Thomas Sowell should be banned!

[foolsguinea]

I just read part of a column by Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist. He was waxing dismissive about the rights of endangered species, and said something to this effect: "Frogs are a species; a given variety of frog is not a species." I just had to scream! Frogs are--off top my head--more like a sub-order! That is, "Frogs" refers to a group of species similar to each other but as distinct from each other as, for example:
a. the set of non-lemur primates: great apes, lesser apes, monkeys, and mankind (really a great ape with pretensions)
b. cloven-hooved animals: antelope, goats, buffalo, deer... would you consider all those a "species", too, Mr Sowell??

People who are this willfully ignorant about biology shouldn't set environmental policy, obviously. I submit that they shouldn't be syndicated either. Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies!

[Giraffe]

Shit, if you were going to make ignorance of science a criteria for forbidding someone from the media, you'd have to fire hundreds of people...

Wait, that's not a bad thing...

[MysterEcks]

Exactly who are you suggesting "ban" the guy from the newspapers? The government? Nice to know you support the Constitution and all that. :rolleyes:

Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read "part of?" I'd like to read the actual words, rather than your version of "something to this effect."

[Arnold Winkelried]

Perhaps "fired" would be a better word.

Thomas Sowell - May 24, 2001 - Green Bigots Versus Human Beings (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20010524.shtml)

Frogs are a species, but every conceivable variant of a frog is not a species.

[paperbackwriter]

As Sowell has so effectively shown, the rule in Washington is:
"Never let the facts get in the way of a good sound bite."
Its gotten almost depressing to see any news coverage about public policy issues that touches on scientific issues. The general level of scientific understanding in the USA is abysmal, and political hacks are among the worst offenders. For most of them their last contact with any scientific training was a Bio 110 class taken in their freshman year as a requirement.

[ITR champion]

Exactly who are you suggesting "ban" the guy from the newspapers? The government? Nice to know you support the Constitution and all that.

Uh, foolsguinea did not say that the government should ban the guy, he just said that newspapers shouldn't print this nonsense. As I understand it, fools was complaining about the right-wing nut jobs who insist that their "Constitustional rights" are being violated when privately-owned publications decide not to publish their lies (remember David Horowitz). The frist amendment doesn't require private publications to support freedom of anything.

[City Gent]

Although I generally disagree with Sowell, up to now I considered him intellectually a cut above Rush Limbaugh and G. Gordon Liddy other such professional fudge-pipes.

Get a load of this, from Sowell's article:


What could be more exalting than to take on the God-like role of adjudicating between animals and people? You cannot be a judge handing down edicts for others unless you are placing yourself above those others.


Let me get this straight: when environmentalists oppose development, they're "adjudicating", but when some idiot builds an airport on top of the only remaining habitat of a species, it's...what? The natural order of things? Seems like knowingly wiping out a species (which is what Sowell defends) implies a hell of a lot more "God-like" judgment than opposing development.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by ITR champion
As I understand it, fools was complaining about the right-wing nut jobs who insist that their "Constitustional rights" are being violated when privately-owned publications decide not to publish their lies (remember David Horowitz). The frist amendment doesn't require private publications to support freedom of anything.


As a MEMBER of the media, even if not national, I feel compelled to respond to this thread. No, private publications are not "required" to support freedom of anything. But it IS in our best interests to allow a variety of views to be freely expressed, even those of "right-wing nut jobs." Otherwise, what is our freedom worth? Groups like the Sierra Club are considered LEFT-wing "nut jobs" in some parts of the state in which I live. Should they therefore be barred from the pages of the publication I work for? I think not.
The right to freely speak or be published is not subject to a popular vote, no matter how much some people on both sides of the cultural divide may wish it were. Suffice it to say there are extremists on both the Right and the Left who publish lies. It would be nice if this were not so, but we don't live in that perfect world.

I, for one, support the right of Mr. Sowell to say what he pleases, and the right of the Sierra Club to say what IT pleases, even though I agree with neither of them. I support that right because it is the same right that allows me, and all of you, incidentally, to post whatever we want to say to this Board. Make it more difficult for an unpopular view to be heard, and you have just driven the first nail into the coffin of your own freedom.

[Typo Negative]

Originally posted by foolsguinea
Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies! But if it weren't for the freedom of the press, we wouldn't know how much an idiot this guy is.

[UncleBeer]

... Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist ...
What do frogs have to do with the Republican Party?

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
What do frogs have to do with the Republican Party?




....nah. Too easy.

[wring]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read "part of?" I'd like to read the actual words, rather than your version of "something to this effect."
now that Arnold was kind enough to provide it, along with the direct quote, which showed that the OP was spot on in their recollection (but it is a valid thing to ask for), can we hear a 'thanks for the link' and perhaps your thought on the OP now that it's been established to be pretty accurate assesment of the article involved?

I don't believe that Mr. Sowell is an official 'GOP propagandist', but I am grateful for this article and quote, since he's been cited as 'evidence' of certain positions in GD lately. He's an economist by trade -IIRC- but as a columnist offers up his opinion on everything from environmental issues to education. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion of course, and I agree that the press has an obligation to provide some space to both ends (the point about the Sierra Club is a good one).

I think the next time I see him linked as 'support' for a position, I'll just link this thread. :D

[Arnold Winkelried]

Lizard - censoring someone's point of view is obviously undesirable. On the other hand, disseminating the writings of a person who discusses an issue while demonstrating in his prose an obvious lack of knowledge of the facts behind the issue does not serve freedom of the press as much as help foster contempt for the media. I personally look to my news outlets to provide me, on the editorial page, with intelligent commentary and thought-provoking viewpoints, not mindless vituperation (notice the title of the article) based on ignorance.

[wring]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
Lizard - censoring someone's point of view is obviously undesirable. On the other hand, disseminating the writings of a person who discusses an issue while demonstrating in his prose an obvious lack of knowledge of the facts behind the issue does not serve freedom of the press as much as help foster contempt for the media.

obviously you never read the 'letters to the editor' section, eh? (acknowledged to be different from columnists) From my perspective, Mr. Sowell is a columnist with opinions. He's entitled to those opinions, and has managed to get himself a gig where he's convinced some folks to pay for the right to publish said opinions (nice job if you can get it).

What the publishers should do is print above each column in his case "Mr. Sowell has degrees as an economist" or something like that, (and yes, same for all the liberal ones, too). So, for example, in addition to Dr. Laura's column on moral rightness, we'd see that her Doctorate was in (what the hell was it again? phys ed? - seriously, I don't remember), which would allow us to judge for ourselves how large a grain of salt to use (in Mr. Sowells' case, I think there's one large enough under the city of Detroit :D )

[Arnold Winkelried]

wring, it's also the responsibility of the editors of a media outlet to refuse to publish columns that add nothing of value, and to stop employing columnists whose opinions are based on incorrect facts. Even if they have degrees from a prestigious school.

[Ukulele Ike]

Originally posted by Arnold Winkelried
columns that add nothing of value...columnists whose opinions are based on incorrect facts.

That reminds me of someone. Is Cal Thomas's column still being syndicated anywhere, or did he have to get gainful employment?

[manhattan]

Originally posted by wring
[QUOTE] What the publishers should do is print above each column in his case "Mr. Sowell has degrees as an economist" or something like that, (and yes, same for all the liberal ones, too). So, for example, in addition to Dr. Laura's column on moral rightness, we'd see that her Doctorate was in (what the hell was it again? phys ed? - seriously, I don't remember), which would allow us to judge for ourselves how large a grain of salt to use (in Mr. Sowells' case, I think there's one large enough under the city of Detroit :D ) Eh. I don't even think they should do that. But when a columnist gets a material fact wrong, publishers should treat it the same as if a reporter had done it.

I think each and every media outlet that carries his column should print a correction making it clear that there are, in fact, distinct species of what we call "frogs."

Too many columnists on both (all) sides get factually lazy once they realize that editors cut them more slack than the reporters. It hurts journalism.

[wring]

Manny, Arnold point well taken, if there is (as in this case) a material and factual falsehood. where I see the damage that these sorts (both sides, really) do, though is not in the area of factual thing like this, but in an area where they'll reinterpret data outside their field of expertise and offer up their 'opinion'. For example, my field is criminal justice. I often see pundits comment on data from that field, and since they don't understand the source data their conclusions are suspect. (not that I'm incapable of being wrong, mind you, but at least, dammit, I know where the data comes from and how it's accumulated).

and, here we had Mr. Sowell, an economist, offering up his opinion on biological/environmental data. Or in another thread, his book on the educational system in the US. He's entitled to his opinion, he may even have some understanding of the issues, but he certainly shouldn't be seen as an 'expert' opinion in those areas, so merely reporting a 'factual' wrong isn't sufficient in my book.

[Guinastasia]

Originally posted by Ukulele Ike
Originally posted by UncleBeer
What do frogs have to do with the Republican Party?




....nah. Too easy.


Hey! That's uncalled for! I mean, this is the Pit and all, but that was just WAY out of line.















What did those poor little frogs ever do to deserve being lumped in as Republicans?

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
He's entitled to his opinion, he may even have some understanding of the issues, but he certainly shouldn't be seen as an 'expert' opinion in those areas

I have to disagree on this. He's not claiming to be an expert. He's a "pundit" (or whatever you want to call it) and they all have opinions on a wide variety of issues. As long as he, or George Will or Molly Ivins or whoever, don't claim in their piece to be an expert I don't see the need for listing their academic field. These columns are clearly opinion and are not news sources. The nature of opinion columnists is known widely enough that I don't believe many people assume the writer has academic expertise in the area.

The legitimacy of a columnists opinions depend on how cogent there argument is, not their degree.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
[QUOTE]I have to disagree on this. He's not claiming to be an expert. He's a "pundit" (or whatever you want to call it) and they all have opinions on a wide variety of issues. As long as he, or George Will or Molly Ivins or whoever, don't claim in their piece to be an expert I don't see the need for listing their academic field. These columns are clearly opinion and are not news sources. The nature of opinion columnists is known widely enough that I don't believe many people assume the writer has academic expertise in the area.

The legitimacy of a columnists opinions depend on how cogent there argument is, not their degree.

Well, we'll disagree then. If you believe that people don't 'assume that the writer has academic expertise in the area', I submit: this (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0029303303/qid=991340936/sr=1-8/ref=sc_b_8/104-8036047-3556769) His book on education. Remember, he's an economist by trade. And yet some of the 'reviewers' talk glowingly 'discusses American Education from pre-K's to graduate schools; 9snip) politics and self-serving policies thereof. In 51 pages of notes, he supplies 1050 individual citations supporting his views and conclusions. "or suggest that every parent read it 'even if you plan on sending your child to private school', but another reviewer says The provocative chapters on pre-college education are by comparison thin, focused exclusively on sometimes nasty attacks on the competence of teachers, the so-called "brainwashing" Sowell sees as the sole purpose of many educational programs, and the "dogmas" he believes determine the content of pre-college education.

The research supporting his theses is shoddy, to say the least. Given the book's title it is ironic that Sowell gives not the slightest indication that he has ever spent so much as a second actually inside a classroom , so it would seem that certainly at least one person understands that his expertise has boundaries.

Even when something is on the Op/Ed page, many folks will read as if it's gospel. As Arnold & Manny seem to have suggested since they both want specific declarations of misrepresentation of fact to be noted. If folks actually read these pieces with a critical eye, notations such as that wouldn't be necessary either.

[foolsguinea]

Hey. It's the Pit. I was raving mad, and not patient enough to find a link. (Thank you, Arnold Winkelreid!)

Anyway, my thinking is this: Opinion is one thing. Gross factual error is another. Maybe the best solution is to let Sowell keep his job, but dock him a full column's pay for each GROSS FACTUAL ERROR.

Also, the man should be forced to apologize to the public, in a column, for his GROSS FACTUAL ERROR.

I mean, this isn't something like saying light takes 8 hours (it's really 8 minutes) to reach us from the sun, or getting the numbers wrong on Bush's tax plan. This is a major mistake, and I think on some level intentional. Sowell occasionally says some stuff I respect, but his hatred of environmentalism is profound. If he didn't mean to blatantly lie to his readers, he certainly didn't try to find the truth, because he genuinely thinks, "those damn frogs ain't worth shit".

And yeah, Cal Thomas. What a joke. Still syndicated here in GOP-land, still claiming the 1950's were a golden era & Ronnie Reagan was a saint. He's a twit.

[MysterEcks]

Arnold Winkelried said:

Perhaps "fired" would be a better word.

A much better word. "Banned" implies an action by someone who can dictate policy. I would and did presume it to be the government in this case--perfectly reasonable given the OP's mention of "[f]reedom of the press," I think--and I assume it's clear why that would be a bad thing. Whereas the syndication company getting fed up and firing the guy is pretty much irrelevant as a policy matter.

Thanks for the link, Noodles. :D

wring said:

now that Arnold was kind enough to provide it, along with the direct quote, which showed that the OP was spot on in their recollection (but it is a valid thing to ask for), can we hear a 'thanks for the link' and perhaps your thought on the OP now that it's been established to be pretty accurate assesment of the article involved?

Way to be snotty about something you admit was a valid request. :rolleyes:

Actually, the OP had nothing to do with the column as a whole--it had to do with one statement within that column. The statement seems to be as advertised--factually incorrect. Whether Sowell did this intentionally to support his own argument, is ignorant, or was trying to say something else and is a piss-poor writer, I don't know.

I'll agree that he--and any columnist who puts out horseshit presented as fact (as opposed to opinion, which is another matter)--should be called on it. As for whether he and they should be blacklisted from the press forever, it seems to me that exposing them as wrong does them sufficient damage--either they will refrain from presenting "facts" that aren't, or they will lose all their credibility. (Whatever credibility they have, that is--taking anycolumnist's matterial at face value strikes me as pretty silly.)

foolsguinea said:

Maybe the best solution is to let Sowell keep his job, but dock him a full column's pay for each GROSS FACTUAL ERROR.

I'd like to see this with policticians--fine 'em every time they lie or distort something. We could do away with taxes entirely...and with Bill Clinton's share we could terraform Mars.

[ITR champion]

The point is this. Why should we even bother to have opinion columnists if we can't expect them to at least attempt to be truthful in their writings? We don't expect them to be sacked if they make a mistake regarding a minor detail, but repeated, intentional lying should be grounds for the columnist in question to be fired.

Why do we even have pundits? Why are we willing to pay them to give us their opinions? After all, people can do their own research and create their own political views, right? We have pundits because we trust them to present and interpret the facts in an honest manner, so that the audience can get a better understanding of the issues involved. If we just say that it's ok for them to lie their asses off, then what's the point?

[Lizard]

Originally posted by manhattan

Too many columnists on both (all) sides get factually lazy once they realize that editors cut them more slack than the reporters. It hurts journalism.

Actually, columnists have significantly more legal protection for what they write than reporters do. A columnist could say things that I could never get away with in a news story, and it would withstand a legal challenge, because it's his opinion, and is recognized (or should be; sometimes I have my doubts) by the public as such.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by ITR champion
The point is this. Why should we even bother to have opinion columnists if we can't expect them to at least attempt to be truthful in their writings? We don't expect them to be sacked if they make a mistake regarding a minor detail, but repeated, intentional lying should be grounds for the columnist in question to be fired.

