Just as the consequences of stopping the use of DDT (whether or not there was an official ban) had devastating consequences, as was discussed by people such as Norman Borlaug. Sowell discussed the push by Carson and others to get rid of DDT and it's subsequent elimination.

An official ban was not his point, so he didn't lie. It was banned in the US and many other areas, which made it more difficult to get in the third world. The world health organization recommends it's use against malaria, so grow up. There's a lot of whacky things done in the name of animal rights, but I don't think those ideas originated with Hitler. Talking about his devastating economics and statism is not such a red herring, so shame on you. To speak as though Hitler's devastating economic policies have nothing to do with the devastation that befell Germany as a result would be to ignore reality. So it isn't just a trivial point, or something that had nothing to do with the havoc he unleashed. Statist economic policies caused a great deal of social strife. Sowell did not claim that Obama was genocidal like Hitler is. He pointed out economic similarities between fascism and what's proposed by the government from an economic perspective. To what extent he went further, it was similar to what he said about appeasers in the inter-war years. To the extent that evil is excused and appeased, those who do so are as guilty as the perpetrators. It's an old idea and doesn't originate with Sowell. Sowell's comparisons were much more thoughtful than the bogus and inaccurate Nazi comparison made by liberals (take a bow Rushdie) which doesn't seem to have you flummoxed at all. Have a nice day. Burkean (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND Rachel Carson never pushed to ban DDT, she recommended it for use against malaria and it was always used against malaria. The problem was that mosquitos grew a resistance to it, by banning it for agricultural use lives were saved because mosquitos didn't gain a resistance as quickly. You bringing up Rushdie is a red herring and an example of not as bad as and making BP pay up for their mistakes in the gulf is fascist economics and will lead to totalitarianism (this was his argument)? Are you serious? And his whole "appeaser" argument went off the rails when he claimed Iran would nuke America which would result in America surrendering to Iran! ClothCoat (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I just talked to a brick wall. ClothCoat (talk) 04:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

First of all, Salman Rushdie's comment wasn't merely an example of not as bad as, it was completely different in character and unlike what Sowell said, had virtually no evidence to back it up, just ad hoc nonsense against someone who defended him in his hour of need. I'm for free speech but that's an actual example of a bogus Nazi comparison. Rachel Caron was against the use of DDT in most cases. Of that there is little doubt. Rachel Carson obviously was not in a position to force the government to make a ban and didn't explicitly support same, so nice strawman yourself. Like many of the anointed vision, she merely did a great deal to influence public opinion for the worst. Those intellectuals with that anointed/progressive vision, whatever one wants to call it can do a great deal of damage without any force per se, but they often employ that. Politicians, as politicians do, responded to the change in public opinion.

If you actually read about it, its lack of use has led to much more substantial problems. Robert Gwadz (who works for that crazy right wing organization the National Institute of Health) estimated that 20 million could have died as a result of discontinued use. Rachel Carson played a role in setting that in motion. Then you shift gears to BP. What was that about me changing the subject? In any case, the government didn't have a plan for cleaning up the oil that was better than anyone else, we as a nation had already seriously curtailed domestic production, which does much more damage to our economy than what happened with BP, they've bent over backwards for the whole "corporate responsibility" shtick, and most of the lawsuits were dubious in their evidence of criminal negligence, since BP's was the most cost effective method of extracting the oil, and was for many standard procedure, as many gulf residents already knew. So hardly the evil exploitation. Even if it was, it pales when compared to the consequences of discontinued DDT. Of course, Obama using it as a chance to get on his soapbox had nothing to do with economic reality and everything to do with political reality. Most things in life which involve no risk are not worth pursuing anyway.

Your ridiculous caricature is not actually what Sowell said. If you're not too busy reading the huffington post, you might check out Sowell's article from a few years ago when all this happened, called "Oil and Snake Oil". He merely says Obama is behaving like a flim flam man and a political opportunist as concerns the situation. No mention is made either of the second coming of Hitler or Stalin. One could say that people who think like Obama use accidents such as this one as an excuse to exert ever more corrosive power over the economy ("Never let a crisis go to waste" Rahm Emanuel), but that's not exactly what you said that he said. I actually admire the tenacity of the Emanuel argument, kind of like the philosophy of the Japanese where in their language the word crisis is the same as opportunity, but it's corrosive opportunistic thinking put to a destructive unworthy cause nonetheless. As for appeasement, my reference to Sowell as regards that was largely to do with how the vast majority of the left behaved and the rampart pacifism up until the last minute. But you guys have been playing this game of "Iran is really moderate" despite very little evidence to back it up. No one knows for sure when Iran will use the power that it will inevitably acquire in terms of nuclear weapons. The way that the left automatically assumes that a regime so rife with radicalism would not do such a thing seems like the same kind of naivety that has characterized the anointed vision take on foreign policy so many times before.

"I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall". So, you talk to yourself quite a bit, then? Burkean (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation number 2 on this page, an article by Sowell. First sentence mentions Hitler. The title says we're on "the slippery slope to tyranny." I'd say that qualifies. That you can cite an article by Sowell in which he doesn't make that comparison does not negate the fact that in another article, he does. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] 06:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, pointing out the centralizing and controlling tyrannical methods of both, or saying they both exploit mass opinion, as did progressives of the anointed vision, or that both could both leave a country suffering, or that by turning a blind eye to the dangers in the world Obama could leave us vulnerable to ideas like Hitler's, does not mean that every motivation and action of Obama can be compared to Hitler, which isn't what Sowell did. I never denied that such a comparison was made, just that it was not insidious, as is claimed. Sowell made no whacky Alex Jones claims about FEMA camps or what have you. The sensitivity to this is quite rich from people who paraded around with Bush Hitler signs. Not to mention the rather too frequent description of Israelis committing a holocaust against the Palestinians. Whine about that false equivocation. Burkean (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and the WHO (World Health Organization) has called Robert Gwadz's claim outrageous and he was slapped on the hand for saying it because it wasn't true. DDT has always been used against malaria. So Sowell either lied or has bad sources (I do regret saying he lied since the latter is more likely). Read Sowell's article Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?. Obviously he doesn't say Obama is going to institute the next holocaust but he does compare the two by saying that they were both supported by "useful idiots" among other comparisions and, as the title implies, that the U.S. is headed towards totalitarianism.

