Sowell strikes me as a (very slightly) more articulate Rush Limbaugh/Sean Hannity.  Why are we giving him/them real estate here?

Jan

Why then should we assume that a corporation or its customers are poorer by the amount paid to its chief-executive officer?

I can answer that one in one word: socialism.

Because the only form of socialism that exists in America is in the corporate boardroom. Top executives enjoy absolute social protection in ways no one else in America does: nothing they can do can cause them a loss of income. In fact, often the surest way a CEO can get a huge bundle of instant cash is to drive his company into the ground.

The motto of an American capitalist: Socialism for me and for no one else!

Had BG Black survived Fail-Safe, he might have been called a liberal, which in no way suggests he was cowardly or unpatriotic. I'd far prefer him to GEN Scott.

While I never had the honor of meeting him, I'm related, by marriage, to BG Noel Parrish, who trained the Tuskegee Airmen. His colorblindness and toughness as known to historians are even more impressive when one learns how racist was his family. Liberal? Maybe.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't credit such a takeover, although I will grant that people such as Boykin are problematic. Nevertheless, the career military has a strong respect for the Constitution -- not necessarily for politicians, but their oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

One of the reasons George S. Patton Jr. never rose to the highest levels is that it was understood he really didn't understand the Constitutional system. When Douglas MacArthur defied lawful orders, he was promptly fired, and with little questioning in the military. The less well-known Major General Edwin Walker was relieved even faster.

Weinstein is not the only person appalled by the extremist Christians at the Air Force Academy, or the only person to take action.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

As annoying as this whole thread is to me, I have to admit that the image of the cowards in "charge" of our country trying to outrun (or outshoot - hah!) a military assault just makes me laugh!  [Can anyone else picture Karl Rove and Jeff Gannon trying to run with their pants down?]  There is nothing like hypocrisy. 

[Or this:  Remember when Mrs Bush laughed about how she and her hubby had to run up and down the White House stairs the night of 911?  They just found it to be a real chuckle as they went from the President's quarters to the safe area.  But Laura reassured us all that once they got to bed they slept well.  I think they were the only Americans who did sleep well that night.

I wonder how they would sleep if they were the targets?  I sincerely hope that they would finally lose a night's sleep.]

Jan

. . . the Babe Ruth bit is in there just for leavening.

I find that to be the most interesting of the four paragraphs because most at odds with what I presume to be Sowell's economic philosophy.

If major league pitchers are restricted to something around 100 pitches per ballgame, it is because management has determined that that amount of wear and tear on its assets is the most efficient use of its capital goods.

Would we not expect Sowell to approve? 

The really bizarre Sowell quote from that piece is:

" The last time I saw a Republican express outrage was 1991."

Rip Van Sowell apparently missed the GOP outrage over everything Bill Clinton did, from Haircutgate through pardoning Marc Rich, with an entire year spent on Blowjobgate. Or the right-wing cottage industry of Hillary obsession, which has literally filled a shelf's worth of books with burning anger. Or the perpetual outrage at the left's treason, lack of patriotism, whatever, in the post-9/11 era.

Guy's on another planet or something.

Dang! This is a tough one. You can't answer a koan, so I'll have to go for door number 2, the funnier joke. Hmmmm. Have you heard the one about the Aristocrats?

I think you mean why am I giving him the real estate. And the answer is, mainly because I have a thing about gasbags like Sowell and William Bennett who are, as you say, Limbaugh and Hannity material and yet are taken seriously as "intellectuals" in public life. I've been working this beat for fifteen years now, and every time I've tried to tell an editor or an interviewer or a reporter that the Sowell/ Bennett wing of the enterprise is every bit as bad as the Limbaugh / Hannity end, I've been told that people like Sowell and Bennett are Serious People with Deep Thoughts. Then again, we're talking about a culture in which Joe Klein hails Newt Gingrich as an intellectually honest policy wonk. Ah, the worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia.

Yeah, right. I dare you.

"Well, the fact that Republicans have been expressing outrage constantly since 1991...doesn't mean that Sowell himself has seen any of them do it "

Sixteen years of walking around with his eyes shut...no wonder his thoughts are a bit on the random side.  It would mean that finding anything worth reading would also be rather random... like random typing for a million years producing Shakespeare or something.

aMike.

Laughed so hard I scared the cat.

aMike

For the time being my position is that Sowell wrote tongue in cheek. Not a trap , nor something that he actually believes . Just an unfunny throw away line If so then we look pretty silly for taking him at face value.

On the other hand if he did really mean it , I look silly for not taking him at face value. And he looks sinister.

Rip Van Sowell apparently missed the GOP outrage over everything Bill Clinton did . . .

Well, there is outrage, and there is faux outrage, and we all know which brand they've been directing at the Clintons and the Democrats in Congress all this time.  Sowell's just admitting to it. 

I suppose intellectuals have to stick up for one other and even pat each other on the back.

I find nothing wrong with "hypothetical[sic] meant to incite arguments".
What would you suggest: discussing facts that we can all agree on?

Of course I'm not in favor of frivolous speculation. A military coup--if Washington gets really out of hand--is not (as Bush would say) off the table. The issue is what factions in the military brass would take over. However, military coups tend to be from the right.

The appeal a military coup has for me is that it could be an effective means to reshape our corrupt political system.

The question to ask is: how far are we willing to tolerate Bush-like rule before we are willing to suspend democracy for a period of time in order to reboot our country.

I know I'm opening up a can of worms. But hey this is not MSM and throwing ideas into the hopper is allowed.

p.s. Of course I don't agree with any kind of right wing coup a la Thomas Sowell.

I'm thinking back to a 2004 Sowell column that a Right-wing aquaintance tried to use as justification for an argument he was making. The column had to do with the "SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth" and how outraged they were over Kerry's medals.

I wrote to Sowell pointing out the obvious flaws in the Swiftboater's arguments, and not surprisingly he ignored me.

Nope, not only does Sowell shamelessly impeach himself, he's not even a very good liar.

-Dave Adams-

I'm not a big fan of Sowiell's, I've read some of his stuff, but I have this to say about all of that: People need to get up off of their belarded backsides, and start becoming informed and participating citizens again. Turn off Da Bears, or the cooking channel, or whatever, get up OFF the couch, out of the house, and actually go attend a city council meeting etc. I think a lot of towns have a local channel or get time on public access TV to broadcast their meetings,
and for things to change, people kind of have to change what they're doing, kind of like, vote and pay attention and stuff.

When people don't vote, or get apathetic and decide that their voice doesn't count, that's when it gets worse, and you can tell usually by looking around a place whether or not the voters are doing their part. It's easy to blame 'the government', but people forget that in the term We, The People, the people ARE 'the government', and by failing to vote or participate, well, it's kind of like skipping work, who do you blame for the job not being done, who do you blame when the books don't balance, who do you blame for a lot of stuff, and bluntly spoken, there's lots of blame to go around. 9 trillion dollars in red ink that's not going to pay itself off, lots and lots of whiny entitlement seekers, public fraud and corruption, no really good dialogues on the issues, but that's neither novel nor unusual, but it can also be improved upon. Where there's a will, there's a way, where there's no will, there's no way, and the 'way forward' at least as I see it, is for more people to stand up, form and give voice to reasoned opinions on the issues, and actually do THEIR part to help positively influence the course of things in general. If you're too busy smoking pot or crying because you didn't get born into a rich family or whatever, or you think someone owes you something and you won't get off your butt for less than 5k a month,
and you don't like paying higher taxes but you won't lift a finger to do anything so strenuous as volunteer, well, basically you can sit there and whine, but people will eventually just tune you out, because there's no shortage of whiners, what there DOES seem to be a shortage of is problem solvers with enough initiative, ambition, and motivation to actually try and make good things happen. In short, if you're too busy/stubborn/good/insolent/apathetic/lazy to actually get out and vote, speak your mind, listen to the views of others, and try to find solutions, then griping about the inevitable result is just a big waste of time...

Note that the President's oath is also to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

We can only hope that the military takes this oath more seriously than George W. Bush has taken it.

Well, I for one salute our new oath-observing military overlords.

Yes, we're free to vote, but 2 elections were stolen.  I don't see a military coup as a solution to the problem; I see the solution as rightfully elected candidates not rolling over.  (Gore had no choice IMHO since the Supreme Court gave it to Bush, but Kerry should have insisted on a recount and review in Ohio and perhaps Florida).

Jan

Kinda like Cheney leaking a story to the NYT and then quoting it to prove his point.

Jan

Some jokes are like bomb jokes at the airport--a really bad idea to say out loud.

Count me either ignorant or blessed, but I've only learned of the existence of many "conservatives" like Sowell from people here. Let's hope that he falls into the "undesirable" category after the coup. 

Here's what bothers me most--applying the term "degeneracy" to people. That calls to mind language favored by USSR and Communist China. 

Don't use the paper for the bird's cage - the stupid burns their feet.

Rude and uncivil?

You've got to be kidding!  It is a brilliant piece of theater! 

What could be more rude and uncivil than what the BusCheney cabal has done to our Constitution or our Country for that matter.

Jan

That guy from Occam named Sweeney?

Sowell has merely plagiarized Hitler's argument against Weimar. The only things missing are rants against Jews and a call to repudiate the treaty of Versailles. Stay tuned?
Pantheon

Recognizing that GWB may claim anything is justified by Unitary Authority, I suspect imposing martial law is more difficult that it may seem. From a Constitutional standpoint, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2 says "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." It doesn't take a legal genius to suggest that it might be a bit difficult to get the courts and the military to agree that a Rebellion or Invasion exists.

