Thomas Sowell? Are you serious? Hack, hack, super hack. He once offered the idea that the best thing to happen to the US would be a military coup. He's every conservative's favorite African-American because he has the right letters after his name and he mouths the shibboleths of the right, but neither point makes him either intelligent or virtuous. He is, to be blunt, ignorant, silly, and largely ignored by real economists for one simple reason - he's so wrong he couldn't make himself right with a lifetime of penance.
Try harder next time. Even Walter Williams - who denounces corporate welfare as loudly as he does other types - would have been better.
Again, Geoffrey, you attack not the points of his argument, but him personally, and without basis. Do you seriously believe he wasn't speaking tongue in cheek regarding a coup? Are you that biases against rightwing thinkers? He's everybody's favorite because he speaks without regard to race, something that only gets lip service from the left. Being a hack might be a legitimate accusation, but it doesn't mean he ain't right, as in "correct". And you again refer to "real economists" which I'm convinced are ony those who support your beliefs. Big credibiilty problem here, my friend.
Why should I pay heed to someone who has not, to my knowledge (and I've read far more of Thomas Sowell than you might imagine), ever made an argument worth listening to? He is unimaginative, fringe, and hardly worth the intellectual effort needed to pass one's eyes over his sentences.
I took the plunge and clicked the first link. The first part of the piece, on the difference between an association and an alliance, is a ridiculous piece of illogic. Then, Sowell invokes racist writer David Fredosso, who is so kooky even most of the right has disowned him and his book. That Sowell brings him up only shows his intellectual shallowness.
It's nice to have one's opinions backed up by the facts. In this case, my opinion that Thomas Sowell is an anti-intellectual hack posing as an intellectual is backed up by the very first piece I read.
Took plunge number two. The entire column is based on the false premise that Barack Obama voted for a bill that mandated comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. Since the bill did not do that, the entire column is nonsensical. Sowell is either too lazy to look up the facts, or is deliberately lying because he knows the facts, and either case makes him out to be simply spouting gibberish.
As the child of a teacher, teacher's union member, and union contract negotiator, I can smell the smearing of teacher's unions a mile off. Once again, hacktastic stuff, full of straw arguments, non sequiturs, and typical right-wing anti-union BS.
You've got to be kidding me. "The people who vote for Obama prefer bike paths" makes about as much sense as "He's an Arab".
This entire series of linked articles is like a cornucopia of stupid, nonsensical, non-arguments. Sowell just seems to enjoy making things up as he goes along, or out-and-out lying, and the ease with which he puts in red herrings and misdirection only shows what a consummate fake he is.
There, I came, I saw, I wanted to cry for the time I shall never get back as I read that gibberish.
No Geoffrey. What you did was once again make unsubstantiated claims regarding his allegations and comments because you don't like the sound of them. As I'm taking a quick break from yard work, I'll ask these questions:
1. Are you sure you're not confusing Fredosso with Corsi? I know you have problems with Corsi, though you've never supported any of that, either. (No. I have still not read Corsi's stuff, don't intend to, and am not defending him whatsoever. I'm only questioning your charges from your own biases perspective.)
2. "...even most of the right has disowned him and his book."
Such as? I've heard absolutely nothing to this effect. Remember, you said "most". That's a lot of people. I'll accept three with links.
3. Everybody who disagrees with your lord and savior has been accused of racism. What makes you think Fredosso's a racist? Are you so sure you'd risk a libel suit? (Not that I'd look him up to squeal, I'm just asking.)
Just re-read the first part of the first link. What the firery hell are you talking about? Sowell's clarification regarding alliance over association is so plain and clear that you are simply rejecting the implication of his very true statements. The best one can say is that Barry only associated with, say, Ayers, when they first met, but from that point on, (more or less) chose to ally himself with Ayers. This is not only logic, but supported by more people than Sowell and Fredosso. Your dismissal of Sowell is NOT based on his intelligence, or lack thereof, but on your distaste for his right leaning perspectives.
Re-read the entire first article, Geoffrey, and to answer your question of why you should pay any heed to someone like Sowell is answered in the article. He states that Fredosso's book contains 35 pages that you can examine for the accuracy of what preceeds it. This is something that is uncommon on the left: a direct challenge to refute what the author submits. You don't take the challenge but instead just crap on the messenger. As the article ends thusly:
"But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts."
This sounds exactly like what you're doing. And you have the nerve to call HIM a hack!
I re-read the second article. Are you sure you're referring to the same bill HE is? Sowell never names the bill by name or number in the entire article. In my dealings with you, you've shown a marked propensity for missing the point of even some of your own offerings. Thus, the point of the article wasn't about the bill per se, but about the disconnect between the types of things Obama supports and the things he says in his speeches. But since you insist "the bill" wasn't about what Sowell said it was, you'll have to show how you know that Sowell and you are speaking of the same bill.
Article three. Again, what does Sowell say that isn't true? I deal with teachers myself and I can tell you that I've met some that make great dough. One of them suggested that I encourage my daughter to change districts to the one from which he was retiring because for just moving to it the last two years of his career, it earned him an additional 8K per year on his pension. Two years and additional 8K. He never asked anything like, "What's her ratio of grads to failures?" or any such qualifying questions. Nothing whatsoever about whether or not she's good at it. I'm guessing YOU are a hack for the teacher's union. Questionable credibility about this issue from you.
To repeat myself: There was nothing of any serious substance in any of the linked pieces. There was nothing to warrant concern. There were arguments using false premises. There were arguments based upon questionable sources. There was the bald assertion that Obama supporters are unpersuaded by facts, yet, as usual, no actual facts are presented.