"But you guys have been playing this game of "Iran is really moderate". WHO IN THE FUCK SAID THAT?! Nobody thinks the Iranian government is moderate but nobody think that America will surrender to them if they launch nukes, which is ridiculous since if they did somehow get the technology to do that it would be shot down in mid-air long before it reached America anyway. ClothCoat (talk) 06:12, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

So saying that the two both employ similar tactics of exploiting mass opinion is outrageous? I'm sorry, considering what liberals say, my heart bleeds for you. Lefties were claiming that bush was pushing the country towards totalitarianism. And considering how much more government force we've seen from Obama, I'd say turn about is fair play. As for Gwadz, many scientists whose credentials and skill were otherwise lauded all of a sudden become fringe cranks when they expressed unpopular thinking (such as global warming skepticism). I'm not even sure if Sowell cited Gwadz, but it wouldn't matter if he hadn't, as many other reputable sources have said similar things, including Roger Bate and the British Medical Journal. If you actually read Sowell, you could check his notes at the end of Intellectuals and Society, where he provides multiple sources which to my knowledge have yet to be debunked (though I'm sure some whore for the conventional wisdom will sooner or later no doubt).

Science should be about critical thinking, not consensus. Many others have said similar things, including Norman Borlaug. Is he a hack now too? Liberal media has insisted that Rouani is a moderate, despite long association with the revolutionary guard and holocaust denial. Many on the left, including on this site, are trigger happy with the islamophobia accusations, which is a whole other can of worms. There are many ways that Iran or its proxies could attack the US without simply launching from Tehran. Many have discussed that the method of delivery would most likely be different. Considering our government couldn't even stop suspicious foreigners from going through hours of training, then hijacking planes and driving them into buildings, your complacency is laughable. But go ahead, call other people irrational and then claim that America is impervious to nuclear attack. Burkean (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

"And considering how much more government force we've seen from Obama, I'd say turn about is fair play." Lol you're using Roger Bate as a relilable source when he's bank rolled by libertarian and conservative think tanks? That's no conspiracy theory by the way, even his Wikipedia page acknowledges he basically spreads myths about the environmental movement. "Liberal media has insisted that Rouani is a moderate" yes the media has acknowledged that he was the most moderate of the candidates though I heard some sources call him the "least conservative" as well I don't see the issue there. If Iran bombed America, do you really think we would just surrender to them? And do you think we don't have spies in their government? Osama Bin Laden's organization was too messy and unorganized, which worked to their advantage, spying on a government is actually easier. And yes, being a denier pretty much makes you a crank. ClothCoat (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting how you don't think people bankrolled by liberal organizations are cranks, but libertarian ones are. Linking my comment to a two wrongs make a right page would make sense if the two uses of the government were both equal in their scope and negative consequences (not) or in their legitimacy (not). I wasn't aware that the British Medical Journal was a political front, as they have also said very much the same thing. If you define conservative as radical violent use of state power to oppress people than I don't think you should be accusing anyone else of spreading myths. Considering that people such as Obama are actually willing to rationalize a regime like that having the potential to develop apocalyptic weaponry, I'd say the surrender anecdote isn't that far fetched. It's nice to know that if an apocalyptic device went off in a major city that Obama would probably be willing to do something, as long as the UN said it was okay. Spying on a government is easier, but again you show your ignorance and naivety. Iran would most likely operate through a third party. And our spies couldn't even stop top Iraqi officials from going to Niger multiple times in pursuit of yellowcake. Surprising to see this blind faith in our military's competency from one so rational as yourself. Denier is just a word used to shutdown debate and therefore says more about you than about me. If you look on youtube you can see these very...ahem...rational scientists saying things like "We have deniers and we have holocaust deniers and quite frankly I don't think there's much of a difference." What was that you said about Godwin's law? Burkean (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how to respond to that incoherent arrogant rant. None of what you said was coherent and there were many faulty leaps in logic so there's really no way for me to respond but I guess I'll try. "Interesting how you don't think people bankrolled by liberal organizations are cranks" I never said that, it depends on what they're saying. Same goes for conservatives. "If you define conservative as radical violent use of state power to oppress people than I don't think you should be accusing anyone else of spreading myths" I never said that.If you look on youtube you can see these very...ahem...rational scientists saying things like "We have deniers and we have holocaust deniers and quite frankly I don't think there's much of a difference." What was that you said about Godwin's law?" I don't see how that's relevant, if it's even true. Obama is a hawk. He killed Bin Laden without Pakistan's permission and has authorized drone strikes and turned a blind eye to torture. He has also spent more on national defense than Bush ever did. I can't find any reports from the BMJ that DDT was banned worldwide which killed millions... so... ClothCoat (talk) 04:15, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's you who is being irrational here. Just because Obama spends on defense (which I never denied) doesn't mean he's making the right policy decisions. This hawk as you call him has supported radicals in the name of democracy while decrying the Iraq war. He has consistently apologized for muslims as some sort of oppressed people when they oppress themselves. He's said some rather unsettling things about Israel and he seems to think the muslim brotherhood is more worthy to spend money on than trying to stop Iran from going nuclear (do you realize how much money we're sending those people?). Maybe you didn't say that, but you claimed that it was accurate to describe the people in the Iranian government by a scale of conservatism, as if to say that they were somehow conservative, like in Burkean conservatism or classical liberal conservatism. I never claimed that Obama was cutting the defense budget and I don't necessarily think that would be a bad thing anyway were he to do that. Talk about logical leaps.

The reason that it was relevant is because you floated the denier language, which has often been linked to false holocaust comparisons. I was not citing heresay. I was citing what an actual scientist said at a gathering of prominent scientists for a screening of Al Gore's film. It was not what some conservative claimed they said. It was video of them actually saying it. This was not some lone wolf fringe scientist. I also thought the comment was relevant not only in terms of the climate change issue, but because it was you who brought up Godwin's law in terms of false Hitler comparisons and just could not shut up about comparisons Thomas Sowell made to Hitler. What the BMJ said was that the encouragement of decreased use of DDT had adverse health effects, and that many of the studies pointing to increased cancer and what have you were inconclusive. To show that they aren't part of the right wing conspiracy which Hilary Clinton brought to our attention, it should also be noted that the amount of DDT needed to effectively combat disease or to treat crops for diseases, is much smaller than the huge amounts we used to use back in the day. Paul Hermann Muller tried to point this out to people back in the day but they didn't seem to listen. Norman Borlaug, who knew a thing or two about pesticides, said that while the level of DDT used was wholly unnecessary back in the day, people discontinuing it's use in many areas has had such negative effects as already described. Burkean (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"Maybe you didn't say that, but you claimed that it was accurate to describe the people in the Iranian government by a scale of conservatism, as if to say that they were somehow conservative, like in Burkean conservatism or classical liberal conservatism. " I don't know if I'm going to bother debating someone stupid enough to say that. The conservatives in Iran support the status quo, meaning anti-Americanism and religious fundamentalism, therefor the candidate who won in Iran was the least conservative. As for the whole Muslim Brotherhood thing, follow this link. Reagan dealt with radicals and sent money to Al-Qaeda but that doesn't mean he would he was a pussy. Same goes for Obama if that's even true. Plus, Obama can't just "surrender" to Iran, the military and congress would have to go along with it as well so no, America is not going to surrender to a nation we could just crush. I still don't see how the scientists comparing global warming deniers to holocaust deniers is that relevant, it just shows that that scientist shouldn't be a pundit for acting silly, he should stick with being a scientist. And yes, you are a denier, of global warming. Again the problem with what Sowell said about DDT was that it was outright banned, even though it wasn't. It wasn't as cost effective for one, and secondly mosquitos were growing a resistance to it. It is generally agreed that DDT is a carcinogen, though to what degree is debated. ClothCoat (talk) 05:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Well you seem to have implicitly acknowledged what Thomas Sowell himself has said. That conservatism has very little to do with civil society in Christian Europe of the last few hundred years, or small government or free markets. Whatever the status quo might happen to be is all the word really means. This of course ignores that many times those who fought against oppressive governments or for a non coercive rule of law did so in the name of Christian conscience, anyone from the more religious founding fathers to Solzhenitsyn. Furthermore those often accused of being the status quo, such as Freidman or Hayek went against the grain and called for reform against an entrenched status quo. The founders, while certainly skeptical of biblical literalism, believed that small government as well as Christian ethics/morality should be an important part of the republic. They were fighting not only against England's status quo, but the status quo of the colonies themselves, as most of the people in the colonies wanted to remain part of England. Good thing we weren't a democracy then. The people in the last days of the Soviet Union wanted communism, the status quo, to remain. So I guess you could call the revolutionary guard conservative, but only in the most misleading sense.

Rouani might be moderate compared to some, but he's been associated with the government for a long time, has said some downright frightening things about the US, and at the very least plays around with the idea of holocaust denial. Politifact has been criticized even by the likes of Barry Ritholz and Eugene Robinson for becoming increasingly partisan. The fact remains that a great deal of money is given to Egypt and that a lot of that money inadvertently falls into the hands of the brotherhood. Reagan fought against communism to be sure. Such terrorist groups did exist at the time, but were a much less significant factor in Afghanistan's politics at that time. It always gets me that liberals can be so up in arms over that, when Clinton and the UN either deliberately or inadvertently gave tons of arms to Jihadi radicals in the Balkan conflict many of whom weren't even Bosnian residents but had come from the mid-east. Even Clinton's bio admits that the claims of "ethnic cleansing" were either extremely overblown or non-existent. So, if you want to criticize people for emboldening Islamic terrorists, you might want to start there.

"That doesn't mean he would he was a pussy". I'm not sure what you're trying to say there or if you're drunk or whatever, but thanks for bringing immature adolescent gutter language and insults into the discussion. The rational community at its best. The seventh grade called, they'd like their insults back. In any case, Reagan received multiple threats from east german officials and refused to back down and demanded that the communistic governments be held to account before they made any demands about SDI. A coward (or pussy as you and your sniggering retard high school freshmen friends might put it) he was not. If you're going to call it silly when a prominent scientist uses his platform to compare those who deny the holocaust with climate skeptics and do so with an un-ironic stone cold face (in other words it wasn't a joke) then you have no right to bellyache and invoke Godwin's law when Thomas Sowell merely points out that Obama and Hitler both employ a deal of statism and show contempt for people and have a preoccupation with control.

As for DDT, Sowell pointed out that it had been banned, or effectively banned, in many areas of the western world which had a negative impact on its availability in much of the third world and neither of these points is a lie, a misrepresentation or in any way inaccurate. Jim Muhwezi, the former minister of health for Uganda, has said the active campaign of discouraging use has led to millions of unnecessary deaths every several years. This is not some white guy who lives in a comfortable house in the suburbs working for the CATO institute engaging in armchair politics. This is a man who lives in this world day to day. Amir Attaran has discussed the move in the 70s to strictly curtail its use, which resulted in less availability for the third world, a huge resurgence in malaria with as many as 50million dead. Attaran has been praised by hard right organizations such as democracy now for his work with Afghan refuges. Of course they probably don't like the fact that he also said the UN shouldn't be funding dictatorships and that the UN's development goals should be more in touch with the needs of everyday people in the third world rather than fulfilling a political vision and should have metrics in place to do so. But of course I'm sure all of this is invalidated because he dared to cooperate with (but not actually work for) Africa Fighting Malaria, and anybody to the left of dead center basically sees them as the devil. So I guess he's just another right wing asshole. How pointless all of this is. One issue we could probably both agree on is that which Borlaug himself brought up. Namely, that we used way too much DDT in the past for than what is actually necessary.

As for global warming, there have been warming periods in the past, many of the record temperatures we know of (since our database only goes back for a limited amount of time on specific temperatures) come from the late 19th century and the 30s, even many prominent enthusiasts for climate change as well as liberal to left leaning publications (huffington post, the new republic) all admitted the data tends to show that warming since 1998 has either slowed drastically or stopped altogether. Much of what Al Gore and climate models predicted would've already happened by now has failed to materialize. The climate models which utilize satellite data have in the past also utilized imperfect technology which is in constant development, many of the projections of where climate was supposed to be now were done with inferior technology making long term projections. Even with perfected technology, going by atmospheric phenomenon and ocean temperature it is very difficult to predict where these temperatures go long term, as has been shown with the newer models showing a shift in the arc. John Christy played an important role in helping to develop this technology. He thinks man contributes to warming but that such as it is it's negligible.

Mean global temperatures are the same as they were in 1979. Since the end of the last ice age, sea level has risen about 100 meters. There has been no rise in the last several years. If the ice sheets are melting, why isn't sea level rising? Hurricane and typhoon activity is at a record low. The Antartic and Greenland ice sheets are stable. The polar bear population is increasing. The magnitude of putative global warming over the last 150 years is about 0.7 C. But only 9 percent of meteorological stations in the US are likely to have temperature errors lower than 1 C. This I base on Anthony Watts' survey of temperature stations. Steven Schneider said that information had to be suppressed to further the cause. "We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have." This is someone motivated by rationality? Mike Hulme, another climate change enthusiast said "scientists and politicians must trade truth for influence". This from the people who act as though skepticism of climate change is an insidious corporate conspiracy, when they have the UN, big media and lots of big money on their side. This isn't surprising though, since global warming is not about real science, but rather anti-capitalist pro-statist anti-sovereignty pro-UN malarkey consensus opinion hogwash masquerading as science. So it's easier to denigrate the wealthy who may work to stop ridiculous measures which are bad for the economy rather than confronting their own economically illiterate dogma, even when wealthy people, who use private jets, support them. The more influenced you are by economically illiterate anti capitalist politics as a scientist, the more likely you are to be neutral on this issue or downright skeptical. Moreover, our specific data of climate is sketchy at best, as we've only been taking reading on such things for a microscopic period of earth's history. We do know enough to know that the planet has been as warm or warmer than it is now just within the last hundred years. We also know that extreme weather events, including fires, are not as prevalent now as in other times and the fires of today can be attributed to re growth of brush and the fact that dry forests have come back over the course of decades because thanks to fossil fuels, we don't burn as much wood as we used to. Not that it would matter if we did because there are also many myths out there about forest regeneration which I won't go into here. The increased use of fossil fuels also meant less serfdom and more skilled labor as the new energy production meant new jobs that weren't available with older sources of energy. Cheap energy helps to overcome cheap labor. Enough with the liberal pastoralism.

Another big problem with all of this is that carbon dioxide is treated by these people, such as yourself, as though it's the same as other pollutants. Any fool knows the same amount of atmospheric damage is not involved. The best way would be to have local pollution controls in populated areas around actual pollutants like car exhaust and sulfur but to keep those restrictions in the high population and/or residential areas so there could still be factories and production. Richard Epstein has a great article on this if you're interested. Type Eek Environment Richard Epstein to take a look. What's also discussed is the fact that the restrictions of the 70s designed to help American oil but in fact made it more cost prohibitive which then drove demand to foreign markets which then led to huge shortages with the political turmoil in the middle east are the same restrictions being used to curb domestic production and leading to increases in gas prices among other things. If you want jobs and affordable energy you need lower taxation, no wage or price controls, open up domestic production (yes, that means Alaska), and less regulation and stopping the curtailing of all forms of production here in the name of protection of people or class warfare. A big part of the ridiculousness of the global warming idiocy is how much new regulation on production and manufacturing is supported or enacted in the name of it, to say nothing of the anti-fracking campaign, the huge amounts of money doled out to green energy which produces nothing, and the huge government controls of land which hurts development both for manufacturing and residential to say nothing of the ridiculous subsidizing or encouragement of that which is counter productive with the clean air act, various regional gas and energy initiatives in the Illinois and California areas, to say nothing of the American clean air and security act or the huge amount of money funneled to the EPA to perpetuate disinformation. All of these measures subsidize counter productivity to bride business into proposals that curb production outside the real of legitimate restrictions in certain residential areas. As many have pointed out, protecting a non producers already existing private property rights is the best way to control those few things which need to be controlled in this area. Murray Rothbard talked about this a great deal. And as I've said before, denier is just a cheap mindless tactic to shutdown debate and shows how intellectually bankrupt your supposedly rational worldview is.

In 2009, and EPA report which showed glaring inconsistencies between carbon dioxide and temperature was suppressed. Many other such incidents have occurred. On May 19, 1912, the Washington Post posed these questions: “Is the climate of the world changing? Is it becoming warmer in the polar regions?” On November 2, 1922, the Associated Press reported that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the waters too hot.” On February 25, 1923, the New York Times concluded that “the Arctic appears to be warming up.” On December 21, 1930, the Times noted that “Alpine glaciers are in full retreat.” A few months later the New York Times concluded that there was “a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard of warmth” in Greenland. About the only thing that has changed at the Times since 1930 is that no one working there today is literate enough to use the word “hitherto.” After the warm weather of the 1930s gave way to a cooling trend beginning in 1940, the media began speculating on the imminent arrival of a new Ice Age. We have now come full circle, mired in a hopeless cycle of reincarnated ignorance. H. L. Mencken understood this process when he explained “the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary.” Of course, what should I expect from people like yourself who claim to have a monopoly on rationality? Burkean (talk) 14:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you David Deming? Because if you are not, your last paragraph is plagiarized from LewRockwell.com. Did you compose the rest of your Gish Gallop with copy/paste, too?

(Oh, and as for the contents of the paragraph in question, even if we assume that the quotes do exist and haven't been taken out of context - which is a rather big assumption - it proves exactly nothing. None of the newspapers cited are scientific publications.)--ZooGuard (talk) 14:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

No, just work by scientists. Most of what I wrote is not from that and you know it which is why you ignored that part. Some of what I wrote is taken from that. Much of what I wrote is not. If you knew it was Deming I'm surprised that you didn't know what his views are. You obviously don't know anything about deming if you assume I'm trying to misrepresent him because his says the same things I've been saying and if you knew anything about deming you'd know that. So the assumption of no quote mining is not a very big one, considering where deming is coming from. I didn't see it as a sneaky attempt at plagiarism. It's an article on global warming not a play or a poem. Considering the lies you're peddling a lecture on ethics is quite laughable. There's no purpose to quote mining someone you agree with. Interesting that you don't have anything to say about what I wrote accept to accuse me of trying to take credit. Did you only read the part from david deming? Is this a conspiracy to rob deming of credit? What would be the point of doing that to someone who agrees with me on climate change? Logic really isn't your strong point, zoomonkey Burkean (talk) 19:43, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"That doesn't mean he would he was a pussy" yeh that means he's not a pussy tone troll. I was basically complementing Reagan but you're too knee-jerkish to notice it. I said the opposite of what you accused me of saying. I think I'm done with this conversation, you are either a troll or you really are this stupid, either way I'm not going to bother, especially if your ripping your "arguments" off from Lew Rockwell.

"This isn't surprising though, since global warming is not about real science, but rather anti-capitalist pro-statist anti-sovereignty pro-UN malarkey consensus opinion hogwash masquerading as science." Yeh, I'm done. And no, it was not deceitful to identify the Iranian candidate as the "least conservative", that's virtually how everyone in the media identifies him and no one thinks he represents small government. Of course, I'm assuming the media is part of the statist plot to control us. ClothCoat (talk) 18:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You have to admit that the wording was pretty clumsy and mistaking the compliment for something else is hardly an indictment of some idiocy on my part. What the media represents as conservative, and what actually is conservative, in the western European classical liberal Christian sense, are, needless to say, two entirely different things. One need not believe in any sort of conscious conspiracy to merely point out that the media have their own views which are shaped by the views of those who come from the same institutions are who hold the same opinions about society and it's institutions and who wish to reshape those because of cultural and political forces that have a strong effect on the anointed because of their own inherent relationship to the society.

