Random Thoughts

[bfp]

Thomas Sowell
a couple years old, still a great read

"FAIR" is one of the most dangerous concepts in politics. Since no two people are likely to agree on what is "fair," this means that there must be some third party with power -- the government -- to impose its will. The road to despotism is paved with "fairness."

Among the many innocent casualties of the "war on drugs" are terminally ill patients who suffer needless pain because drug-control bureaucrats can create trouble for doctors who prescribe enough narcotics to give them relief.

The next time some academics tell you how important "diversity" is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department.

Despite a widespread belief that hostility across racial lines is the worst kind of hostility, the worst atrocities of the past decade have been committed by white people against other white people in the Balkans and by black people against other black people in Rwanda.

Now that we know what dumb teachers there are in Massachusetts, it is no wonder that the voters there keep electing people like Ted Kennedy and Barney Frank.

The American Council on Science and Health's publication "Facts versus Fears" exposes unfounded media scares over the past 3 decades -- about DDT, asbestos, Love Canal, Three-Mile Island, Alar, etc.

Someone ought to keep track of the judges who freed Susan McDougal and dismissed tax evasion charges against Webster Hubbell. See if they end up getting presidential appointments or jobs at Revlon.

What do automobiles, guns, and home-schooling all have in common that makes the liberals hate them? All these things reduce individual dependence on the government and on the grandiose schemes for other people's lives created by liberals and imposed by government.

All sorts of institutions, including corporations and the army, manage to teach people not only their particular skills but often also the basics that people were supposed to get in our public schools. Yet those who run the public schools talk as if they have some mysterious "expertise" beyond the grasp of critics.

No one can really understand the political left without understanding that they are about making themselves feel superior, however much they may talk piously about what they are going to do to help others. The left's lack of interest in testing the actual results of their bright ideas against hard facts betrays what their real interest is.

Gun control advocates have gotten a lot of political mileage out of the inflammatory phrase "assault weapons," without having to define it. This vague language lets them leave audiences thinking that they are talking about machine guns, which have already been heavily regulated for more than half a century.

Peter Bauer of the London School of Economics: "Ironically, the birth of a child is registered as a reduction in national income per head, while the birth of a calf shows up as an improvement."

The latest crusade among liberals is to seek release for older prisoners who are presumably harmless now. But anyone with enough strength left to pull a trigger is dangerous. Moreover, when someone is sentenced to 20 years, why should it not mean 20 years? Are such sentences just placebos for the public?

The environmental Nazis treat national parks as their own personal property and want the millions of other taxpayers who pay for these parks to be treated as interlopers, who are to be kept out if possible, and admitted if necessary, only if they conform to the vision of the environmental Nazis.

Parents who kept their children out of the public schools and taught them at home used to have to take on a huge task all by themselves. But today there are home-schooling associations, home-schooling teaching materials, and a magazine called "Home-Schooling News."

Are umpires so lazy that they cannot be bothered to keep track of where home plate is when calling balls and strikes, and simply allow themselves to be decoyed by where the catcher takes his position? The league authorities could at least install a video camera to keep track of what percentage of the "strikes" called by various umpires never crossed the plate.

[Adam D]

yes, he's obviously unbiased.

Originally posted by Adam D
yes, he's obviously unbiased.

Does Chomsky claim neutrality and pure objective reporting or is he an advocate?

Writers usually are trying to make a point - that almost without exception calls for bias - without it they've said, "water is wet".....whoopie.

The fair/unfair is in being deceptive as to what that bias may be.

Are you confused as to either bfp's or the author's whose comments he posts?

Originally posted by xiannaix


Writers usually are trying to make a point - that almost without exception calls for bias - without it they've said, "water is wet".....whoopie.

The fair/unfair is in being deceptive as to what that bias may be.

very good point

[Adam D]

Originally posted by xiannaix
Does Chomsky claim neutrality and pure objective reporting or is he an advocate?

Writers usually are trying to make a point - that almost without exception calls for bias - without it they've said, "water is wet".....whoopie.

The fair/unfair is in being deceptive as to what that bias may be.

Are you confused as to either bfp's or the author's whose comments he posts?

I'm not quite the unfettered Chomsky mouthpiece that bfp is for Sowell, but I don't claim he has a neutral point. bfp passes around the idea that Sowell is nonpartisan and not conservative because he doesn't openly announce it.

You can read the writing on the wall.

Originally posted by Adam D
I'm not quite the unfettered Chomsky mouthpiece that bfp is for Sowell, but I don't claim he has a neutral point. bfp passes around the idea that Sowell is nonpartisan and not conservative because he doesn't openly announce it.

You can read the writing on the wall.

I'm not so certain that Sowell doesn't wear his partisanship on his sleeve.

Also, based on the person posting the comments - how difficult is it to infer the bias of the author?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by xiannaix
I'm not so certain that Sowell doesn't wear his partisanship on his sleeve.

Also, based on the person posting the comments - how difficult is it to infer the bias of the author?

None whatsoever.

Originally posted by Adam D
None whatsoever.

ok

[bfp]

Originally posted by Adam D
I'm not quite the unfettered Chomsky mouthpiece that bfp is for Sowell

Yes you are.


And the only thing that doesn't have a bias, is the study of the structure of chemical compounds.

Nope, no question of partisanship there...in either case.

As for the article...is a good read...problem is that its only pointing out extreme cases(yeah yeah, liberal media does it too).

I guess I consider myself a liberal(if you like labels) but I don't agree with letting murderers out of prison...and the something about treating the environment as our personal property. I don't know, maybe I'm not a liberal, I don't understand.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
Yes you are.

Nope. If you look at most of the articles I post, very few have ever been from him. Generally you are the one who brings him up in discussion.

And the only thing that doesn't have a bias, is the study of the structure of chemical compounds.

Then quit acting like Sowell isn't biased.

[bfp]

Nope. If you look at most of the articles I post, very few have ever been from him. Generally you are the one who brings him up in discussion.

I'm not talking about articles of his that you've posted. I'm talking about your views that have been influenced by his literature.

Then quit acting like Sowell isn't biased.

Just because he takes a side on an issue doesn't mean his views are invalid. He's brought up issues on the conservative side that he doesn't agree with as well. It's not as if he dismisses some of the policies that the Conservatives want passed. It's the danger that the Marxist left poses to this country that he often talks about.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
I'm not talking about articles of his that you've posted. I'm talking about your views that have been influenced by his literature.

That doesn't make me a mouthpiece for his views. See, some of us read and critically evaluate what we read. I know that's foreign to you, but not all of us blindly accept what we read.

Just because he takes a side on an issue doesn't mean his views are invalid. He's brought up issues on the conservative side that he doesn't agree with as well. It's not as if he dismisses some of the policies that the Conservatives want passed. It's the danger that the Marxist left poses to this country that he often talks about.

I didn't say it made his views invalid prima facie. He's just not the objective, unbiased author you've tried to paint him as.

[bfp]

That doesn't make me a mouthpiece for his views.

When it comes to foreign policy and trade, sure it does.

I didn't say it made his views invalid prima facie. He's just not the objective, unbiased author you've tried to paint him as.

How have I tried to paint him? I think it's pretty clear where he stands.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by bfp
When it comes to foreign policy and trade, sure it does.

You still don't get it. I can't make you understand how to think.