This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I understand what facts are. You presume that Thomas Sowell presents arguments and facts, when he does neither, typing gibberish, nonsense, and using faulty logic, common logical errors, and the insertion of red herrings and non sequiturs to distract attention. This is nothing new, as many years - more than a decade in fact - of reading Sowell has taught me. Whether it's lying about Clarence Thomas or creating a massive work on the Chinese in southern Asia that is a pile of nonsense, I have read him enough to know that he is, has been, always will be, full of crap.
Yet, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing to support your assertions. Keep this in mind, Geoffrey: like me, you are no more than just another blogger with very limited readership. Thomas Sowell is a well respected man who is read by millions. Right of the bat, he gets a ton more respect than do either of us for his contributions in print. His source is sourced heavily and you sit there and claim he makes unsubstantiated claims with no sources of your own to prove it. All you do is claim he is only "typing gibberish, nonsense, and using faulty logic, common logical errors, and the insertion of red herrings and non sequiturs to distract attention." and I guess readers here are supposed to think, "Gee, if Geoffrey says so..." Argue his assertions or don't waste the keystrokes. You haven't even supported your opinion that Sowell is a hack with no imagination. You've proven nothing about anything you've said about him, just like you haven't shown how Fredosso, or even AmericanThinker.com is racist. You talk. In fact, all you're doing is typing gibberish, nonsense, and using faulty logic, common logical errors, and the insertion of red herrings and non sequiturs to distract attention.
I don't know who respects Thomas Sowell, and I mean that sincerely. He is not a respected academic; he is not a widely-read columnist (except for people who mine his columns for errors of fact, reasoning, or simply to make fun of him); and conservatives who hate minorities but want to boost their bona fides by pointing to Sowell as an example of "the right kind" of black guy.
Look, Marshall, this isn't about anything other than me pointing out pretty clearly and succinctly why I think these particular pieces, and Sowell's work in general, is a pile of garbage. You ask for examples, and I gave them to you. If you don't want to take them, that's no never mind to me. Like any refutation in detail, it would take far more space and time to deal with each specific in order to do it justice. I have no interest in doing so, for the simple reason it isn't necessary.
Thomas Sowell is a source with little credibility precisely because not just me but many, many others have been discovering all sorts of fallacious arguments, errors of fact and/or reasoning, and sometimes downright lying in his stuff for a long, long time. Citing a source with little credibility, and then asking why he has none, is one thing. I have summed up the reasons why Thomas Sowell has no credibility for me, and have interest in going in to detail. I have, in fact, wasted far too much of my time on this worthless hack.
As for Mark's comment, that's a pretty hefty charge, and I would like to know if he can back it up with something like evidence. I won't be holding my breath, because I will look like that opera singer on the Bugs Bunny cartoon forced to hold a note beyond endurance.
"I don't know who respects Thomas Sowell, and I mean that sincerely."
Well obviously the people who publish his opinions and the people who read them, the many people who have had him on their talk shows and millions more. What a freakin' silly comment. The truth is, I think, that you'd like to believe what you say, but since you have yet to support any of it, your opinion is just your opinion.
"He is not a respected academic; he is not a widely-read columnist"
Not respected by those who disagree with him, and I'll need some link to circulation numbers to give the second part the time of day. Again, just your opinion unsupported in any way.
"You ask for examples, and I gave them to you."
When? Do you mean that "military coup" thing? Wow! That seals the freakin' deal allright! You've done nothing more than "Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is!" Sorry, that's not an example of anything but childishness.
"Like any refutation in detail, it would take far more space and time to deal with each specific in order to do it justice."
Each ain't necessary. One would do as you haven't done anything resembling a refutation of any of the links I've posted. C'mon, tough guy. Give it a shot. buckbuckbuckbuckAWK!
"Thomas Sowell is a source with little credibility precisely because not just me but many, many others have been discovering all sorts of fallacious arguments, errors of fact and/or reasoning, and sometimes downright lying in his stuff for a long, long time."
Name one. Give me a link. Anything. Then we'll investigate your guy for accuracy.
" I have, in fact, wasted far too much of my time on this worthless hack."
You've only wasted time dodging the challenge of refuting that which you claim is a lie or untrue or mistated or anything at all wrong with Sowell's opinions. You've only wasted time pretending to have done something. As usual, you've only disparaged the messenger and left the message totally untouched. Just like you have with the AmericanThinker articles in past posts. Why fill my comments box? I'd love to have you come here and debate, Geoffrey. I'm just wondering when you're actually gonna do some of it.
Keep in mind Geoffrey, that I've been working to find support for my notions about the bennies of tax cuts. But this ain't no one way street. Shit or get off the freakin' pot.
Thanks for your comment on my blog, Marshall. You said it! It's good to check your blog posts out again, too. We're having a certain amount of soul-searching in Australia about where the financial ruckus blew up from, and what it shows, and where it will lead. One thing you don't hear enough is, will people turn back to God instead of seeking the answer from Mammon. Of course it's easy to say, but it works in practice. Best wishes.
Marshall, I'm not afraid of proving anything, because in a universe of sane discourse I have done so. I made my central argument against each of Sowell's little missives quite clear - bad reasoning and a lack of any factual premise in one; the red herring attack on teacher's unions in another (please explain the relevance of this point on education policy; Obama sits on a board that has done wonders improving education in Chicago, so I think that point is far more relevant that his support of teacher's unions); using a conspiracy mongering racist as a source (by a black guy no less!) doesn't play well with me (again, it's an issue of credibility). The list goes on and on. I see no reason to repeat that I have, in fact, explained why I cannot take these pieces by Sowell seriously.
The best way to discover how respected an academic is, is to consult a citation index. Each discipline has one; my sister is listed in what is called "the Fish Index" for her research on fish (obviously). Consult one of those.
I am not surprised that you believe Sowell's professional reputation has everything to do with ideology. While I am sure there is some of that - academics are only human beings - if his work had serious merit (like some of the more detailed work of Milton Friedman, for example; his more lay-oriented stuff is just plain awful), it would be taken seriously.
Today we had a great example of a real economist who is also a political commentator receiving recognition for his work in his chosen field. Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, received the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on world trade. The difference between Sowell and Krugman is not ideological, but professional competence and performance.
In the real world, where facts matter, this argument (or whatever one wishes to call it) would be over, would have been over days ago. I have no fear of arguing the point of Sowell's lack of credibility. I choose not to for the simple reason that it is beating a dead horse. He lost credibility with me well over a decade ago, after I read a few of his columns on Clarence Thomas, and some of his work on Chinese immigrants in southern Asia (it was touted as a major work, but was based on prejudicial stereotypes and had some faulty data analysis to boot; suffice it to say that comparing the financial and business success of Chinese outside their native country to Jewish business success in Europe is not a really sound thesis to pursue).
What the f is your problem? You have NOT done so. Not in the freakin' least. You've done nothing but say, with far more words than is any longer necessary, that you don't like the guy. He has no crediblity? Pick an item from one of the articles and attack it with SOME FREAKIN' EVIDENCE!!!! Something I can then check myself to see if YOU know what the f you're reading. You've a rep for missing the point of articles, even some you've posted to support an opinion of your own (NO, I'm not going through your archives to find the one I've in mind. Why the hell should I?)
I've already countered your charge of bad reasoning at the top of his first article. Your charge is infantile and, hey, guess what? misses the point! You've made a charge of "red herrings" without anything to substantiate the charge (sorry Geoff, your word won't do it here anymore than mine would for you). You think Obama's done miracles for Chgo public schools? Really? They rank how well? Link to some stats or something, for the love of hot women! As for the relevance of teachers unions on education policy has been made clear in the article (gee--can't believe you've missed that) in that the unions are concerned about the teachers more than education by virtue of what they are. It's the same of any union. That's why they are formed---to protect the employees they represent, not the company for which the employees work. If it wasn't true, how could any teacher or union rep oppose performance based considerations in hiring, salary increases, tenures, firing criteria, etc. No one's saying that the first draft will be doable, but they routinely reject any consideration of merit as main criteria. As a father it freakin' PISSES me off!
"...conspiracy mongering racist..."??!!!!! PROVE IT!! If you know it to be true, give us something to go on because at this writing, I've never heard anyone make this accusation. You've never proven it against AmericanThinker, either.
From Wiki, a source I seldom use (see Geoffrey? A source!)
"Bias In 2004 Economists Daniel Klein and Eric Chiang conducted a survey of the Social Sciences Citation index and identified a bias against free market oriented research. In addition to an ideological bias Klein and Chiang also identified several methodological deficiencies that encouraged the over-counting of citations and argue that the Social Science Citations Index does a poor job reflecting the relevance and accuracy of articles." bold print mine
The dudes at Nobel City are regarded as liberal on a good day. Krugman might impress them well enough. Jimmy Carter did. I've certainly heard of Krugman and I've heard of his stuff being shredded, but I'm not familiar enough to comment more. I just wanted to express that I noticed you got turned on by a lib organization awarding a lib economist. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't. I've no doubt that you wouldn't have mentioned it if it was a more conservative, free market kinda guy.
And that reminded me that I had always wanted to research the hallowed "PEER REVIEWS!!!!" (All genuflect!) Also from Wiki:
"Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[9] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[10]
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
I copied and pasted this, as well as the previous piece regarding the vaunted citation index, to make a point that I had suspected. Thanks to actually doing a little search, and in what is widely regarded as a liberal leaning source, I've found that to use either the index or the review to pound home a point regarding the validity or credibility of a point of view or it's author is really akin to attacking with squirt guns. Neither, apparently, means much of anything in supporting the notion that someone like me hasn't a leg upon which to stand in the face of either. I feel a whole lot better now and as I suggested, it's as I suspected. Nothing but a highbrow bluff in the end. The Wiki piece on peer review has a section regarding bias in the process. If someone submits what conflicts with the work or opinion of a reviewer, it's often dismissed on that alone, rather than on the merits of the paper. Hmmm. Maybe there's a conservative counter point to Wikipedia that will make all this into rubbish.
Seriously, if I were a hot shot out in the world, I'm sure I'd be proud to have papers so reviewed or to have my stuff in a citation index. But it seems that I need not fear when a Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wishes to lord over me the lack of either for a source I use.
Even more seriously, G-man. You are among the first to have graced the refuge known as Marshall Art's. I have visited and perused your own posts many times (though not lately, I'm afraid) and despite finding fault with your perspectives, have always viewed you as well read and thoughtful. This has not left my cranial opinion center and when I see an email from you that indicates you've posted a comment here, trepidation (though just a bit) follows and I wonder if I've been done in "this time". In other words, I always expect better, more, something challenging. Are you gettin' lazy? I mean, dude, I'm not even that good! C'mon! Get back in the rhetorical gym and work the speed bag or sumpin!
I do so love the fact that there is a simple answer to everything in your world, Marshall. It makes thought unnecessary. Where in the world did you get the idea that Krugman has ever been "shredded" by any writer? Am I impressed with the fact that he won the Nobel Prize? Obviously! Do I think he won it because he's a liberal, and this is all part of some liberal conspiracy?
That's ten pounds of crap in a five pound bag, dude. Milton Friedman was hardly a liberal, but he won for the simple reason that his work was exemplary. It's that simple. The winner of the Peace Prize this year, the former President of Finland and a UN official involved in numerous peace negotiations, is hardly of the stature of former Pres. Carter and former VP Gore, who have also won (as did then-Pres. Roosevelt for convening the Peace Conference that ended the Sino-Russian War of 1905, and Henry Kissinger for his efforts to end the war in Vietnam and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War), but deserves kudos, just the same.
In your world, however, actual facts are immaterial. Krugman is a liberal, Norway is a liberal country (is it, though?), ergo, the prize itself was awarded for political, rather than substantive reasons.