To merely appreciate or impart inherited wisdom would require some humility. To reshape the world makes them feel important. So that is the narrative that is relayed, those are the sociocultural forces and institutions which influence the media, who then present this vision which ultimately further impacts the society. It's sociocultural dynamics. It's destructive, it's wrong, intellectuals ought not to promote it, but there's not a conscientious conspiracy, merely a playing out of a sociocultural dynamic. Yours is just another ignorant simplistic caricature of what I've said because for all your claim to rationality, you're definition of engaging in ideas is all conservatives are nuts the end.

As far as Lewrockwell goes, I myself disagree with much of what they say. We shouldn't have multiple currencies or privatize the many things they wish to. Without getting into the technicalities, I'm of the Chicago school, not the Austrian school. I think their foreign policy is ridiculous. What there is from lewrockwell was only part of what I wrote. Citing someone with a science background who agrees with me (in addition to many other scientists) is hardly ripping anyone off. And someone else has already made a similarly bogus accusation, so not very original on your part. I also wrote at length about foreign policy, the DDT issue, and also the climate. My whole post was not pulled from lewrockwell. It's a shame you didn't have more to say as I tried to respond to all your points in great detail. Burkean (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

"This isn't surprising though, since global warming is not about real science, but rather anti-capitalist pro-statist anti-sovereignty pro-UN malarkey consensus opinion hogwash masquerading as science." See, there's really no way for me to respond to that craziness. You going into detail was hardly a real response so much as it was a Gish Gallop, and much of what you said were PRATT's.

"What the media represents as conservative, and what actually is conservative, in the western European classical liberal Christian sense, are, needless to say, two entirely different things." Actually that's more the fault of the Religious Right who hijacked the term "conservative", not the media. And you didn't cite Lew Rockwell because you never said where you got the paragraph when you posted it, that's plagiarism. ClothCoat (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

You did nothing to refute what I cited concerning misrepresentations of Sowell, you did nothing to refute Attaran or Muhwezi and neither has anyone else, at least in any effective way. Many of the points I've cited, in addition to many others, have not been addressed because liberals have decided they're right and so refuse to engage in debate. Richard Epstein cannot get liberals to debate him on any number of issues. Such behavior is usually a sign that people don't put much confidence in the views they espouse.

Nice lazy slight against conservative Christianity. Too bad for your lousy logic that America becomes more and more secular all the time, so we're hardly having a great awakening. And religion was much more a cornerstone of people's lives in the past, it's not some new fangled moral code the religious right came up with as though it were some hijacking. Of course, probably no point in highlighting the fact that the evil ignorant conservative religious folks have schools where kids know the language better, have higher scores in math (and yes, even science, despite what folks like you would say), nevermind the religious give more to charity or tend to have more stable families. So yeah, the god people really are taking over and ruining everything. Now if only we can do something about those Catholics and freemasons. Oh, and don't forget the jew...err, I mean the neoconservatives. Yes...we must do something about them. The fact that you're down to "but then the religious right..." shows you're at the bottom of the barrel. When you liberals are finally done screwing up in the world I'm sure you'll find a way to blame the God that you don't believe in or the people who believe in him who don't necessarily subscribe to literalism, many of whom live everyday without physically harming anyone, and merely point out that their faith isn't excluded in the public square unless you count private letters sent to Baptists as part of the constitution, in which case we should deport all blacks since Lincoln wrote that in a letter, so that must be part of the constitution too. And you still haven't addressed much of what I said, where I tried to look for areas of agreement and demonstrate my points (many of which aren't addressed by anyone) and your idea of elevating the discussion is to say that people practicing their faith as many have for quite some time is a hijacking. Of course, when you're that divorced from the past, you'll believe it and America is whatever Chris Matthews or CNN says it is. Nice how you change the subject to the religious right when you accuse others of shifting the topic. No point in reminding you of how much of our laws, concepts of conscience, or mores concerning family, discipline, and valuing life come from Christianity. We lived like cavemen before Darwin. All the tender humanity and caring for one another read about in old times is invalidated because of religious conflict or brutality. You hippies really need to put down the bong. Burkean (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? You're the one who said conservatism was associated with "classical liberal(ism)", which is at odds with the religious right. And now you're calling me an anti-Semitic? What does CNN have to do with ANYHING?! WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU RANTING ABOUT?!!! (Oh, and the group "Africa fighting Malaria" has been caught bullshitting about DDT before so no, Attaran is not a reliable source. We can't bother to counter EVERY SINGLE POINT IN THAT GISH GALLOP, especially when most of them are PRATT's. And I'm not going to bother countering everey "point" in your most recent incoherent rant either, which I'm sure you will interpret as you outwitting me and the Lie-berals.) ClothCoat (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Many if not most of the people we call classical liberals felt that Christian morality was paramount to the continued preservation of a civil society in the west. They were not biblical literalists, but then again many conservatives aren't, like William F Buckley for instance. Franklin, who was definitely a religious skeptic, still felt Christian morals were important. Whether or not you're anti-Semitic is none of my business, and I never claimed to be a clairvoyant. I merely pointed out that the quite heated paranoia about neo-conservatives sounds an awful lot like many of those people who think Jews run the world or whatever. Some people, like David Frum and Yaron Brook, think the heated paranoid talk about bankers and neo-conservatives, is just code for jews. I don't know if I'd go that far, but the criticism of neo-conservatives does often involve some borderline conspiratorial stuff and completely ignores the dangerous things going on in the Muslim world, or considering that appeasement doesn't work, how many things concerning the muslim world the neo-conservatives are right about, and instead acts as though the neo-conservatives are the real threat. And while in the case of many it isn't a conscious association, the talk of Zionists and shadow government does feel like some of the anti-Judaism out there, if not anti-Semitism. As far as the bankers thing, jews have often been financially successful and upwardly mobile, so when class antagonism and class envy and class warfare and calls for government force and social justice and state power are invoked (in the name of helping people and making the economy better usually) and for economic control and confiscation and the denigration of wealth and the demonization of the successful, it does often transmute into anti-Semitism. But all those things would be bad, counterproductive and economically unwise even if that weren't true.

I merely mentioned CNN because they tend to take a liberal perspective on news stories, which they have every right to do. Attaran's work for responsible government and holding the UN accountable for it's misdeeds which hold others back in the name of it's political agenda has won Attaran praise even from liberals who usually support the UN. His work with refugees has even won praise from Democracy Now who are about as anti-conservative and pro-environment as you can get. Much of Attaran's work (even on this particular subject) has been done without funding from and completely independent of AFM, so whether or not everything they do or say is airtight really doesn't reflect on Attaran or the truth of what he says. And considering how many whackjob groups liberals associate with, Attaran working sometimes with a group he never specifically endorsed is hardly an indictment (and that isn't an example of not as bad as, because Attaran would be guilty of nothing insidious even is liberals only associated with sane people). I don't see what any of this has to do with Gish, accept that that's a great catch phrase for you, and reminds everyone that you think anyone the least bit skeptical of some aspects of Darwinian evolution must hate science, but that is another issue. I don't know if I'm any cleverer than you are and I don't know whether I've outwitted you. It's not exactly high up on my list of priorities. What I do know is that liberals often claim they've refuted everything, when many times they never bother to address serious criticisms of them by waving their hand and saying "those points have been refuted" (See Krugman vs. Ferguson). Burkean (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

1. CNN is centrist, not liberal.

2. Attaran is associated with Africa Fighting Malaria which makes him a questionable source. Any praise he's earned on DDT denialism, no matter from where it comes from, is misguided. However I have never seen any research of his that claims Rachel Carson was a mass murderer or the like, so he doesn't even appear to be the denier that Sowell is.

3. Read some of this page. That is why we can't (or won't) refute everything you say in a long rambling form.

4. Your entire rant that I tried to address was incoherent and shows that I probably can't reason with you. You brought up anti-Semitism and neoconservatism out of the blue (while basically calling me and/or liberals anti-Semitic), and then mumbled about Darwin, hippies, Chris Matthews, liberals blaming God for their mistakes, and God knows what else.

5. The religious right and classical liberalism are at odds with each other in that the religious right is more willing to legislate morality, but whatever, I wasn't blaming them for anything other than taking over the term "conservative", which used to refer to Goldwater conservatives and the like. That's all I said. I'm done with your non sequiturs. ClothCoat (talk) 02:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh my God. The man who founded and owns CNN, Ted Turner has said the Stalin extermination camps were largely fabrications, he accused democrats who favored Reagan's tough foreign policy against the Russians of wanting a nuclear holocaust, said that people who observe Ash Wednesday were "freaks", and also questioned the intelligence of people who opposed abortion. You may support such things, but don't tell me that it's centrist. Don Lemon, Anderson Cooper, Piers Morgan, Christine Romans, Fredericka Whitfield, Candy Crowley, Howard Kurtz, Fareed Zakaria, all identify as either center left or liberal. By promoting a ridiculously restricted use of DDT, Rachel Carson is responsible for millions of deaths. Period. Jim Muhwezi has even less of an association with AFM (as in none), he worked as a health minister for Uganda, dealing with suffering people everyday and he has said Rachel Carson has blood on her hands. Is he part of the right wing conspiracy? Do you and Rachel Carson know better what everyday Africans go through than a man who has lived there all his life? He is an everyday Ugandan with very little to his name. Who's buying him off? I thought you people loathed conspiracies.

Gish Gallop is a nice cute buzz phrase for you and your friends, but it's just a convenient label that allows you to avoid an argument (like saying PRATT or chanting "denier"). You probably can't reason with me, seeing as how most of you folks are completely unreasonable. You were discussing foreign policy, and liberals are always talking about the latest neo-conservative plan to take over the country (which according to them they've already done, so I guess they have to keep doing it again). I specifically said that I have no way of knowing if someone is an anti-Semite because I'm not clairvoyant. I merely pointed out that it involves the same paranoid thinking (when talking about Israel and Zionists) as we see from many anti-semites. It involves also the mentality of acting as though very small wars are catastrophic and that foreign policy is part of a secret cabal (some say money, some say oil, some say jews, they're all fools or liars). This completely ignores the reality in the region and what the west is confronted with.

I have no idea if liberals blame God for their mistakes (though that would fit in nicely with the attitude of there is no God and I hate him), what I said was that liberals attempt to blame the established mores and traditions for the ills of society and believe they can mitigate those ills by altering them, or doing away with them completely. This ignores that fact that civilization depends on them, and that much of what they want to do away with has a proven track record of bettering the west (Christianity, free markets), that it's diminished influence will have negative consequences and so on. They also completely ignore that many who do not subscribe to their anointed vision favor reform (the founders, Milton Freidman), just not reform that fits in with their political vision.

What is considered legislating morality by people of your stripe today would've merely been considered the moral principles which a healthy restrained society should follow in the days of classical liberalism. It just wasn't considered that radical. But's its nice how you think you can speak for people who you disagree with. It's ironic how you talk about religious conservatives taking over the word from Goldwater, because not so long ago people like yourself were talking about Goldwater taking over the republican party from the Rockefeller republicans. This of course ignores the fact that the Rockefeller republicans were largely a brand created by post world war 2 politics and that Goldwater merely represented where the party had been in the time of Coolidge before the war and before the centrist coup. Goldwater certainly had a more secular worldview, but he pretty much voted with conservatives on foreign policy and fiscal issues his whole life. Goldwater supporting abortion doesn't mean it's a good idea or that is has a positive effect on teen pregnancy or people's choices in society. Considering how much state power is used to keep religion out of the public sphere (or public schools), and how much religious speech and religious learning is curtailed (what you can or can't do in college, what you can or can't teach in college, teachers unions fighting against religious schools), calls of legislating morality are ridiculous. The whole notion of separation of church and state isn't even in the constitution, and idea that state power can be used to curtail religion when it isn't using physical force against anyone else (dubbed separation of church and state) has nothing to do with any official US document, unless we consider a private letter reassuring Baptists that they were free to practice their religion as evidence that the role of religion in society being curtailed by the state is somehow justified from such a private letter. Shaky ground at best. Having a society that respects and values Christian virtue doesn't mean you have to look into people's bedrooms, or bring back sodomy laws (there are no doubt some Christians who wish to do this). It also doesn't mean that you have to force people to serve gays, or give/demand state approval for certain lifestyles, or give someone permission to kill another human being because it lives inside them. Respecting and teaching Christian morality, it's importance for civilization, respecting the importance of male/female relationships, the importance of the traditional family for children and society, encouraging behavior that emphasizes discipline and restraint and to not endorse or engage in artistic or cultural/musical/social/entertainment trends which support otherwise doesn't mean brute force nor does having a knowledge of the bible means just that and nothing else. The founders believed in all these things and they were religious skeptics. Distorting other people's views and then crying about non sequiturs seems to be all you have left. Apparently your brain is made of the same fabric as your coat. Burkean (talk) 05:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This thread is embarrassing even by internet standards. If we walk away quietly maybe it won't devour our souls, adopt our children and beat them.Tielec01 (talk) 05:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeh don't worry this last rant was the last straw(man) for me. I'm slowly backing away now... ClothCoat (talk) 18:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Why would I expect anything less than such a childish response from people who don't know how to look at issues seriously and claim to have a monopoly on the rational. Disgusting violent imagery to get a cheap laugh from the folks at rationalwiki? Why, I never. Burkean (talk) 05:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that the "problematic" part of the article on Sowell is mostly his attacks on Obama. Come on, wikipedia is way more unbiased than this. I'm starting to think that the "Rational" in RationalWiki just means "progressive". A meaning provided by progressives themselves. This site will need to consider that there is maybe a possibility that Obama is not such a good president, if I am maybe to consider it to be rational. Just the line "he has poblished some borderline insane articles ..." shows that whoever wrote the article, and whoever approved it, did not pay attention in school when they were teaching the difference between statements of fact and statements of opinion. I would NEVER see anything being called "insane" on a wikipedia article, which makes it a lot more rational than this site, that never take opposing opinions seriously, and thinks that jeering at them and strawmanning is legitimate "reason". You guys do have some good articles, mainly about religion (even then bullying some when a sincere person question some aspect of it), but you really should remove your passion when it comes to politics, otherwise the name Rational is unjustified. Rational is only someone who considers that ANY opinion might be right, and that ALL should be given fair attention. ^{— Unsigned, by: 201.15.118.21 / talk}