Why do we even have pundits? Why are we willing to pay them to give us their opinions? After all, people can do their own research and create their own political views, right? We have pundits because we trust them to present and interpret the facts in an honest manner, so that the audience can get a better understanding of the issues involved. If we just say that it's ok for them to lie their asses off, then what's the point?

You raise an interesting point, but I believe you are confusing "pundits" with "journalists." They are not the same. Think of it this way: Christiane Amanpour goes to see what's happening, then reports to the public what she saw and heard, supposedly with no bias. George Will sees her report, maybe talks to some people in Washington about the situation, then says "heres what I think it mean." He is not under any obligation to be onest in the conventional sense, since it is taken as a given that he is putting his own slant on things.
The confidence with which some pundits announce their opinions leads a lot of people to think the pundits must have a much deeper grasp of events and reality than anyone else. But that is a carefully cultivated illusion.
Furthermore, "lies" "facts" and "honesty" are things that can change depending on your point of view. Journalists and pundits make judgement calls everyday about what gets mentioned and what doesn't, and their version becomes the "reality" that the public percieves. I personally read both the (conservative) Wall Street Journal and the (liberal) New York Times every day if possible. When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

I agree with you that people could form their own political opinions. I think it's a great idea. But it doesn't happen much, in my experience. (i should add that I work as a reporter.)

[wring]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
wring said:

now that Arnold was kind enough to provide it, along with the direct quote, which showed that the OP was spot on in their recollection (but it is a valid thing to ask for), can we hear a 'thanks for the link' and perhaps your thought on the OP now that it's been established to be pretty accurate assesment of the article involved?

Way to be snotty about something you admit was a valid request. :rolleyes: merely keeping the tone you'd personally set with your "Incidentally, do you have a citation to this article you read "part of?" I'd like to read the actual words, rather than your version of 'something to this effect.' "
A polite request would have been "link please".
You took the time to make it an issue, I returned the favor, so feel free to apply the :rolleyes: to yourself personally first.

Actually, the OP had nothing to do with the column as a whole--it had to do with one statement within that column. The statement seems to be as advertised--factually incorrect. Whether Sowell did this intentionally to support his own argument, is ignorant, or was trying to say something else and is a piss-poor writer, I don't know. nice attempted defense. The linked statement was the basis of Sowell's primary point about the environmentalist's concerns. As such, and since it was a materially wrong basis, it's a fine start.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
I submit: this His book on education. Remember, he's an economist by trade. And yet some of the 'reviewers' talk glowingly 'discusses American Education from pre-K's to graduate schools; 9snip) politics and self-serving policies thereof. In 51 pages of notes, he supplies 1050 individual citations supporting his views and conclusions. "

Well, I'd first say that reviews on Amazon.com tend more towards subtly propping up or bashing the ideas of political writers. Choose any political book written by any author of any political stripe and you'll see similar reviews. These reviewers are trying to add legitimacy to ideas they like or destroy ideas they don't.

I also don't see how Sowell being "an economist by trade" really matters in your book cite. I haven't read the book, but the fact that he's an economist isn't an argument against the book. It's heavily cited. The book could be complete BS for all I know, but it will be BS because it's poorly thought out, not because he's an economist and therefore shouldn't write a book about education.

The book angle brings up another point. As I understand it, you want the person's degree listed so readers can weigh the columnist's credibility. Say Sowell writes a column about education. Given that he's written several books on education, you could argue that listing his degree in economics would actully be misleading, since it implies no special knowledge of the educational system. To achieve your goal of fair disclosure, each columnist should reallly print a full CV with every column.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
Well, I'd first say that reviews on Amazon.com tend more towards subtly propping up or bashing the ideas of political writers. the point was that the reviewers (not professionals) took him as an expert and didn't question his data, which was my point.

See, if I know that you're a geneticist by trade, and you present a thesis and support it with data, I'll be more inclined to think you may have a clue what you're talking about. If you're an economist (just to pick one out of thin air), you may be able to read and understand data on the economy etc, but I'll not necessarily take your word on genetics.

The point is, that without at least a small hint about their qualifications, we need to be our own detective/expert in that field. The listed example for instance - my last exposure to biology was in college many years ago and the only thing I remember from the experience is studying for the final I looked at the book and thought to myself "sub phylum of the class amphibia, well, hell, that can't be important" , and it of course was question 7, page two. So, what to a lot of folks here was a glaring error would have passed right on by me - except that in this case I knew the guy was an economist, so would have looked for info about his data.

The fact that some one references 'data' doesn't mean squat. To whit: this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=69162) , handy posted 'data' about crime stats. Now, because I knew where the data came from, I was able to say that the data had been extrapolated out from a legitimate site and manipulated. But that's cause it's my field. See???

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
the point was that the reviewers (not professionals) took him as an expert and didn't question his data, which was my point.

I guess this depends on how you define "expert". None of the reviews said "this is a good book because it was written by an expert who has a degree in education." Some of the reviews cited his research which some found good and some found lacking. How does this relate to his degree in economics? Or, more specifically, how does his non-education degree have any relation to the conclusions of his book? These reviews of his book back up what I said in my first post: the quality of a person's ideas depend on the strength of their arguments, not their degree.

Again, I think it would actually be misleading to merely list his degree, given that he has written several books on education. We can argue over whether that makes him an "expert", but it certainly shows he has more knowledge of the issue than a listing of his academic accomplishments would indicate. So a column by Sowell with a "Thomas Sowell has a Ph.D. in economics" doesn't really help a reader at all.

But the real point is that columnists are paid for their opinions, not their expertise. Readers know this. And when columnists step over the line, they tend to get exposed either through letters to the editor or opposing Op/Eds. Listing a columnist's degree causes as many problems as it solves.

[wring]

well Zoff we disagree.

[Zoff]

well Zoff we disagree.

Well, I guess there's only a couple of ways to settle this, and I'll let you choose ('cause I'm a good sport): it's either paper/scissors/rock or we post our degrees and let the people decide.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
Well, I guess there's only a couple of ways to settle this, and I'll let you choose ('cause I'm a good sport): it's either paper/scissors/rock or we post our degrees and let the people decide.

Hmm, Rock paper scissors. You first. :D

(kidding we can agree to disagree politely here)

[capacitor]

Geez, not even Rush is as lockstep to the right wing as Thomas Sowell is. This person is as sockpuppet as one can get.

[kaylasdad99]

Lizard said:I personally read both the (conservative) Wall Street Journal and the (liberal) New York Times every day if possible. When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

You realize, of course that you just now said you're sure that the funny pages don't matter.

And you call yourself a journalist? :rolleyes:

[yosemite]

wring, I have to say I'm confused. Are you saying that only people who have degrees in a specific field are qualified to write about it, or to be taken seriously about it? I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with Zoff about.

[MysterEcks]

I tried clicking on the link to check something, and I see that as of right now I get a " the page cannot be found" notice. Maybe they took Sowell out and shot him.

ITR champion said:

The point is this. Why should we even bother to have opinion columnists if we can't expect them to at least attempt to be truthful in their writings?

What is this "we" stuff? Newspapershave opinion columnists because they increase (or at least maintain) circulation, which thus leads to increased (or at least maintained) advertising and ad rates. Sowell will remain syndicated, and papers will carry his column, as long as they make money from it. If they stop making money with his column--or if they lose money because of it--they'll cease carrying it.

So all you have to do is start a campaign to boycott newspapers that carry offending columnists. If enough people do it, the papers will drop them. Hell, I'll even help you if we can go after L. Brent Bozell--the only use I've ever discovered for his columns is to use them to pick up dog turds.)

Lizard said:

When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

Liberals are frequently full of shit. Conservatives are also frequently full of shit. There is no reason to think that when they agree on something they aren't managing to be full of shit together, you know.

wring said:

[M]erely keeping the tone you'd personally set[...]. A polite request would have been "link please".