BTW, I have read excerpts from Krugman's academic works, and I couldn't begin to understand them, and content myself with the fact that his political commentary - unlike someone such as, say, Thomas Sowell - has the virtue of at least being right far more often than it is wrong. Is this political bias? Only if one assumes that I, and other liberals, refuse to consider all of reality, and only see what we wish to see. Since that's true for all human beings all the time, I don't really consider that a serious criticism. Rather, it is reliance on actual facts - most Americans, the vast majority in fact, dislike Pres. Bush; most Americans want our involvement in Iraq to end; Thomas Sowell, who once mused, apropos of nothing at all, that a military coup would be good for the US, is a far less well regarded academic than Paul Krugman - that keeps me going. I do not see any of this as political bias. They are just facts. You may not like them, any more than I liked that Pres. Bush won 2004 pretty soundly (partly because John Kerry ran such an inept campaign).
I am just happy that what I said to my wife the day after the election four years ago has come to pass - that we in the US had to see things get really worse before we realized how they had been for a while. On the brink of collapse right now, I would call that pretty bad.
Three weeks until the madness is over, and we get to listen to all sorts of stories of Obama stealing an election in a landslide.
To borrow from R. Reagan, "Well, there you go again."
"Where in the world did you get the idea that Krugman has ever been "shredded" by any writer?"
From articles and radio discussions where his name came up. Didn't file them, so don't ask. Not a major deal.
It's no secret the Nobel people lean left. It's a tendency that they would hold another lefty in high regard. This doesn't mean that they don't recognize others who've done great things. It's not always something for which such things matter. ANYONE who works to end a war would get consderation from them, as would anything that has appeal for a lib, even if it also appeals to others. Don't get your panties in a bunch. I've said nothing less substantial than any of your recent criticisms of my links.
So facts have great value to me, that's why I've been freakin' beggin' you to provide any. That means you have to support it with something other than "Well if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you" kinda comments. YOU are not an authority, you are an alternative opinion. Don't present your opinions as fact, provide some to go with the opinion. You have yet to do so.
And speaking of facts, show me one poll where the question is "Do you like George Bush?" before you tell me that most Americans don't like him. I wanna know if they don't like HIM or his policies. There's a difference. Most want out of Iraq? Bullshit. EVERYONE wants out of Iraq. The question is how we leave and on that, there are a variety of responses. No one with a brain wants a replay of Viet Nam. Viet Nam was an example of why we are worth attacking. I want out as a victor with our goal of a free and self-sufficient ally made manifest. If I'm among the few on that score, I'm among the better Americans with the most rational thought processes. You SAY Sowell is far less regarded than Krugman. Fine. Back it up. Got a poll for that? Or are you going to use a questionable citation index?
If your wife agreed with you, she hasn't been paying attention any better than you have. You think it's bad now? We'll see what happens if your lord and savior wins the election and is allowed to implement his socialist policies upon an economy already rocked by Democratic stupidity. The bulk of our troubles happened since the last mid-terms, when the Dem take over was to bring Utopia. Don't worry though, I'm not forgetting Bush's part, but if not for his tax cuts, the lack of veto action on pork-laden legislation would have killed us sooner. Oh, by the way... you've got KoolAid on your shirt.
Haha.. That was great Marshall. You really lost it there.
"To borrow from R. Reagan, "Well, there you go again."
Can you be more obvious? Marshall, you're like a rapper quoting Malcolm X.
"Didn't file them, so don't ask."
Again, hold yourself to the same standards you do everybody else. If you want Geoffrey to look up some polling data. Perhaps you should file something away.
"your lord and savior"
I know I’m going out on a limb, but I don’t think He is running. If He did run, I would really hope he could pull off a win. Just imagine the bad publicity if He lost. I can see the headline now, "Jesus fails to win over evangelicals".
"The bulk of our troubles happened since the last mid-terms"
Ahhh… the fun has already started. Marshall, I’m not sure if you are aware, but there is not some magic GDP faucet. When we voted out some of the bums a few years ago, the economy didn’t change. It kept moving down the same path. First you say that the Dems have done nothing in Congress. Now you say they are responsible for the economy? We have been in the middle of the current crisis for over a year now. The foundation for that was laid in the years previous. The housing market topped out in the summer of 2005. I would really be curious as to which noted economist supports your claim. This is a really big opportunity for you. Just head on over to that file cabinet and dig around a bit. You just might find something. Good luck!
We can chat more about Newman if you like. It just seems you choose to remain ignorant on every topic. You will not do any research. Which is fine. That is your choice. Just let me know when you have something educated to say.
As for Medved, I used to listen to him. That was until he started getting basic facts wrong. Like the number that died following a heat wave in Europe. Anyway, the guy gives one side of the story. Again, thats fine. You just might want to be aware of it. Or not, seeing as how you like to remain in the dark about every issue.
32 comments:
Thomas Sowell? Are you serious? Hack, hack, super hack. He once offered the idea that the best thing to happen to the US would be a military coup. He's every conservative's favorite African-American because he has the right letters after his name and he mouths the shibboleths of the right, but neither point makes him either intelligent or virtuous. He is, to be blunt, ignorant, silly, and largely ignored by real economists for one simple reason - he's so wrong he couldn't make himself right with a lifetime of penance.
Try harder next time. Even Walter Williams - who denounces corporate welfare as loudly as he does other types - would have been better.
Again, Geoffrey, you attack not the points of his argument, but him personally, and without basis. Do you seriously believe he wasn't speaking tongue in cheek regarding a coup? Are you that biases against rightwing thinkers? He's everybody's favorite because he speaks without regard to race, something that only gets lip service from the left. Being a hack might be a legitimate accusation, but it doesn't mean he ain't right, as in "correct". And you again refer to "real economists" which I'm convinced are ony those who support your beliefs. Big credibiilty problem here, my friend.
