I found myself in agreement with Dr. Sowell on a variety of points during the eleven minutes I was able to sit still for. I did, however, have a number of complaints about this interview:
- I didn't need that book waved in my face every 5 seconds, as if I was forgetting that I'm supposed to buy it
- I didn't need the show producer flashing the Twitter address at me, as if I was forgetting to be another cow and follow their account
- Most importantly, there's an awful lot Dr. Sowell didn't say, which is ironic seeing as how he functionally accused an awful lot of other people of leaving out salient details
I noticed, for one thing, that he didn't cite a single person like "Dr." Savage or "Dr." Laura, conservative talk hosts who use a title they earned in entirely unrelated work to appear more expert than the listener on the subjects they address. He didn't cite entertainers like Limbaugh or Hannity or Beck, whose primary expertise is
entertainment, but who project themselves as being something other than the corporate media whores they are -- bringers of light and truth, broadcasters of ideas that could save the nation, whatever.
He had some great numbers about people who start out low-income (which applies to virtually everyone) and end up high-income (which applies to virtually every American who would commonly be referred to as "successful). They were very encouraging. What he didn't even bother to gloss over, however, are the people who start poor and end up that way in the long run, and the economics behind why
that happens. How about the fact that, by and large, money is attracted to money with an almost magnetic force, and it's hard to make a wheel-barrel of it unless you have or borrow or sweet-talk your way into a wheel-barrel of it to begin with? How about this most recent economic downturn, are you going to tell me that his reassuring trend derived from IRS demographics holds true still?
How about the fact that the major parties are sock puppets, and that no matter who is in power the primary beneficiaries of government are
always going to be the ones with the best connections, the biggest campaign donations, the largest membership roles? How about the fact that no matter how virulently the parties bicker back and forth, no matter how many scandals break and no matter how many rousing speeches we hear, the flow of power is configured to drain the individual who has little of it to begin with and raise up those who already have too much power?
Why is it that Dr. Sowell is essentially accusing a vaguely described group of smart people of trying to seize some vaguely quantified amount of power for some vague purpose, instead of getting down the nuts and bolts of what's wrong and making some serious accusations?
Finally, what I find most hilarious is that if you look at Dr. Sowell's resume:
Thomas Sowell | Curriculum Vita
You will discover that he is, in fact, himself an intellectual. He kept everything vague and unfocused because to do otherwise would render him guilty of the very thing he is accusing others of doing.
In other words, he wasted my time wagging a finger at intellectuals who step outside their fields of expertise, but couldn't get very specific because otherwise he would be . . . stepping outside his field of expertise.
This video officially rates three putrid farts, two snotty tissues, and a wet dump in a pear tree.
Blarg. :roll: