The Real Motives of the Media

I just had a thought.  In fact, it might be a revelation.

As I was reading my third CNN story in a row (with comments), it occurred to me that each one of the stories had been written in such a manner as to inspire indignation and anger in readers.

Having their combustible embers fanned into flame, the commenters did not disappoint. They immediately responded to the stimuli by jumping out from their corners to attack the nearest available target of choice - right-wingers, unionists, religious zealots, minority groups, any number of hated celebrities... their enemy of the moment.

The thing I noticed was that the inflamed rhetoric did not really seem to be the honest responses of real people to real events. No, it seemed contrived. There was too little interaction with the specific facts in one case, an emotional-charged accusation too conveniently trite in another.

What was happening? It seemed like the commenters were taking hold of the news stories for the purpose of spraying prepackaged opinions into the face of a public held in scorn. They were not really talking about facts, because their words were too angry, their emotions too well-developed for one who’d just read the story. They were not commenting on the story… They were throwing partisan tirades at the masses like a terrorist spraying bullets into a crowd.

The fact that hate-filled people lie in wait in the comments section of on line news sources is nothing new. My new realization was how quickly and easily they can jump up to spew their venomous remarks following nearly ANY STORY. So I examined the stories.

I hadn’t noticed it before... I discovered that each of the three stories was less than objective.  Actually, manipulative and unprofessional.  In fact, I found that each story was characterized less by the presentation of facts than by the presentation of a hodgepodge of fact, opinion, and conjecture designed to inspire outrage.

For the first time I realized with great clarity that the more outraged CNN or FOX or MSNBC can get their readers/viewers, the more fanatical their consumer base becomes.

It suddenly occurred to me, in a "eureka" moment, that most of the division in our nation today is due not to real objective fact, not even to informed opinion, but is in fact a mass response to manipulation by the media.
 
Here’s what I overlooked before. When partisan presentation produces more outrage, the usual result is more loyal consumers, and therefore more profits. When they can create more profits by inflaming the rhetoric, the media is going to inflame the rhetoric until we have a conflagration on our hands.

It took me so long to realize this for the same historical reason that the media has been able to amass all this influence in the first place. The reality is - we all tend to trust our media sources. We may not trust all media, but most of us trust our chosen source of information.

So we trust, they spin, we get outraged, we thank them for keeping us aware of the threat, the division among the various parts of the populace grows, the hate swells. Then, of course, we turn to our trusted chosen media source, not only for information but also for validation… and the cycle of disinformation continues.

Orwell’s Ministry of Truth had nothing on these guys.


- Gryphem
- - - - - -

Postscript:

Apparently my original post led some to believe that I am endorsing government intervention into the media. Let me clarify.

• In the first place, for all our shortcomings, I still believe in constitutional government. That means freedom of speech. We the viewers/readers/listeners must exercise GOOD JUDGMENT and DISCRETION in order to prevent ourselves from being manipulated - Not turn to ‘Big Brother’ to arbitrate. Note the literary allusion to Orwell’s 1984 at the end of the original post.

• In the second place, the only thing that might make this worse would be for the government to involve itself in the situation. If that were to happen, we would soon see hatemongering for profit replaced with hatemongering for political purposes. I fear that might be even worse.

- Gryphem

“I Believe”

This poem was submitted by Josie, I suspect for Ben and the author of the previous "How am I?" post.   Thank you.   - Gryphem
- - - - -

“I Believe”  by poet Chelsea Jean

I believe in the sun

Even when it's not shining

I believe in stars
Even when the dark's not mighty

I believe in beauty
Even when it's concealed inside

I believe in us
Even when your not by my side

I believe in life
Even when the shadow of death
Draws near

I believe in hope
Even when there's not much there

I belive in me
Even when I'm quiet

I believe in God
Even when he's silent


          #          #          #

How am I doing today?

A guest post by my friend Ben, although he states that he is not the original author. 
- Gryphem
- - - - - - - - - -

How am I, you ask?
Well, to tell the truth, I think I’d rather just die.
Cease to exist. Reach the end.  Be done.
Be no more. Out of here and out of everywhere, altogether.

My life is becoming intolerable.
Death of relationship. Failure in my face. Nothing I can do about it.
Aging. Out of shape. Too lazy or tired or stressed to fix it.
Meaningless job. Extreme boredom.
They are kind to me, but I know that I do not fit, or matter.
Fear of change; fear of staying the same.
So many things to do. So many demands on me. 100 little jobs.
I can’t find my purpose.
Can’t seem to fix serious problems for others.
Can’t seem to rediscover real prosperity myself.
So much stuff. So many responsibilities. Not enough time to fix problems.

Too much failure every day. I fail people all the time. I want to do it all but I can’t.
My failures are on display. I feel ashamed that I haven’t done better.
Love is real, but intimacy is difficult.
I try. I really do try to do right for everyone. My best efforts are not enough.
I am tired.
As you might guess, optimism is dying in me.
Hope is fading that it will ever be right.
I need to hear once more the voice of God, telling me it will all be right, someday.