Why should I pay heed to someone who has not, to my knowledge (and I've read far more of Thomas Sowell than you might imagine), ever made an argument worth listening to? He is unimaginative, fringe, and hardly worth the intellectual effort needed to pass one's eyes over his sentences.
I took the plunge and clicked the first link. The first part of the piece, on the difference between an association and an alliance, is a ridiculous piece of illogic. Then, Sowell invokes racist writer David Fredosso, who is so kooky even most of the right has disowned him and his book. That Sowell brings him up only shows his intellectual shallowness.
It's nice to have one's opinions backed up by the facts. In this case, my opinion that Thomas Sowell is an anti-intellectual hack posing as an intellectual is backed up by the very first piece I read.
Took plunge number two. The entire column is based on the false premise that Barack Obama voted for a bill that mandated comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. Since the bill did not do that, the entire column is nonsensical. Sowell is either too lazy to look up the facts, or is deliberately lying because he knows the facts, and either case makes him out to be simply spouting gibberish.
As the child of a teacher, teacher's union member, and union contract negotiator, I can smell the smearing of teacher's unions a mile off. Once again, hacktastic stuff, full of straw arguments, non sequiturs, and typical right-wing anti-union BS.
Yawn.
You've got to be kidding me. "The people who vote for Obama prefer bike paths" makes about as much sense as "He's an Arab".
This entire series of linked articles is like a cornucopia of stupid, nonsensical, non-arguments. Sowell just seems to enjoy making things up as he goes along, or out-and-out lying, and the ease with which he puts in red herrings and misdirection only shows what a consummate fake he is.
There, I came, I saw, I wanted to cry for the time I shall never get back as I read that gibberish.
No Geoffrey. What you did was once again make unsubstantiated claims regarding his allegations and comments because you don't like the sound of them. As I'm taking a quick break from yard work, I'll ask these questions:
1. Are you sure you're not confusing Fredosso with Corsi? I know you have problems with Corsi, though you've never supported any of that, either. (No. I have still not read Corsi's stuff, don't intend to, and am not defending him whatsoever. I'm only questioning your charges from your own biases perspective.)
2. "...even most of the right has disowned him and his book."
Such as? I've heard absolutely nothing to this effect. Remember, you said "most". That's a lot of people. I'll accept three with links.
3. Everybody who disagrees with your lord and savior has been accused of racism. What makes you think Fredosso's a racist? Are you so sure you'd risk a libel suit? (Not that I'd look him up to squeal, I'm just asking.)
Just re-read the first part of the first link. What the firery hell are you talking about? Sowell's clarification regarding alliance over association is so plain and clear that you are simply rejecting the implication of his very true statements. The best one can say is that Barry only associated with, say, Ayers, when they first met, but from that point on, (more or less) chose to ally himself with Ayers. This is not only logic, but supported by more people than Sowell and Fredosso. Your dismissal of Sowell is NOT based on his intelligence, or lack thereof, but on your distaste for his right leaning perspectives.
More later. It's back to the yardwork for me.
Re-read the entire first article, Geoffrey, and to answer your question of why you should pay any heed to someone like Sowell is answered in the article. He states that Fredosso's book contains 35 pages that you can examine for the accuracy of what preceeds it. This is something that is uncommon on the left: a direct challenge to refute what the author submits. You don't take the challenge but instead just crap on the messenger. As the article ends thusly:
"But neither this book nor anything else is likely to change the minds of Obama's true believers, who have made up their minds and don't want to be confused by the facts."
This sounds exactly like what you're doing. And you have the nerve to call HIM a hack!
I re-read the second article. Are you sure you're referring to the same bill HE is? Sowell never names the bill by name or number in the entire article. In my dealings with you, you've shown a marked propensity for missing the point of even some of your own offerings. Thus, the point of the article wasn't about the bill per se, but about the disconnect between the types of things Obama supports and the things he says in his speeches. But since you insist "the bill" wasn't about what Sowell said it was, you'll have to show how you know that Sowell and you are speaking of the same bill.
Article three. Again, what does Sowell say that isn't true? I deal with teachers myself and I can tell you that I've met some that make great dough. One of them suggested that I encourage my daughter to change districts to the one from which he was retiring because for just moving to it the last two years of his career, it earned him an additional 8K per year on his pension. Two years and additional 8K. He never asked anything like, "What's her ratio of grads to failures?" or any such qualifying questions. Nothing whatsoever about whether or not she's good at it. I'm guessing YOU are a hack for the teacher's union. Questionable credibility about this issue from you.
Relevant:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/
My bad. The above should've been in the LBJ post.
Obama is anything but an idiot. He is an automaton, saying and doing everything his handlers tell him, but he's no idiot. He knows how to obey.
"He is an automaton, saying and doing everything his handlers tell him, but he's no idiot. He knows how to obey."
based on what evidence of any kind to you make this wild assertion?
Anon,
Which wild assertion? That he's an automaton? An idiot? Or that he knows how to obey? Just askin'.
Les,
I cut and pasted your misplaced link to the LBJ thread. See you there.
To repeat myself: There was nothing of any serious substance in any of the linked pieces. There was nothing to warrant concern. There were arguments using false premises. There were arguments based upon questionable sources. There was the bald assertion that Obama supporters are unpersuaded by facts, yet, as usual, no actual facts are presented.
This is the fundamental difference between us, I think. I understand what facts are. You presume that Thomas Sowell presents arguments and facts, when he does neither, typing gibberish, nonsense, and using faulty logic, common logical errors, and the insertion of red herrings and non sequiturs to distract attention. This is nothing new, as many years - more than a decade in fact - of reading Sowell has taught me. Whether it's lying about Clarence Thomas or creating a massive work on the Chinese in southern Asia that is a pile of nonsense, I have read him enough to know that he is, has been, always will be, full of crap.