Gold standard insane?

"He has danced around the idea of reinstituting the gold standard, not opposing it (as to not upset libertarians) but not outright supporting it either (as to not be discredited by sane economists), though just the fact that he treats it like a credible idea makes it difficult to take him seriously as an economist." Do you people have any idea as to how economics actually work? How exactly is the gold standard insane? How else would we actually have an economy unless paper money were backed by a rare commodity? --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you people have any idea as to how economics actually work? How exactly is the gold standard insane? How else would we actually have an economy unless paper money were backed by a rare commodity? Wikipedia has an article on fiat currency you might be interested in. Godspeed (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

My dear man, you actually expect genuine rationality? These people claimed that libertarians and fascists both believed in survival of the fittest, told me that Stalin death camp denier Ted Turner's propaganda network CNN was centrist, claimed that Hitler was an enemy of wage price controls or unions (he wasn't), claimed the massive amount of appeasement from labor and socialists before WWII was nonexistent, and that the progressive idea of using world war 1 to wipe away the old nation states and redraw the world to avoid petty, horrible things like patriotism and nationalism (of course no difference between one country's patriotism and another, there's relativism for you) in fact wasn't the progressives; so they claim and it worked out so well didn't it? Then they tried to claim Coolidge was a racist, and on and on.

It's all there, you should read for yourself. You shouldn't be surprised about clothcoat recommending that survey to you which equated Thatcher with Hitler, because they have a majorly ridiculousness going in that department. They keep talking about Godwin's law when I merely defended Sowell for pointing out how much progressives admired totalitarianism, because they, like the progressives, disliked the free economy and thought control was better, wanted more state schooling, wanted to limit the role of the family and so on. All I got was Godwin's Law! Godwin's Law! But all the actually ridiculous and untrue comparisons between Thatcher and Hitler in terms of economy and values weren't a problem for them when uttered by one of their liberal saints, Salman Rushdie. They did at least have the gumption to point out that Thatcher defended Rushdie when Carter did not, but ignored that Rushdie then turned around and stabbed her in the back. They're real class acts over here at psychoticliberalwiki. Burkean (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you done rambling yet? Also, see our article on the gold standard. Also, the survey I recommended puts thatcher to the economic right of Hitler, and marks her as much less authoritarian. They're both in the "authoritarian right" square, but that's it. And stop bringing up red herrings, the progressives of the 1930's and Salmon Rushdie still have nothing to do with Thomas Sowell comparing Obama to Hitler. "wanted to limit the role of the family " I don't even know what that's suppose to mean. You mean Hitler was opposed to traditional families? "wanted more state schooling", great so now public education is a slippery slope to Stalinism/Fascism/Nazism/Maoism. I like how you don't understand why we keep saying "Godwin's law" when it's mainly because you keep changing the subject from Sowell. ClothCoat (talk) 07:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't an enemy of unions? Your fractal wrongness is boring me. And stop attacking all of CNN because of Ted Turner's personal nuttiness. His beliefs don't reflect the beliefs of everyone who works there. In fact, according to Wikipedia, they've hired more conservatives as political contributors than they have liberals. ClothCoat (talk) 07:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your ignorance is laughable. It was you who first invoked Godwin's law in the name of criticizing me. I guess you think the only bogus comparisons to Nazis are made by conservatives against liberals, because apparently liberals never call conservatives Nazis. Or when they do it it's justified. My point with Rushdie was that his comparison was much more ridiculous than Sowell's and had far less meat to it. If you think taking the US off the gold standard brought about positive economic consequences then fine. Criticism of Fox news often centers around the politics of it's owner, Roger Ailes. Why it is wrong to do it for CNN I don't understand. I'm sure there are some conservatives who work there, but only a liberal like you could or would consider it's coverage to be centrist. Many of the most prominent voices on CNN are either left or left of center just as pretty much everyone on fox news accept Bob Beckel and Juan Williams is conservative.

I have no doubt that Hitler moved against unions once they posed a threat to his power. The fact remains that Hitler pursued an economic ideology (which you tacitly acknowledge when you discuss Thatcher) which favored autarky, considered capitalism an enemy, and so on. But I would certainly be willing to admit that Hitler's hatred of capitalism had much more to do with his feeling that it created decadence and undermined the national character rather than any genuine concern for the German working class. There was quite a bit of money printing and the cost of living rose dramatically. It is no accident that Roosevelt supported Mussolini's economic platform (nothing outside the state) and Roosevelt certainly favored strong unions. But there are many (not necessarily yourself) in the radical left such as Michael Parenti and Eric Zuesse who have tried to claim that Hitler was for capitalism. This of course goes to the confusion between capitalism and corporatism. Corporatism involves state actors using force to protect the wealthy and powerful, not free exchange and competition. Corporatism is essentially fascism where you have the state in bed with corporations and the state dictates the economy, the currency, the printing, the regulations, what and how things are made and competition is stifled by this, as those who are powerful face no competition when protected by state actors. The confusion of this with capitalism really destroys the debate.