And here I didn't realize you fancied yourself the Miss Manners of the board.

[N]ice attempted defense. The linked statement was the basis of Sowell's primary point about the environmentalist's concerns. As such, and since it was a materially wrong basis, it's a fine start.

Attempted defense of what, Miss Manners? Of Sowell? In what way? Of myself? Again, in what way? Of the column in general? The OP had nothing to do with the column in general--as should be obvious, since there was no link--nor does this thread have anything in particular to do with Sowell's opinions on environmentalists. Of the statement we were actually dealing with? Maybe you should try reading my previous post--I lable the statement directly as "factually incorrect," and indirectly as "horseshit presented as fact" and ""facts" that aren't." Boy, I'd hate to see what I'd write if I wasn't "defen[ding]" it.

And perhaps you should reread the column, too, assuming you can find a copy--it should be obvious that Sowell's opinions have nothing to do with the statement. It was a throw-away line designed to bolster the argument, but certainly the argument didn't depend on it.

[Lizard]

Originally posted by kaylasdad99
Lizard said:I personally read both the (conservative) Wall Street Journal and the (liberal) New York Times every day if possible. When those two publications agree on something, only then am I sure of it.

You realize, of course that you just now said you're sure that the funny pages don't matter.

And you call yourself a journalist? :rolleyes:

Well, kaylasdad99, way to read too much into my post. You get the "Jump to Conclusions Award" for 2001! :rolleyes: back at you, "pal."

Originally posted by MysterEcks
Liberals are frequently full of shit. Conservatives are also frequently full of shit. There is no reason to think that when they agree on something they aren't managing to be full of shit together, you know.


My, aren't we cynical. Since this thread is about "opinion," I suppose you could find reasons to believe or NOT believe anything you wish, and it would be legitimate (if not necessarily fair.)

[jab1]

An opinion based on facts is worth paying for. An opinion based on incorrect information is not worth paying for. Sowell's column was not worth paying for. Dock him whatever he was paid for that column and warn him to be careful next time.

Has anyone emailed him or his syndicate about his mistake?

[kaylasdad99]

Recognizing that the "I was only joking" defense is regarded (rightly) as poor form around here, I herewith offer my apology to you, Lizard, for my remarks that may have been construed as impugning your professionalism. I failed to make my humorous intent clear, and I regret the hurt you may have felt as a result of my failure.

(the following is not to be considered a retraction of the preceding apology, but is an offering about what I sometimes find to be an amusing method of goofing around) I hold some strong opinions about my personal preferences, and I sometimes amuse myself by taking opportunities to declaim my preferences as though they are Absolute Truth (TM), and that to disagree with them is to contradict the fiats of the Lord Most High. Thus, in the past, this Board has seen me to declare local television news to be useless drivel, the Dodgers to be the only authentic baseball team such that God only counts their wins as valid contests (although not so much since they were bought by The Prince of Darkness :D), and that a newspaper is merely a life support system for a set of comic strips. In the future, I may be saying that oysters are not food, and that to decaffeinate coffee is to perpetrate an abomination in the sight of the Lord. Please don't interpret any of these as meaning that I actually believe that, say, the political title of "Lord" has any actual validity when applied to the concept of the Divine. In return, I will make efforts to make my humorous intent clear, when it is there.

[MysterEcks]

Lizard said:

My, aren't we cynical.

And I'm getting more cynical every minute, too.

Since this thread is about "opinion,"[...].

I swear, it's enough to make me tear out my hair if I had enough left to afford it. This thread is notabout opinion--it is about fact, or lack thereof. I realize that a lot of people don't make a clear distinction between fact and opinion--and I suspect that some of the individuals here hammering Sowell for his factual lapse only do so because of his right-wing opinions--but they are still different things.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally posted by Zoff
[QUOTE] Well, I guess there's only a couple of ways to settle this, and I'll let you choose ('cause I'm a good sport): it's either paper/scissors/rock or we post our degrees and let the people decide.

Oh, stop already. As you might glean from This delectable thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=72796), some of us really don't give one fat flying fuck what degree you've got.

THE ONLY measure used for many of us are the words you employ when you post here. Soooo.....you wanna be the rock, the paper or the scissors? :)

Cartooniverse

[Zoff]

Originally posted by Cartooniverse
Oh, stop already. As you might glean from This delectable thread, some of us really don't give one fat flying fuck what degree you've got.

I've been out in the sun all day, so maybe I'm slow on the uptake. I can't quite tell what you're saying in your post.
I mentioned posting degrees to make the point that degrees are irrelevant in a debate. Either paper/scissors/rock or posting degrees would be equally ridiculous ways to settle a debate. It was sort of a joke ending to the debate that had centered on whether columnists should be required to list their academic credentials.

If you were actually making a joke on my joke, and out-ironied me, I apologize for the post. Like I said, I've been out in the sun.

[yosemite]

Zoff, I was tempted to quote the same thread that Cartooniverse did. But from my understanding of the goings-on of this thread, you were the one that was suggesting that anyone with some intelligent research should have their work still considered worth something, whether or not they actually had a degree in the particular area. And it was (if I am not misunderstanding) wring who was disagreeing with that. So, if I have understood this all correctly (and I may not have) then the thread that Cartoon gave should be directed towards wring, and not you.

I haven't been out in the sun today, but I'm still not sure that makes sense...?

[Zoff]

Yeah, the gist of my argument was that a columnist's opinions stand or fall on the quality of the reasoning and argument so listing academic achievements is irrelevant or even misleading.

That's why Cartooniverse's post confuses me. The post pretty much repeats what I've been saying, but I can't really detect any irony in the first paragraph, so I'm not sure if I'm just missing something.

[Cartooniverse]

>>>Gulp<<< You're both right, I was crediting the wrong person. Sorry, Zoff. I happen to actually KNOW a Zoff in my life. You by any chance an audio engineer????

Yosemitebabe, thank you. It's the Pit, one gets to be snippy- but it helps if the waterhose is directed at the right person.

I feel like a true blue :wally

Cartooniverse

[Zoff]

No problem. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing your point.

I'm not an audio engineer like your friend Zoff. But if your friend is of Italian ancestry he/she might be related to the greatest goalkeeper to ever live!

[wring]

MysterEcks Ms. Manners reporting back.

A. this is the pit.
B. You posted in this pit thread, something less than cordial.
C. I pointed it out, in a gruff manner.
D. You point a finger at me for being snotty.
E. I pointed out that you'd set the tone.

And this gets me the title? Riiiiiight.

my position: Anyone is entitled to their opinions. People who get paid to write opinion pieces in the print media are getting paid to do exactly that. People who read such stuff need to use large grains of salt when doing so. IMHO, it would be helpful for folks to have their academic background listed at the head of the piece. Does this mean that an economist can only write on that subject? no, absolutely not. But, it does mean, for example, when "Dr. Laura" writes about the moral decline of our society due to our lack of religious values etc, that we see that the doctorate that she has is in phsysiology, which again, does not presume that she knows nothing in another subject.

In the listed case, Mr. Sowell's degree gives him no credibility in the area of biology. Had that fact been in place, it would have given the readers an additional piece of info "this isn't his area of expertise". Why not do this?
Zoff claims "Yeah, the gist of my argument was that a columnist's opinions stand or fall on the quality of the reasoning and argument" and data, too, I would think you meant to add.

My point is that in many ways data selection and interpretation can be a tricky thing, especially when dealing with the social sciences. and while the argument and reasoning may be sound, if it's based on faulty data or data that is selected because of a particular bias, then the conclusions can be faulty as well. And, the reader has a right to know if the opinion writer has some experience interpreting the data in the field that they are currently discussing.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
And, the reader has a right to know if the opinion writer has some experience interpreting the data in the field that they are currently discussing.

And my point is that listing a degree is often not very informative and may be misleading. Again, to use the Sowell example, he does have some experience interpreting educational data by virtue of having written on the subject. Now, listing Sowell's degree might actually boost his credibility since a reader might realize that an economist has to deal with interpreting data. But what if he was an English major? Listing a degree he got 20 years ago says nothing of his "experience interpreting the data". It would be misleading because it leaves out his "experience" and only lists education -- two different issues.

Mr. Sowell's degree gives him no credibility in the area of biology.

It certainly doesn't give him the credibility to teach biology. But he is an opinion writer. If his conclusions, or data, are wrong it will be pointed out by other writers or people writing letters to the editor. That's the ultimate check, not a listing of diplomas.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
[QUOTE]
And my point is that listing a degree is often not very informative and may be misleading. Again, to use the Sowell example, he does have some experience interpreting educational data by virtue of having written on the subject. Umm, that's kinda backwards, isn't it? My point about his book on education was that he didn't have the background in education. Now, since he's written said book, he obtains credibility in that area?

I understand your concern about the degree being misleading. I still would rather err on the side of more information vs. less.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
Umm, that's kinda backwards, isn't it? My point about his book on education was that he didn't have the background in education. Now, since he's written said book, he obtains credibility in that area?

My comment was in response to your comment that readers should know whether somebody has "some experience interpreting the data". My point was that he does have some experience interpreting the data by virtue of writing the education books. However, his diploma would not indicate this experience. The point was that education and experience are not necessarily the same. As to whether he has credibility in the area -- that's an open question that his diploma doesn't resolve.

I don't disagree with you that information is good. I just don't think listing degrees provides enough valid information to be of use.

[wring]

Originally posted by Zoff
My comment was in response to your comment that readers should know whether somebody has "some experience interpreting the data". My point was that he does have some experience interpreting the data by virtue of writing the education books. However, his diploma would not indicate this experience. The point was that education and experience are not necessarily the same. As to whether he has credibility in the area -- that's an open question that his diploma doesn't resolve.

I don't disagree with you that information is good. I just don't think listing degrees provides enough valid information to be of use.

yes, I know. My point is that as far as I can tell, Mr. Sowell's 'experience' in the education field came from writing that book.

He cited data, research, yes. But, and here's where my concerns come in, we don't know that he had the background and expertise in order to select, review and extrapolate information from that data.

Degrees and experience, are of themselves only another piece of information. They can give us some understanding of the person's ability to understand the data and the issue at hand.

Especially in the social sciences, there's tons of studies, tons of pieces of information that can be interpreted in many ways. I believe I already cited a thread on crime data and racial data - right? In that thread, another cite was provided that listed data on crime, victimization etc. However, the way the data was manipulated, it was racist and inflammatory and, wrong. But it used data from the FBI. The people who put it together had another agenda, and took from the available data bits and pieces that 'made their case'. When we were able to see the original source data and the people behind the flawed data, we could see what happened.

[Zoff]

Originally posted by wring
He cited data, research, yes. But, and here's where my concerns come in, we don't know that he had the background and expertise in order to select, review and extrapolate information from that data.

Degrees and experience, are of themselves only another piece of information.

And this is why I don't think your plan will work. If you only post Sowell's degree you are leaving out important information. His experience in education can be debated, but the fact that he researched and wrote a book is clearly relevant. But your system wouldn't list this information.

As it currently stands, no information is uniformly given about a columnist. This is because they are opinion writers who lay no claim to expertise in all areas. Posting partial credentials runs the inherent risk of misleading by omission. The degree a person got 30 years ago is simply not enough information to be helpful. It can, however, be misleading.

If a columnist uses bad reasoning, arguments or statistics, those conclusions will eventually be challenged. Throwing in incomplete information doesn't help.

[Cartooniverse]

Originally posted by Zoff
[QUOTE] Listing a degree he got 20 years ago says nothing of his "experience interpreting the data". It would be misleading because it leaves out his "experience" and only lists education -- two different issues.

As far as I'm concerned, Zoff here just distilled and articulated the entire core point beautifully. YES, Op-Ed writers are given great latitude as far as their columns. They're not just held to education, they're held up as people employed by a newspaper or t.v. network whose THOUGHTS and OPINIONS are considered noteworthy, or at least listenworthy.

Mentioning what degree some famous personality earned a long time ago is irrelevant, IMHO. In fact.....in a way, the very idea of the phrase IMHO sums it up too.

Wring says I understand your concern about the degree being misleading. I still would rather err on the side of more information vs. less.

Really? No qualifiers?? I'd rather take focused vital information contained on a single sheet of paper, over a 1,200 page report filled with references to out-dated and badly skewed data. It's quality, not quantity- usually. Yes, if you are doing an exhaustive analysis of immigration and population flow into the states existant at the time of the great influx ( roughly 1897-1924 ), you'd have reams of data. But overall, I tend to look for a small bit of really concise data.

Going back to the greater debate happening here, sorry but I'm with Zoff. You are either a clinical analyst, or you are an Op-Ed writer. You are not both, NOT in the same book, or column.

Cartooniverse

[wring]

Originally posted by Cartooniverse
Wring says I understand your concern about the degree being misleading. I still would rather err on the side of more information vs. less.

Really? No qualifiers?? I'd rather take focused vital information contained on a single sheet of paper, over a 1,200 page report filled with references to out-dated and badly skewed data. It's quality, not quantity- usually. Yes, if you are doing an exhaustive analysis of immigration and population flow into the states existant at the time of the great influx ( roughly 1897-1924 ), you'd have reams of data. But overall, I tend to look for a small bit of really concise data.

Cartooniverse

Ok, I was gonna let Zoff have the last word, 'cause we simply disagree, however, you've taken a different step. No 'qualifiers'? where do you get that?

I spent quite a bit of time explaining exactly the point - that merely submitting 'data' often isn't sufficient, unless you also are able to submit the source data, and are able to establish that the source data is recognized in that field. Remember the big debate about the recent 'study' on homosexuality'? in that case, the study itself had some significant flaws, but it was touted roundly by certain columnists as if it had been flawless. and the persons who touted it was IIRC Cal Thomas 'graduate of American University' (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/bios/cbthomas.html), now, don't you think that if we knew his degree was in, say, underwater basket weaving, it would help us understand why we should maybe take his opinion on this topic with a grain of salt?

I ask that someone's educational background be listed as a simple piece of additional information. As I recall, one of the big complaints about Dr. Laura, was that as a "doctor" dispensing her brand of 'commentary', folks were (IMHO legitimately) concerned that her title of "doctor" coupled with her stance as a columnist would lend her more stature, making her comments to be taken more seriously, and many kept on repeating 'but her doctorate is in Physiology'.

This does not mean that one should take as gospel stuff that the columnist spouts off that is connected to their education and training. It should, however, serve as a guide, an assistance, a help, to see if we should do rigorous search or not.

Ok - for example, on the OP ed page, you'll see folks writing in letters to the editor. Sometimes, they'll include their work title - and they do this generally, to give their word a bit more weight. So, when you see the letter saying 'development of the wetlands in this area will not have significant negative impact on the watertable' and it's signed by the head of the land developing company, well, we'd have some important understanding about their viewpoint, n'est-ce-pas?

[MysterEcks]

wring said:

And this gets me the title? Riiiiiight.

Right. At the very least, it's more warranted than your label of my post as a "nice attempted defense."

(I'm still waiting for enlightenment on what it was a "nice attempted defense" of.)

[wring]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
(I'm still waiting for enlightenment on what it was a "nice attempted defense" of.)

Really? odd. Ok, I'll help you, then. here's what I posted on page one to that effect:

originally posted by you:
Actually, the OP had nothing to do with the column as a whole--it had to do with one statement within that column. The statement seems to be as advertised--factually incorrect. Whether Sowell did this intentionally to support his own argument, is ignorant, or was trying to say something else and is a piss-poor writer, I don't know. and my answer:
nice attempted defense. The linked statement was the basis of Sowell's primary point about the environmentalist's concerns. As such, and since it was a materially wrong basis, it's a fine start.

The OP most certainly was about the column as a whole (as a call for a particular position on enviornmental policy), and pointing out the error and ending with People who are this willfully ignorant about biology shouldn't set environmental policy, obviously. I submit that they shouldn't be syndicated either. Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies!
So, your statement linked above, if it isn't an attempted defense of Sowell (and a weak one at that) is, then what is it?

[december]

Originally posted by foolsguinea
I just read part of a column by Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist....

People who are this willfully ignorant about biology shouldn't set environmental policy, obviously. I submit that they shouldn't be syndicated either. Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies! If I undestand the rules here, it's appropriate to insult other posters. Here goes:

1. I presume that foolsguinea is correct about frogs not being a species.

2. There's no support for the accusation that Sowell's frog ignorance was willful.

3. Dr. Sowell is probably smarter and wiser than every poster on this thread. His accomplishments speak for themselves.

4. It's demeaning to call him a "GOP propagandist." He has been a top Consevative philospher and pundit for many, many years.

5. Dr. Sowell is immensely prolific. He has written thousands of newspaper columns. Amazon.com lists 57 books that he has written. To want him banned because of a single mistake seems, uh, what's the word? superficial? idiotic? narrow-minded? mean-spirited? hate-filled? bigoted? racist?

Foolsguinea, you're entitled to some input. Which of these labels fits best?

[IzzyR]

One question for the outraged brethren:

Doens't this focus on semantic nit-picking betray a deficiency in the strength of your underlying arguments about the issues? (Or at least in your ability to express them). Replace "species" with "type of animal", and move on.

[Dr. Lao]

IzzyR: It isn't just a nitpick. He was using it as part of his argument that we don't need to save every "variant" of frog because they are all one species. The implication is that if we wipe out a "variant" of frog it isn't a big deal because we can just replace it with another type of frog. In reality, it doesn't work that way. They are seperate species. Once a species is gone, it is gone for good. You can't replace it with another species.

[LoverBoy]

Originally posted by december
2. There's no support for the accusation that Sowell's frog ignorance was willful.


Whether willful or not, if one attempts to write a meaningful commentary on any issue, one should know something about the said issue. Sowell did not research or confirm his statement, and this was willful or negligent (your choice of words).

3. Dr. Sowell is probably smarter and wiser than every poster on this thread. His accomplishments speak for themselves.


I will admit that I am unaware of Dr. Sowell's other accomplishments. I can, however, say that unless this is an editorial error (which seems highly unlikely), Dr. Sowell is at least lacking in knowledge, if not completely ignorant towards, the topic he chose to write about. If his column does not print a retractment of his error, I would say that one could add "distributed propaganda" or "lied" to his list of accomplishments (again, your choice of words).

5. Dr. Sowell is immensely prolific. He has written thousands of newspaper columns. Amazon.com lists 57 books that he has written. To want him banned because of a single mistake seems, uh, what's the word? superficial? idiotic? narrow-minded? mean-spirited? hate-filled? bigoted? racist?

If I write thousands of newspaper columns, that doesn't mean they aren't all being (figuratively) pulled out of my ass. I am certain that Matt Hale and his World Church of the Creator (a white supremacist group) and other racist or bigoted groups have written hundreds, if not thousands of columns and pamphlets which contain extremely bigoted and outright incorrect statements. The proliferation of these ideas does not imply or enhance their correctness.

To want him banned because of a single mistake would seem superficial, narrow-minded, mean-spirited, and perhaps bigoted. I fail to see how this would be hate-filled, or racist. How inflammatory. The original poster has since rephrased his original comment to something less harsh, so I suppose this is really a moot point anyways.

- Rob

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Dr. Lao
IzzyR: It isn't just a nitpick. He was using it as part of his argument that we don't need to save every "variant" of frog because they are all one species. The implication is that if we wipe out a "variant" of frog it isn't a big deal because we can just replace it with another type of frog. In reality, it doesn't work that way. They are seperate species. Once a species is gone, it is gone for good. You can't replace it with another species. I din't see how anyone could read that into his words. He said and implied nothing of the sort.

I think what he was saying is that even if a certain type of frog becomes extinct it's no big deal, because there are so many other types of frogs that are so similar that the world is not changed in any meaningful way.

You can agree with this argument or disagree - it will depend on your perspective on conservation. But I don't see any justification for the type of accusations being made here based on attributing to him arguments that he has not actually made.

[missdavis102]

I have nothing much to add here other than to note that the color scheme of the article Arnold linked to bears an uncanny resemblance to that of


http://www.chick.com/


Conspiracy or coincidence?

[december]

Originally posted by LoverBoy
Whether willful or not, if one attempts to write a meaningful commentary on any issue, one should know something about the said issue. Sowell did not research or confirm his statement, and this was willful or negligent (your choice of words).

Yes, Sowell was wrong on this point and he's responsible for his error. However, "willful" wasn't my choice of word, it was foolsguinea's/. My point was that his unsupported slur showed malice. BTW there's some irony in finding an error in fg's post. Maybe fg should ban himself or herself from the SDMP! :)

5. Dr. Sowell is immensely prolific. He has written thousands of newspaper columns. Amazon.com lists 57 books that he has written. To want him banned because of a single mistake seems, uh, what's the word? superficial? idiotic? narrow-minded? mean-spirited? hate-filled? bigoted? racist?

If I write thousands of newspaper columns, that doesn't mean they aren't all being (figuratively) pulled out of my ass.

Maybe TS pulls facts out of his ass. And, maybe LoverBoy is a child molester. But, the only point against TS here is a single mistake. If you want to accuse him of widespread inaccuracy, please provide evidence. BTW As a standard of accuracy, the New York Times lists their errors on page 2. There are generally 5 to 10 each day.

I am certain that Matt Hale and his World Church of the Creator (a white supremacist group) and other racist or bigoted groups have written hundreds, if not thousands of columns and pamphlets which contain extremely bigoted and outright incorrect statements. The proliferation of these ideas does not imply or enhance their correctness.

It's quite a slander to compare TS to bigoted lying racists. Where does that come from?

I fail to see how this would be hate-filled, or racist. How inflammatory.

If I argued that Thurgood Marshall's writings should all be banned because he once confused a species with a sub-species, what would you think of me? Or if I denigrated Colin Polwell by comparing him to the World Church of the Creators, what would you call me? Would you not assume that I was really motivated by racism?

However, LB I'll let you and fg off the hook. I don't think you're racists. I do suspect that you both harbor intense, irrational hatred of conservatives -- which I consider a kind of bigotry.

I don't know why you hate us. Pubbies are so cute...

[Dr. Lao]

Originally posted by IzzyR
I think what he was saying is that even if a certain type of frog becomes extinct it's no big deal, because there are so many other types of frogs that are so similar that the world is not changed in any meaningful way.How is that different from what I said? Regardless, he is mistaken and it affects his argument.

[wring]

. Dr. Sowell is immensely prolific. He has written thousands of newspaper columns. Amazon.com lists 57 books that he has written. To want him banned because of a single mistake seems, uh, what's the word? superficial? idiotic? narrow-minded? mean-spirited? hate-filled? bigoted? racist?

Felt the need to respond to this. Sowell has written '57 books' - and Cecil Adams has only written a few, so apparently, we should honor Sowell more? How does Stephen King fit into this? he redefines prolific writer, of course, no one, even his fans contend that the Nobel Prize shoulda been his.

The question raised here was pretty simple. Sowell made an easily disproven assertion in one of his articles. Does this mean that nothing he writes is true? no, but it certainly suggests that one recheck his data when it's not his field.....

[IzzyR]

Originally posted by Dr. Lao
Originally posted by IzzyR
I think what he was saying is that even if a certain type of frog becomes extinct it's no big deal, because there are so many other types of frogs that are so similar that the world is not changed in any meaningful way.How is that different from what I said? Regardless, he is mistaken and it affects his argument. Either I don't understand you or you don't understand me or both. Sowell's point, as I see it, is basically "big deal, who cares" if there is one less type of frog in the world? This is a judgement, a statement of values. It is not something about which it is possible to be "mistaken". It is not a statement of scientific fact, and his terminology should not be interpreted in that context.

His overall point is that there are people who care very intensly about conservation, and that they are imposing their values on those whose interests are negatively affected by this. In this context, his argument about species merely means that whereas the majority of people support the endangered species act when considering the possiblity of whole types of animals being exterminated (e.g. all frogs), it is being applied in a more extreme manner to even sub-types whose elimination is not such a big deal (in his opinion). His choice of the word species was apparently not scientifically precise, though it probably does reflect common usage to some extent. In any event, the issue of his wording should not be used to obscure (and avoid) his larger point, which is independent of it.

[LoverBoy]

Originally posted by december
Yes, Sowell was wrong on this point and he's responsible for his error. However, "willful" wasn't my choice of word, it was foolsguinea's/. My point was that his unsupported slur showed malice. BTW there's some irony in finding an error in fg's post. Maybe fg should ban himself or herself from the SDMP! :)

I may have spoken confusingly. When I said "your choice of words", I meant that you could choose which word to call him. You could say he was either "willfully ignoring facts" or being "grossly negligent". You may choose which of these phrases is more appropriate.

Maybe TS pulls facts out of his ass. And, maybe LoverBoy is a child molester. But, the only point against TS here is a single mistake. If you want to accuse him of widespread inaccuracy, please provide evidence. BTW As a standard of accuracy, the New York Times lists their errors on page 2. There are generally 5 to 10 each day.

I agree that this one issue is not enough to remove him from the newspapers. I was responding to the thread in the context of this particular column that he had written and in the context of your post.

It's quite a slander to compare TS to bigoted lying racists. Where does that come from?

Not comparing him to them. The WCC was provided as an example of how proliferation of information does not make that information "good" or correct.

If I argued that Thurgood Marshall's writings should all be banned because he once confused a species with a sub-species, what would you think of me? Or if I denigrated Colin Polwell by comparing him to the World Church of the Creators, what would you call me? Would you not assume that I was really motivated by racism?

I think that my general tendency would be to assume that you have an agenda against Thurgood Marshall or his political affiliations, not necessarily that you were racist. As I must point out again, the argument isn't over whether we should burn all his writings in effigy (at least not anymore :))

However, LB I'll let you and fg off the hook. I don't think you're racists. I do suspect that you both harbor intense, irrational hatred of conservatives -- which I consider a kind of bigotry.

I used to be a conservative myself. I don't believe a harbor an intense hate towards conservatives. If I did, however, you would be absolutely correct in calling me a bigot. I would expect you to take my word on this as I did not mention your other comments relating to "us" being "cute". :)

- Rob

[MysterEcks]

wring said, though she probably shouldn't have:

The OP most certainly was about the column as a whole (as a call for a particular position on enviornmental policy)

Wrong, wring. The OP couldn'tbe about the column as a whole, since the OP never cited the column as a whole. The OP summarized one factual statement in the column--that's it. This is patently obvious to anybody who reads it.

Of course, I had already dealt with this back on page one, where I said:

The OP had nothing to do with the column in general--as should be obvious, since there was no link[...].

One dead horse for sale, indeed. How much are you asking for it?

And since you seem to want to obscure the fact, here's foolsguinea's OP in its entirety:

I just read part of a column by Thomas Sowell, GOP propagandist. He was waxing dismissive about the rights of endangered species, and said something to this effect: "Frogs are a species; a given variety of frog is not a species." I just had to scream! Frogs are--off top my head--more like a sub-order! That is, "Frogs" refers to a group of species similar to each other but as distinct from each other as, for example:
a. the set of non-lemur primates: great apes, lesser apes, monkeys, and mankind (really a great ape with pretensions)
b. cloven-hooved animals: antelope, goats, buffalo, deer... would you consider all those a "species", too, Mr Sowell??

People who are this willfully ignorant about biology shouldn't set environmental policy, obviously. I submit that they shouldn't be syndicated either. Thomas Sowell should be banned from the newspapers. "Freedom of the press" is no excuse for damned lies!

The grand total of discussion of the the column as a whole is: "He was waxing dismissive about the rights of endangered species[...]." That's all there is; there ain't no more.

Back to wring:

So, your statement linked above, if it isn't an attempted defense of Sowell (and a weak one at that) is, then what is it?

It's a correct statement, that's what it is. Contending that it's a defense of Sowell is assinine.

[december]

Originally posted by LoverBoy
I used to be a conservative myself. I don't believe a harbor an intense hate towards conservatives. If I did, however, you would be absolutely correct in calling me a bigot. - Rob Good post, LB. I'm sure you, wring, fg, and the other posters are honorable people. However, I'm amazed at how casually you discussed banning Sowell, with no reference to who he is and what he has accomplished. It's noteworthy that when I pointed out how prolific TS has been, you and wring guessed that there was something wrong with his work. E.g., you might have read some reviews of his books in Amazon.com, which would have helped you realize that he's brilliant and very hard-working.

Here's a brief curriculum vitae from his website: CURRICULUM VITA


ADDRESS:
The Hoover Institution
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
(650) 723-3303

PERSONAL:
U.S. Citizen, born June 30, 1930


EDUCATION:

Ph.D. in Economics, University of Chicago, 1968
A.M. in Economics, Columbia University, 1959
A.B. in Economics, magna cum laude, Harvard College,1958


EXPERIENCE:

Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University,September 1980 - present
Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., July 1974 - June 1980
Visiting Professor of Economics, Amherst College, September- December 1977
Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, April- August 1977
Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences,July 1976 - March 1977
Project Director, The Urban Institute, August 1972 -July 1974
Associate Professor of Economics, U.C.L.A., September1970 - June 1972
Associate Professor of Economics, Brandeis University,September 1969 - June 1970
Assistant Professor of Economics, Cornell University,September 1965 - June 1969
Economic Analyst, American Telephone & TelegraphCo., June 1964 - August 1965
Lecturer in Economics, Howard University, September 1963- June 1964
Instructor in Economics, Douglass College, September1962 - June 1963
Labor Economist, U.S. Department of Labor, June 1961- August 1962


PRINCIPAL PUBLICATIONS:

The Quest for Cosmic Justice (Free Press,1999)
Conquests and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
Migrations and Cultures (Basic Books, 1998)
The Vision of the Anointed (Basic Books, 1995)
Race and Culture: A World View ( Basic Books,1994 )
A Conflict of Visions (William Morrow, 1987)
Ethnic America (Basic Books, 1981)
Knowedge and Decisions (Basic Books, 1980)
Say's Law: An Historical Analysis (Princeton Univ.Press, 1972) The fact that he received his primary education at public schools in Harlem is some icing on the cake.

[wring]

Originally posted by MysterEcks
Wrong, wring. The OP couldn'tbe about the column as a whole, since the OP never cited the column as a whole. The OP summarized one factual statement in the column--that's it. This is patently obvious to anybody who reads it. well since the OP sums the article up quite nicely, I think we'll just disagree about that as well. But you'll go on and believe what you will.