Yet, as usual, you offer absolutely nothing to support your assertions. Keep this in mind, Geoffrey: like me, you are no more than just another blogger with very limited readership. Thomas Sowell is a well respected man who is read by millions. Right of the bat, he gets a ton more respect than do either of us for his contributions in print. His source is sourced heavily and you sit there and claim he makes unsubstantiated claims with no sources of your own to prove it. All you do is claim he is only "typing gibberish, nonsense, and using faulty logic, common logical errors, and the insertion of red herrings and non sequiturs to distract attention." and I guess readers here are supposed to think, "Gee, if Geoffrey says so..." Argue his assertions or don't waste the keystrokes. You haven't even supported your opinion that Sowell is a hack with no imagination. You've proven nothing about anything you've said about him, just like you haven't shown how Fredosso, or even AmericanThinker.com is racist. You talk. In fact, all you're doing is typing gibberish, nonsense, and using faulty logic, common logical errors, and the insertion of red herrings and non sequiturs to distract attention.
I don't know who respects Thomas Sowell, and I mean that sincerely. He is not a respected academic; he is not a widely-read columnist (except for people who mine his columns for errors of fact, reasoning, or simply to make fun of him); and conservatives who hate minorities but want to boost their bona fides by pointing to Sowell as an example of "the right kind" of black guy.
Look, Marshall, this isn't about anything other than me pointing out pretty clearly and succinctly why I think these particular pieces, and Sowell's work in general, is a pile of garbage. You ask for examples, and I gave them to you. If you don't want to take them, that's no never mind to me. Like any refutation in detail, it would take far more space and time to deal with each specific in order to do it justice. I have no interest in doing so, for the simple reason it isn't necessary.
Thomas Sowell is a source with little credibility precisely because not just me but many, many others have been discovering all sorts of fallacious arguments, errors of fact and/or reasoning, and sometimes downright lying in his stuff for a long, long time. Citing a source with little credibility, and then asking why he has none, is one thing. I have summed up the reasons why Thomas Sowell has no credibility for me, and have interest in going in to detail. I have, in fact, wasted far too much of my time on this worthless hack.
As for Mark's comment, that's a pretty hefty charge, and I would like to know if he can back it up with something like evidence. I won't be holding my breath, because I will look like that opera singer on the Bugs Bunny cartoon forced to hold a note beyond endurance.
"I don't know who respects Thomas Sowell, and I mean that sincerely."
Well obviously the people who publish his opinions and the people who read them, the many people who have had him on their talk shows and millions more. What a freakin' silly comment. The truth is, I think, that you'd like to believe what you say, but since you have yet to support any of it, your opinion is just your opinion.
"He is not a respected academic; he is not a widely-read columnist"
Not respected by those who disagree with him, and I'll need some link to circulation numbers to give the second part the time of day. Again, just your opinion unsupported in any way.
"You ask for examples, and I gave them to you."
When? Do you mean that "military coup" thing? Wow! That seals the freakin' deal allright! You've done nothing more than "Yes he is! No he isn't! Yes he is!" Sorry, that's not an example of anything but childishness.
"Like any refutation in detail, it would take far more space and time to deal with each specific in order to do it justice."
Each ain't necessary. One would do as you haven't done anything resembling a refutation of any of the links I've posted. C'mon, tough guy. Give it a shot. buckbuckbuckbuckAWK!
"Thomas Sowell is a source with little credibility precisely because not just me but many, many others have been discovering all sorts of fallacious arguments, errors of fact and/or reasoning, and sometimes downright lying in his stuff for a long, long time."
Name one. Give me a link. Anything. Then we'll investigate your guy for accuracy.
" I have, in fact, wasted far too much of my time on this worthless hack."
You've only wasted time dodging the challenge of refuting that which you claim is a lie or untrue or mistated or anything at all wrong with Sowell's opinions. You've only wasted time pretending to have done something. As usual, you've only disparaged the messenger and left the message totally untouched. Just like you have with the AmericanThinker articles in past posts. Why fill my comments box? I'd love to have you come here and debate, Geoffrey. I'm just wondering when you're actually gonna do some of it.
Keep in mind Geoffrey, that I've been working to find support for my notions about the bennies of tax cuts. But this ain't no one way street. Shit or get off the freakin' pot.
Thanks for your comment on my blog, Marshall. You said it! It's good to check your blog posts out again, too. We're having a certain amount of soul-searching in Australia about where the financial ruckus blew up from, and what it shows, and where it will lead. One thing you don't hear enough is, will people turn back to God instead of seeking the answer from Mammon. Of course it's easy to say, but it works in practice. Best wishes.
Marshall, I'm not afraid of proving anything, because in a universe of sane discourse I have done so. I made my central argument against each of Sowell's little missives quite clear - bad reasoning and a lack of any factual premise in one; the red herring attack on teacher's unions in another (please explain the relevance of this point on education policy; Obama sits on a board that has done wonders improving education in Chicago, so I think that point is far more relevant that his support of teacher's unions); using a conspiracy mongering racist as a source (by a black guy no less!) doesn't play well with me (again, it's an issue of credibility). The list goes on and on. I see no reason to repeat that I have, in fact, explained why I cannot take these pieces by Sowell seriously.
The best way to discover how respected an academic is, is to consult a citation index. Each discipline has one; my sister is listed in what is called "the Fish Index" for her research on fish (obviously). Consult one of those.
I am not surprised that you believe Sowell's professional reputation has everything to do with ideology. While I am sure there is some of that - academics are only human beings - if his work had serious merit (like some of the more detailed work of Milton Friedman, for example; his more lay-oriented stuff is just plain awful), it would be taken seriously.
Today we had a great example of a real economist who is also a political commentator receiving recognition for his work in his chosen field. Paul Krugman, columnist for the New York Times, received the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work on world trade. The difference between Sowell and Krugman is not ideological, but professional competence and performance.