As for your claim about Hitler loving the traditional role in the family (kinder whatever), many have talked about how Hitler played all sides of an issue to bring as many people to is side as possible. His whole mantra was claiming that he could unify the country and that divisions of class and politics and faith could be eliminated. Again, to what extent traditional families and the church might threaten his power was where he stopped. By the same logic, Stalin hated unions because he squelched those who threatened his power. By the same logic, Stalin loved faith and traditional families because he encouraged people to be masculine and self disciplined in the name of the party. But everyone with half a brain knows that traditional institutions and associations suffered under both tyrannies under the centralization and control and the idea of private life and the family was a threat to absolute power and obedience in both regimes and the hatred of both religion and tradition as weaknesses and threats were very clear, even if they were exploited to benefit the regime.

You would need a whole lot more than state schooling to have a totalitarian society. Just as you need a whole lot more than opposition to affirmative action and support for the 2nd amendment to claim that the confederacy is still alive and well (which is what we hear from many liberal commentators). It still doesn't mean state schooling has been positive or that it's positive now, or that the people who pushed for it didn't think some whacky things (about totalitarianism, the economy or other things). You can look up George H. Smith for some excellent work on the origins of state schooling and what it's original intentions were if you think I'm crazy or if you believe that the primary motivation for doing it was the public good. George H. Smith is an atheist and is constantly bashing Bill O'Reilly so hopefully you won't try and tell me Smith is the handmaiden for some right wing conspiracy. Burkean (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Um... you did it again. You ignored Sowell's claim that the US was slipping towards totalitarianism because BP was fined, as well as him comparing Obama to Hitler. Salmon Rushdie, CNN, Corporationism, while interesting topics, still have nothing to do with Sowell. And if you'd looked at the CNN page you'd see they've hired more conservative contributers than liberal ones. The case against Fox News isn't just Roger Ailes but also the presence of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reily, Fox and Friends, and other shows that blatantly lean to the right. CNN doesn't have a liberal Hannity. I would still like to return to the topic at hand, which is Sowell, but you need to stop with the red herrings. Thomas Sowell compares Obama to Hitler. Is this justified? That is the question. If your going to write tedious-to-refute paragraphs then at least make them on the topic at hand. ClothCoat (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I already addressed the point about Sowell earlier. The only way in which Sowell compared Obama to Hitler was in the pre-occupation with control, in this case, economic control. Sowell said that both Hitler and Obama depend on engaging people who know very little about politics. He does not say there is no daylight between what they support or that there is no difference between Obama and Hitler. To the extent that both Obama and Hitler both do that, the comparison is correct, just as it would be a correct comparison to say that both Mel Gibson and Adolf Hitler said some very strange things about jews. We all know that means someone isn't saying Gibson is a dead ringer for Hitler. Nor is that what Sowell is saying about Obama. Sowell merely points out the abuse of power and that the president is not authorized to extract money from a company who was engaging in a practice which those involved knew had risks associated with it (no guarantee was made that such a thing as did happen wouldn't happen) and a practice of oil extraction which was the most cost effective. No DIRECT comparison to Hitler was made. And as for CNN, they have a Sean Hannity and his name is Piers Morgan. A man who claims that people who oppose gun control delight in the death of children, and said Rachel Jenteal was "a smart cookie". I'm not a particularly big fan of Hannity, but those two things right there are as stupid as anything Hannity has ever said if not a great deal more. And Morgan was a lackey for Murdoch, which ought to have your liberal knickers in a twist. Moreover, when one considers some of Morgan's statements on foreign policy and religion, he's actually one of the less insanely liberal voices at CNN, which is quite shocking. Burkean (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see a reason to compare the two. It is worth noting that in a different column [he does straight up call Obama a fascist] so that makes it even worse since he's say it repeatedly. If someone said "both Mel Gibson and Adolf Hitler said some very strange things about jews" that might be true but the obvious motivation of someone who says that is to compare Mel Gibson to Hitler. You could also say "Both Sowell and Hitler support preemptive strikes". While true in the loosest sense of those terms, it's still obviously a dickish and dishonest method of comparing Sowell to Hitler, despite the two being completely different. You could do it with pretty much anyone, really. All of this is going to seem very silly when Obama leaves office in 2016 without implementing a totalitarian state. ClothCoat (talk) 00:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the piece, and I think Sowell is making a good point and it's a point that liberals have made in a different way. True, liberals haven't compared Obama to fascism, but they have pointed out that it isn't really socialism because we still have private actors. Many across the political spectrum, irrespective of Obama himself, have pointed out that our economics represents fascism, where private owners still exist but with a great amount of government to help maintain a control. Again so far as the comparison was made, it was made within the context of the economics of the fascist movement, not that Obama's intentions were identical to Hitler's (starting a world war, killing jews and so forth). So Sowell did compare Obama to Hitler, but not in the sort of overt way as to say what Obama wants and what Hitler want are the same thing. And when Sowell has criticized destructive action in the past, it has always been in the context of what precedent it sets. Sowell never said we'll be just like Nazi Germany by the time Obama leaves office. Also remember that Fascism and Hitler are not exactly the same thing. In many fascist movements the most destructive aspect was the economics, and while they certainly killed and repressed dissidents, that aspect was not as brutal as in Hitler's very radical form of fascism, while the economic devastation was the main feature of others. The Fascism was always repressive and destructive, but just how much of a role it's economic policy played in this is often overlooked. Burkean (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This quote

“”In his work, Sowell focuses on empirical evidence rather than theoretical probabilities. It is an approach he believes is missing from modern education. “In classrooms today, your imagination is just as good as knowing the facts,” he explains. “For example, in studying our colonial history, we ask a child, ‘How would you feel if you were a child in those days?’ But how can we expect that child to understand before knowing the facts. I call it the preposterous approach to education. You literally put in front what belongs behind.”<ref name=NEH />

This quote is dropped in sans context and I'm not clear what it's trying to express. Anybody? 32℉uzzy; 0℃atPotato (talk/stalk) 17:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is Sowell good faith?

I admit I'm not a huge reader of Sowell, but from the bit I've seen my experience is that when he makes a controversial, right-leaning claim, it's rarely if ever actually cited. Is this a standard for him, does he only rely on evidence and citations when he's making claims no one disagrees with?50.194.115.156 (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)