It's a correct statement, that's what it is. Contending that it's a defense of Sowell is assinine. [/B] I asked you for clarification of what you meant. To not answer isn't helpful.

this: Actually, the OP had nothing to do with the column as a whole--it had to do with one statement within that column. The statement seems to be as advertised--factually incorrect. Whether Sowell did this intentionally to support his own argument, is ignorant, or was trying to say something else and is a piss-poor writer, I don't know is "a correct statement"? Well, we disagree that the OP was merely about the single line as noted above.

[december]

Originally posted by wring
well since the OP sums the article up quite nicely, I think we'll just disagree about that as well. The above statement isn't important, but it's so incorrect that I won't let it stand. Sowell's article makes the following points, which are not mentioned in the OP:

[list] The Endangered Species Act is outrageous. Greens are selfish and arrogant. They're bigots and bullies. They also lie a lot, as self-anointed idealists often do. There's no legal or moral right for the preference of greens to override those uninterested in frog-preservation. Fuzzy words and apocalyptic visions are stock in trade for the green bigots. Greens aren't idealistic; they're playing God. Greens are unaccountable for the consequences of their actions -- e.g. Calif power shortage. Environmentalism has become a cult of pagan nature worship. Having Greens in power is like a theocracy.

That's strong stuff. It's highly insulting to Greens. These points may or may not be fair, but they're certainly important to the article, and they weren't included in the OP.

[MysterEcks]

wring, in what I can only assume is an attempt to drive me crazy*, wrote:

well since the OP sums the article up quite nicely, I think we'll just disagree about that as well.

I've dealt with this twice, and now december has dealt with it. The OP** (A) discusses Sowell's statement that "frogs" is a species, and (B) states that in the column "[h]e was waxing dismissive about the rights of endangered species[...]." To say this "sums the article up" at all, let alone "quite nicely," is like summing up Romeo And Julietas "the story of two Italian families."

I asked you for clarification of what you meant.

I'm sure this sentence would just slay them down at the high school debate club, but I won an Am Jur award for Advocacy in law school, so it ain't gonna impress me. You made a statement:

So, your statement linked above, if it isn't an attempted defense
of Sowell (and a weak one at that) is [sic]

posed in the form of a question:

then what is it?

But this is no more a question than: "And then you shot the victim in the head eight times, didn't you?"

To not answer isn't helpful.

this: [quotation omitted] is "a correct statement"?

As you demonstrated all by yourself, I didanswer the question--not in a way you like, maybe, but nevertheless. So much for stupid debate tricks...or was it perhaps an attempted defense of your own statement?

____________
*A futile attempt--I'm as crazy as I'm gonna get.

**OP is usually taken to mean Original Post or Opening Post. Maybe wring's position makes slightly more sense if she is attributing it to what she believes is a well-known corporate pronouncement of Occidental Petroleum.

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by december
Originally posted by wring
well since the OP sums the article up quite nicely, I think we'll just disagree about that as well. The above statement isn't important, but it's so incorrect that I won't let it stand. Sowell's article makes the following points, which are not mentioned in the OP:

[list] The Endangered Species Act is outrageous. Greens are selfish and arrogant. They're bigots and bullies. They also lie a lot, as self-anointed idealists often do. There's no legal or moral right for the preference of greens to override those uninterested in frog-preservation. Fuzzy words and apocalyptic visions are stock in trade for the green bigots. Greens aren't idealistic; they're playing God. Greens are unaccountable for the consequences of their actions -- e.g. Calif power shortage. Environmentalism has become a cult of pagan nature worship. Having Greens in power is like a theocracy.

That's strong stuff. It's highly insulting to Greens. These points may or may not be fair, but they're certainly important to the article, and they weren't included in the OP.

Though I think the comment about the frogs makes Sowell astonishingly ignorant for a supposedly learned man, I agree with most of that stuff he says about Greens. It's not applicable to ALL people interested in the environment, but I'd say those statements are true of the majority of the most vocal activists.

Though I don't see extinction as negatively as most environmentalists (it's somewhat tragic, but natural and usually inconsequential to the 'Big Picture') I don't have any problems with the Endangered Species Act, however. I think it's a good idea to do something to preserve endangered species, I just don't think we should go to extreme measures to save them nor do I think it's going to ruin the world to have a major extinction like what's happeneing now.

[foolsguinea]

Originally posted by december
4. It's demeaning to call him a "GOP propagandist." He has been a top Consevative philospher and pundit for many, many years.And he votes for, & sometimes he flacks for, the GOP. Also, as a "pundit," he attempts to convince people of his political views. He is a propagandist. It's a description.

5. Dr. Sowell is immensely prolific. He has written thousands of newspaper columns. Amazon.com lists 57 books that he has written. To want him banned because of a single mistake seems, uh, what's the word? superficial? idiotic? narrow-minded? mean-spirited? hate-filled? bigoted? racist?

Foolsguinea, you're entitled to some input. Which of these labels fits best?I'll accept mean-spirited & hate-filled. I was frickin' pissed off, & posted in anger. But it's not just this one column. Sowell is the avowed enemy of environmental preservationists (the sort of "Green" I tend to agree with)--thus I consider him a pernicious influence. It really goes way beyond the frogs to his whole defective worldview.

[zenith]

For a so-called expert in Economics, Sowell makes a lot of ignorant-sounding statements. Is he really this stupid, or has he been corrupted? (I rather suspect the latter).

In a recent column about the California utility crisis, Sowell put down the faction that seeks publicly-owned power
plants, stating that public power is actually more expensive and also pointing out that Chernobyl was "public power".

For Mr. Sowell's information, we in Republican-dominated Nebraska have had state-wide public ownership of electric utilities since 1946. Our public power system is hardly a "commie plot", and none of our power plants is like
Chernobyl. Our rates are well below the national average.

If I wanted to slander the good investor-owned utilities along with the bad, I could make a Sowellesque observation that Three Mile Island was what you ALWAYS get when you let private businesses run utilities.

One major cost advantage that public power has over private is that ownership is stable.

When your local power plant is merged with another company one year, spun-off into an LBO the next, and later merged into yet another conglomerate which will probably spin it off again in afew years--those big-bucks lawyers' and accountants' fees and those golden parachutes for all those top execs that are displaced by each ownership change come out of the ratepayers' pockets. Mr. Sowell, a shill for the
dregs of Corporate America glosses over this fact.

Another facet of constant "churn" of assets is that the people who run these plants become demoralized and a lot of costly turnover results. Again, it's the ratepayers' money and not adime of it is going into plant and equipment.

Mr. Sowell also ignores the fact that the lights stayed on in California communities that have municipal power plants.

I wouldn't want to ban Sowell, however. Like Rush Limbaugh,
he allows us into the minds of the monopolistic enemies of the People who have bought Sowell's and Limbaugh's souls, not to mention those of our national political leaders.

[december]

Originally posted by zenith
For a so-called expert in Economics, Sowell makes a lot of ignorant-sounding statements. Is he really this stupid, or has he been corrupted? (I rather suspect the latter). Maybe he was "corrupted" by Milton Friedman and other Nobel Prize-winning economists who were at the University of Chicago when Sowell was getting his Ph.D. there.
... we in Republican-dominated Nebraska have had state-wide public ownership of electric utilities since 1946... Our rates are well below the national average...Glad to know that Nebraska's publicly owned electirc power utility works well. However, Sowell has argued that, more often than not, public ownership has works worse than private ownership. The facts bear him out.

he allows us into the minds of the monopolistic enemies of the People who have bought Sowell's and Limbaugh's souls..., not to mention those of our national political leaders.
[/B]Glad to know that zenith] and foolsguinea are upset by Sowell's writings, since they were written for that purpose. When someone this smart and this knowledgable disagrees with you, it's worth considering that he might be right.

BTW, I love zenith's phrase "into the minds of the monopolistic enemies of the People." It would make a good signiture line.