In the real world, where facts matter, this argument (or whatever one wishes to call it) would be over, would have been over days ago. I have no fear of arguing the point of Sowell's lack of credibility. I choose not to for the simple reason that it is beating a dead horse. He lost credibility with me well over a decade ago, after I read a few of his columns on Clarence Thomas, and some of his work on Chinese immigrants in southern Asia (it was touted as a major work, but was based on prejudicial stereotypes and had some faulty data analysis to boot; suffice it to say that comparing the financial and business success of Chinese outside their native country to Jewish business success in Europe is not a really sound thesis to pursue).
Geofrey,
What the f is your problem? You have NOT done so. Not in the freakin' least. You've done nothing but say, with far more words than is any longer necessary, that you don't like the guy. He has no crediblity? Pick an item from one of the articles and attack it with SOME FREAKIN' EVIDENCE!!!! Something I can then check myself to see if YOU know what the f you're reading. You've a rep for missing the point of articles, even some you've posted to support an opinion of your own (NO, I'm not going through your archives to find the one I've in mind. Why the hell should I?)
I've already countered your charge of bad reasoning at the top of his first article. Your charge is infantile and, hey, guess what? misses the point! You've made a charge of "red herrings" without anything to substantiate the charge (sorry Geoff, your word won't do it here anymore than mine would for you). You think Obama's done miracles for Chgo public schools? Really? They rank how well? Link to some stats or something, for the love of hot women! As for the relevance of teachers unions on education policy has been made clear in the article (gee--can't believe you've missed that) in that the unions are concerned about the teachers more than education by virtue of what they are. It's the same of any union. That's why they are formed---to protect the employees they represent, not the company for which the employees work. If it wasn't true, how could any teacher or union rep oppose performance based considerations in hiring, salary increases, tenures, firing criteria, etc. No one's saying that the first draft will be doable, but they routinely reject any consideration of merit as main criteria. As a father it freakin' PISSES me off!
"...conspiracy mongering racist..."??!!!!! PROVE IT!! If you know it to be true, give us something to go on because at this writing, I've never heard anyone make this accusation. You've never proven it against AmericanThinker, either.
From Wiki, a source I seldom use (see Geoffrey? A source!)
"Bias In 2004 Economists Daniel Klein and Eric Chiang conducted a survey of the Social Sciences Citation index and identified a bias against free market oriented research. In addition to an ideological bias Klein and Chiang also identified several methodological deficiencies that encouraged the over-counting of citations and argue that the Social Science Citations Index does a poor job reflecting the relevance and accuracy of articles." bold print mine
The dudes at Nobel City are regarded as liberal on a good day. Krugman might impress them well enough. Jimmy Carter did. I've certainly heard of Krugman and I've heard of his stuff being shredded, but I'm not familiar enough to comment more. I just wanted to express that I noticed you got turned on by a lib organization awarding a lib economist. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't. I've no doubt that you wouldn't have mentioned it if it was a more conservative, free market kinda guy.
And that reminded me that I had always wanted to research the hallowed "PEER REVIEWS!!!!" (All genuflect!) Also from Wiki:
"Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[9] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[10]
Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
I copied and pasted this, as well as the previous piece regarding the vaunted citation index, to make a point that I had suspected. Thanks to actually doing a little search, and in what is widely regarded as a liberal leaning source, I've found that to use either the index or the review to pound home a point regarding the validity or credibility of a point of view or it's author is really akin to attacking with squirt guns. Neither, apparently, means much of anything in supporting the notion that someone like me hasn't a leg upon which to stand in the face of either. I feel a whole lot better now and as I suggested, it's as I suspected. Nothing but a highbrow bluff in the end. The Wiki piece on peer review has a section regarding bias in the process. If someone submits what conflicts with the work or opinion of a reviewer, it's often dismissed on that alone, rather than on the merits of the paper. Hmmm. Maybe there's a conservative counter point to Wikipedia that will make all this into rubbish.
Seriously, if I were a hot shot out in the world, I'm sure I'd be proud to have papers so reviewed or to have my stuff in a citation index. But it seems that I need not fear when a Geoffrey Kruse-Safford wishes to lord over me the lack of either for a source I use.
Even more seriously, G-man. You are among the first to have graced the refuge known as Marshall Art's. I have visited and perused your own posts many times (though not lately, I'm afraid) and despite finding fault with your perspectives, have always viewed you as well read and thoughtful. This has not left my cranial opinion center and when I see an email from you that indicates you've posted a comment here, trepidation (though just a bit) follows and I wonder if I've been done in "this time". In other words, I always expect better, more, something challenging. Are you gettin' lazy? I mean, dude, I'm not even that good! C'mon! Get back in the rhetorical gym and work the speed bag or sumpin!
I do so love the fact that there is a simple answer to everything in your world, Marshall. It makes thought unnecessary. Where in the world did you get the idea that Krugman has ever been "shredded" by any writer? Am I impressed with the fact that he won the Nobel Prize? Obviously! Do I think he won it because he's a liberal, and this is all part of some liberal conspiracy?
That's ten pounds of crap in a five pound bag, dude. Milton Friedman was hardly a liberal, but he won for the simple reason that his work was exemplary. It's that simple. The winner of the Peace Prize this year, the former President of Finland and a UN official involved in numerous peace negotiations, is hardly of the stature of former Pres. Carter and former VP Gore, who have also won (as did then-Pres. Roosevelt for convening the Peace Conference that ended the Sino-Russian War of 1905, and Henry Kissinger for his efforts to end the war in Vietnam and the 1973 Arab-Israeli War), but deserves kudos, just the same.
In your world, however, actual facts are immaterial. Krugman is a liberal, Norway is a liberal country (is it, though?), ergo, the prize itself was awarded for political, rather than substantive reasons.
BTW, I have read excerpts from Krugman's academic works, and I couldn't begin to understand them, and content myself with the fact that his political commentary - unlike someone such as, say, Thomas Sowell - has the virtue of at least being right far more often than it is wrong. Is this political bias? Only if one assumes that I, and other liberals, refuse to consider all of reality, and only see what we wish to see. Since that's true for all human beings all the time, I don't really consider that a serious criticism. Rather, it is reliance on actual facts - most Americans, the vast majority in fact, dislike Pres. Bush; most Americans want our involvement in Iraq to end; Thomas Sowell, who once mused, apropos of nothing at all, that a military coup would be good for the US, is a far less well regarded academic than Paul Krugman - that keeps me going. I do not see any of this as political bias. They are just facts. You may not like them, any more than I liked that Pres. Bush won 2004 pretty soundly (partly because John Kerry ran such an inept campaign).
I am just happy that what I said to my wife the day after the election four years ago has come to pass - that we in the US had to see things get really worse before we realized how they had been for a while. On the brink of collapse right now, I would call that pretty bad.
Three weeks until the madness is over, and we get to listen to all sorts of stories of Obama stealing an election in a landslide.
To borrow from R. Reagan, "Well, there you go again."
"Where in the world did you get the idea that Krugman has ever been "shredded" by any writer?"
From articles and radio discussions where his name came up. Didn't file them, so don't ask. Not a major deal.
It's no secret the Nobel people lean left. It's a tendency that they would hold another lefty in high regard. This doesn't mean that they don't recognize others who've done great things. It's not always something for which such things matter. ANYONE who works to end a war would get consderation from them, as would anything that has appeal for a lib, even if it also appeals to others. Don't get your panties in a bunch. I've said nothing less substantial than any of your recent criticisms of my links.
So facts have great value to me, that's why I've been freakin' beggin' you to provide any. That means you have to support it with something other than "Well if you don't know, I'm not gonna tell you" kinda comments. YOU are not an authority, you are an alternative opinion. Don't present your opinions as fact, provide some to go with the opinion. You have yet to do so.
And speaking of facts, show me one poll where the question is "Do you like George Bush?" before you tell me that most Americans don't like him. I wanna know if they don't like HIM or his policies. There's a difference. Most want out of Iraq? Bullshit. EVERYONE wants out of Iraq. The question is how we leave and on that, there are a variety of responses. No one with a brain wants a replay of Viet Nam. Viet Nam was an example of why we are worth attacking. I want out as a victor with our goal of a free and self-sufficient ally made manifest. If I'm among the few on that score, I'm among the better Americans with the most rational thought processes. You SAY Sowell is far less regarded than Krugman. Fine. Back it up. Got a poll for that? Or are you going to use a questionable citation index?
If your wife agreed with you, she hasn't been paying attention any better than you have. You think it's bad now? We'll see what happens if your lord and savior wins the election and is allowed to implement his socialist policies upon an economy already rocked by Democratic stupidity. The bulk of our troubles happened since the last mid-terms, when the Dem take over was to bring Utopia. Don't worry though, I'm not forgetting Bush's part, but if not for his tax cuts, the lack of veto action on pork-laden legislation would have killed us sooner. Oh, by the way... you've got KoolAid on your shirt.
Haha.. That was great Marshall. You really lost it there.
"To borrow from R. Reagan, "Well, there you go again."
Can you be more obvious? Marshall, you're like a rapper quoting Malcolm X.
"Didn't file them, so don't ask."
Again, hold yourself to the same standards you do everybody else. If you want Geoffrey to look up some polling data. Perhaps you should file something away.
"your lord and savior"
I know I’m going out on a limb, but I don’t think He is running. If He did run, I would really hope he could pull off a win. Just imagine the bad publicity if He lost. I can see the headline now, "Jesus fails to win over evangelicals".
"The bulk of our troubles happened since the last mid-terms"
Ahhh… the fun has already started. Marshall, I’m not sure if you are aware, but there is not some magic GDP faucet. When we voted out some of the bums a few years ago, the economy didn’t change. It kept moving down the same path. First you say that the Dems have done nothing in Congress. Now you say they are responsible for the economy? We have been in the middle of the current crisis for over a year now. The foundation for that was laid in the years previous. The housing market topped out in the summer of 2005. I would really be curious as to which noted economist supports your claim. This is a really big opportunity for you. Just head on over to that file cabinet and dig around a bit. You just might find something. Good luck!
Benny-boy,
What? No Newman stuff?
You confuse "lord and savior" with "Lord and Savior". But that doesn't surprise me.
We can chat more about Newman if you like. It just seems you choose to remain ignorant on every topic. You will not do any research. Which is fine. That is your choice. Just let me know when you have something educated to say.
As for Medved, I used to listen to him. That was until he started getting basic facts wrong. Like the number that died following a heat wave in Europe. Anyway, the guy gives one side of the story. Again, thats fine. You just might want to be aware of it. Or not, seeing as how you like to remain in the dark about every issue.
Btw, hows that research going?
Clueless Benny,
"We can chat more about Newman if you like."
I don't like. I thought I made that plain enough for even you to understand.
"It just seems you choose to remain ignorant on every topic."
I'm sure it seems that way to ignorant people like yourself.
"You will not do any research."
Sez you.
"Just let me know when you have something educated to say."
You wouldn't know educated if it walked up and kicked you in the groin.
"As for Medved, I used to listen to him."
I'm happy for ya.
"That was until he started getting basic facts wrong."
As if you could tell.
"Like the number that died following a heat wave in Europe."
A real deal breaker. They should kick him off the air for that.
"Anyway, the guy gives one side of the story."
Get your own show and give the other.
"You just might want to be aware of it."
As if I need your advice.
"Or not, seeing as how you like to remain in the dark about every issue."
Whatever you say, Benny-boy. Feel better now?
Post a Comment