Further, the Uniformed Code of Military Justice requires that one refuse an unlawful order, and orders that violate the Posse Comitatus Act fairly clearly are unlawful.

It's certainly not unprecedented, as with Richardson and Ruckelshaus to Nixon in the Saturday Night Massacre, for officials to refuse orders they consider illegal. It's hard to say that the military would refuse, simply because there is little history of them being given orders clearly illegal under the US legal system. In the case, for example, of the AUMF, I interpret Congress' action as making operations legal. Some claim that the UN Charter makes this illegal, but I really can't find language that satisfies me that it outlaws war in the sense that the ignored Kellogg-Briand accord outlawed war. I do see the Charter as binding in situations where the matter at hand has been brought before the Security Council. It's not been clear whether Saddam tried to do so in 2003.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I wasn't especially considering what Bush & Co. might do. I was considering the precedent that even appointed officials, much less career people, may refuse an illegal order.

Nixon tended to push the envelope, but even Haig and Kissinger made preparations against his making illegal orders.

I would hope, however, it is Americans that will punish, even with due process of which Bush is contemptuous. While the Democrats can hold hearings, impeachment is impossible, at least in the current Congress, if there isn't some Republican support. I believe that there are Republican legislators that do not regard everything as a partisan contest -- and to get their support, things have to be clearly nonpartisan. Nixon saw the bipartisan handwriting on the wall.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

I don't think we are in fundamental disagreement. Giving the Republicans an exit strategy (no, not from Iraq) is far more likely to get definitive action than simply "punishing" the Republicans. Ford was an inspired choice as one of the best-liked people on the Hill. The Democrats simply don't have the power to make change on their own, and focusing on punishment will get them away from change.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

"all kinds of deviance, from prostitution to drugs to riots."

Ah, good old days of 19-th century, when prostitutes and cocaine were legal, and riots regular.

On one hand, Sowell is replaying Grumpy Old Man Routine: "When I was young, we did not have them fancy shoe sizes ... ... ... and we loved it, because we did not know any better". On the other hand, he belongs to conservatives for whom the world was created yesterday.

Since Hammurabi, harlots were "understandable", and writers kept describing sympathetic harlots (including both Old and New Testament and practically all Great White Man of the Canon of Literature). Now, Sowell decrees, for many generations they are not.

Of course, the ranting is pure, distilled fascism. Vigilance against degenerate cosmopolitan elements that pollute the purity and unity of the nation that existed since time immemorial in the mystic unity of blood, land, and language, check. Unity of employers and workers, toiling together for the benefit of the fatherland, cheerfully disregarding material inequality -- check. It is time to get rid of the political system that fails to maintain the purity and unity -- check. Crazy incoherent rant on top -- check.

"Press any festering wound on the body of our Nation, and like pus, you will squeeze out a cosmopolitan liberal, be it a teacher, a media person or, worst of them all, intelligentsia". From Sowell, with little modifications (and with little improvements in composition and coherence) to Mein Kampf.

I feel some of this coming from the right, even if it's still being disguised as "satire" and "jokes" etc. The basic idea seems to be that modernity has failed to produce what conservatives want, so fuck it, blow it up.

Howard, the enabling legislation for declarations of martial law by the President was modified in October 2006. The new language lowers the bar so that, conceivably, the President could declare martial law on as little pretext as a public demonstration. In effect, the judgment is now wholly in the hands of the President without restriction.

See Public Law 109-364, or the "John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007," signed on October 17th, 2006 by President Bush. In addition to other provisions, this modified key parts of The Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C.331-335), the authority for declarations of martial law.

One discussion can be found here. Welcome to the Security State.

I need to read the actual text of the law, not the summary in the article to which you link. I'm not convinced that much of what it describes approaches true martial law. Some of what it describes provides for useful humanitarian relief, as with Katrina and Rita. Most of the Guard involvement there came from governor-to-governor agreements, not federalization. FEMA was federal.

I am concerned with a security state, but, frankly, other things concern me much more than the National Guard.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Before I was able to listen to Air America, Nova-M or the Jones Network on the radio, I used to occasionally tune in to Michael Savage just so I could cuss him out.

One of his more chillingly memorable lines:
"I think Democracy is finished".
Savage didn't say it in the context of a joke either. He was talking about the influence of Liberals on Society.

Deep down I don't think True Conservatives really believe in Democracy. In fact some of them refer to it as the "Tyranny of the Majority". I think many of them see it not as an end in itself but as a vehicle for setting up and maintaining a Conservative State. Any Democratic Institution that impedes that can be dispensed with.

-Dave Adams-