Constructive gadfly
Published on April 6, 2004 By stevendedalus In Politics

Columnist Thomas Sowell, the guru of some of our bloggers, is typical of the extreme right.

He had this to say the other day:

“People who send me letters or e-mail containing belligerent personal attacks probably have no idea how reassuring their messages are, for they show that critics seldom have any rational arguments to offer.”

Why, this could be right out of some of the comments section of JU!

How about this gem of a strain on ratiocination?

“Many people who are for stricter government-imposed ‘fuel efficiency’ standards for cars are adamantly against drilling for oil in Alaska. This means that avoiding inconvenience to some caribou trumps the loss of human life when people are forced to drive flimsier cars, so that the lighter weight will lead to more miles per gallon.”

 Here the true colors of the right are faithfully rationalized and echo all too familiar rants on JU:

“The fraudulence of the left’s concern about poverty is exposed by their utter lack of interest in ways of increasing the nation’s wealth. Wealth is the only thing that can cure poverty. The reason there less poverty today is not because the poor got a bigger slice of the pie but because the whole pie got a lot bigger — no thanks to the left.”

 

A writer who continually laces his columns with personal attacks on Hillary, Kerry, even Truman and the like, but with irrational arguments, is hardly the judge of what constitutes rationality. Besides, I rather suspect, that the belligerence springs in the main from the “black” inbox which is motivated by the view that Thomas is a Benedict Arnold of the black voice.

To attribute the reluctance of drilling oil in Alaska for the convenience of wild life at the expense of human life is a real stretch. In fact, the protection of ANWR is designed to preserve the caribou which is the main source of food for the indigenous Indians, along with disruption of the Arctic ecosystem. Besides, even if very stringent oversight in drilling in sensitive areas was approved it would not be for the ultimate convenience of all motorists to drive humvees so they feel safer.

Those who come from a large family know that however big the pie, the youngest gets the smallest piece. When the population swells the pie is naturally going to get bigger but so will the number of slices, and no assurance the pieces will be more fairly distributed. The minimum wage adjusted for inflation is at an all time low, real wage value is acutely regressing, home ownership is on the rise for the poor and therefore more foreclosures as there is no earned income credit for real estate taxes, and they don’t make enough to fill out the long form for interest and tax deduction, there is no Starbuck for them, rather it’s the thermos to go with the brown bag, they are lucky to drive “flimsy” cars, finally getting rid of their guzzlers from a bygone era — all with thanks to the right.

PS. Good news — though most of you don’t bother to read me — having reached my personal goal of 200 posts, I shall not be posting as often since I have other writings in need of attention. However, when the campaign gets closer to election day you will be hearing much more from me.

  Copyright © 2004 Richard R. Kennedy All rights reserved. Revised: April 6, 2004.


Comments
on Apr 06, 2004
What powerful writing; what articulat work. Thanks. I'd like to be in communication, but I'm such a techno-virgin, all I can do is paint by the numbers. Any advice? I've got a lot to say, not necessarily as categorically marketable as what you do, but I'm prolific and readable, even on a bad day. I'll hope to hear from you.
on Apr 06, 2004
A lonely voice arguing against the overwhelming tide justifying greed and self interest that seems to be the main fare of this website. The right has learned long ago that the best form of defence is attack and the harder your views are to defend the harder you go on the attack. Some of these are just bizarre (your example of the pro oil drilling in Alaska argument was a real hoot.) The sad thing is that, in the 80's, the guy declaring 'greed is good' was the millionaire broker on Wall St that everyone knew was a sad excuse, now it's the guy next door. Keep up the good work, as 6969jimbo6969 says we need articulate people like yourself at least trying to bring some balance to this place.
on Apr 06, 2004
Thank you for writing this piece, I don't always comment, but I usually read. I hate it when attack is used as a substitute for logic.
on Apr 07, 2004
How true this is. I've been thinking about this for some time, glad to see I'm not the only one.

Hey, I read you!
on Apr 07, 2004
200!! I am very glad to hear that we will hear much more from you! This is a great article! And one I'll think of whenever I get one of those cute little comments about how my time is spent. I'm thrilled you are working on a novel, though!! So, I'll only miss you some.
on Apr 07, 2004
"A lonely voice arguing against the overwhelming tide justifying greed and self interest that seems to be the main fare of this website."

There are few, if any, minds that are changed here on Joeloser......some people on here are ALWAYS right (no pun intended). Only time will prove that they are really wrong.
on Apr 07, 2004
congrats on the 200 milestone stevem! i do bother to read your stuff and hope you continue to fight the good fight...let John Kerry's silence the last couple of weeks be a lesson to us all,,,we only lose when we are silent. silence is what the right wants from us.

keep fighting the good fight and i hope to see more insightful articles from your desk down the road:)

sean:)
on Apr 07, 2004
one not e on "attack" and the "hoity-toity" way people like to seem above the fray in denouncing it....it's weak, and a cop out.

regardless of how someone comes at you, whether it be with smiles or a chip on their shoulder, it doesn't matter. to escape actually debating issues by using the logic of "you attacked me, therefore i win" is weak and only serves the fragile egos of those who get upset over someone else's tactics...and usually it's just a smokescreen for not having any facts to retort with...so just blame the other person's tactics as if you never got upset or made a crass comment in your life.

my wife used to try to argue with me this way when we got married a long time ago...when she ran out of points, she would get upset at "the way i was arguing"...after a while, and a firm stance by me, she no longer tries to pull that and our marriage and lives were and are stronger for it,,,now when we argue, it's about facts, not tactics,,,in the end, we resolve most everything.

the fact is we all get heated in debates at times, that heat does not imply any distance from the facts but usually a frustration with the other side who is usually the hoity toity one with no facts on their side.

political correctness is not a substitute for facts...politeness does no one any good if they are polite lies. if someone "attacks you and calls you names or whatever in the course of a debate,,,look past it and deal with the facts presented. the other person's demeanor does not affect the legitimacy of their viewpoint.

the funniest part is that those people will openly insult you and when called on it act like it never happened, or claim , it wasn't an insult, it's the truth...strange how when you say something to them, it's an insult, when they insult you, it's just truth.

and those are the same people i used to wipe the floor with in formal debates....when you throw a little "truth" back at them,,,they tend to lose all sense of reality.
on Apr 07, 2004
Thanks, all!
on Apr 08, 2004
3 Cheers to Steven for 200 posts. Though we've found our selves on the same side, and opposite sides often enough, I enjoy the well thought out and intelligent blogs.

Cheers
Cheers
Cheers
on Apr 08, 2004
Just out of curiousity, am I right in assuming your name is from A Portrait of the Artist as a young man? Sorry, if that question came out of the blue, I had thought it looked familiar, and then it struck me as to why.
on Apr 20, 2004
Yes, it does come from Portrait...though I am far from young, my curiosity and questioning remains so.