"Despair" by Alex 'Boti' Fernandez


While I live, people turn to me. They need me. I have a responsibility to them.
People need me to do and be for them.
I must give them what help and comfort I can.
I cannot, will not, abandon the people I care for. For their sakes, I continue.
I will help and support them. I will not leave them. I Do Love Them.

Maybe THEY are my Purpose.
I will stay for them, and try to do my best, even though I do not feel like it.

I do have love in my life. She loves me, unconditionally.
Hang onto that...
Energize faith...
Believe even when it seems futile. Believe beyond hope.
Believe by an act of will. Believe through the hurt.

Oh, thank you for asking.
I think, maybe, tomorrow will be better.

It’s Time to Come Home (Part TWO)

[This article is presented in two parts; this is the second. Part ONE was posted Friday. It would be best to read the two parts in order.   Thanks for reading.   –Gryphem]

“It’s Time to Come Home” (Part TWO)

WHAT WE NEED TO DO 

Just like we accept our inability to manipulate the world of the 22nd century, we must accept our inability to change radically some distant branches of our human family. We should think long and hard about trying to impose change on societies or nations (1) to whom we are only distantly related culturally, (2) with whom we do not share strong bonds based upon geography, economy, or common history, and (3) who are not committed to the effort themselves.

We should realize that sometimes other cultures function as they do because that is how the people of those cultures have chosen. We should admit that there are admirable qualities in many different exotic cultures, and that we might even find some ethical role models among them. To believe that everyone should be like us is xenophobic, arrogant, and closed-minded. Our American and Enlightenment cultures are admirable, yet we must admit that we still might have a thing or two to learn. We must admit that our way is not the only valid way to build a society.

We need a good strong dose of humility. In the absence of oppression, we should extend to other nations and cultures the same respect we expect from them.

We can uphold universal values such as the sanctity of human life and at the same time affirm that differences which are not ethical in nature are a matter of tradition and choice. There are undoubtedly situations in which we should intervene in an unjust or morally repugnant situation, but we are far too quick to disparage any culture that is different even when the differences are benign. To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, not every cultural difference is a matter of principle.

For the present, we need to step back and stop trying to do for the Afghan people what they, collectively, do not want us to do. It is consuming our increasingly scarce resources and dividing our people. It is of questionable ethical justification, and perhaps not very effective anyway. Besides, we need our resources to be available to counter other more immediate threats. And we need a break. We ourselves need time to recover and heal.

I do not mean that we should disengage from the world. We know from experience that isolationism does not work. We should converse with all peoples and nations. We should travel abroad, do business abroad, share our values and our best practices in all areas of public life, suggest things others might do to enhance the quality of life for their people. We should be open to learn from others, and stay engaged in a two-way dialogue.

I do not suggest we become isolationists. I do propose that we move away from foreign intervention, refocus our energy and effort on our own situation rather than on other people in other places. I do suggest that we stop overtly trying to change other cultures (1) on a large, unsustainable scale, (2) in places which are not in our sphere of influence, (3) among people who are culturally distinct from us, and who do not share our history or values.

I categorically affirm the right to self-defense, a right which is always valid, whether defense of our own nation or defense of vulnerable others. If we recognize a valid need to engage in a far-away and culturally distant part of the world in order to protect our nation or our vital national interests, then so be it. The right to self-defense justifies striking back when attacked. It justifies removing the enemy’s ability to do us harm.

We must remain prepared to defend innocent life in cases in which a moral imperative is obvious. The Holocaust comes to mind. We must maintain avenues of individual assistance and immigration.

Self-defense does not justify genocide. Self-defense does not justify the unnatural transformation of a culture against the will of persons who are not partisans, even though they may share geographic or ethnic or cultural characteristics of our enemies.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom, and we must always be on guard to preserve our liberty and security. This does not imply that self-defense justifies endless military engagement.

I do not believe we should attempt to remake other portions of the world in our own image. Especially we should not do so by means of military force. Truth, justice, and compassion must be practiced, demonstrated, and modeled. But those values will ring hollow if they are imposed on a people forcibly by a foreign power.

We, the United States and NATO, should begin now to withdraw our military forces from Afghanistan. It is both geographically distant and beyond our cultural sphere. We should be careful not to withdraw too suddenly, because pulling out too suddenly when successor authorities are not yet strong enough might undo what good we have accomplished. It might create an opening for anarchists or tyrants. But we should begin the process.

At some time in the future, if the Afghan people find themselves inspired by their memories or observations of our open society and our respect for human rights, then they may undertake to reform their nation and culture. If and when that happens, we should help them to the best of our ability. But until that happens, we are meddling where the indigenous people do not really want us, and we are wasting our time and energy in the process.

If a certain nation which shares many of our values, a nation which is geographically and historically closer to the Afghans, should choose to get involved, then we might consider supporting the efforts of that nation morally, politically, and in other ways. But, with appropriate humility, we should withdraw.

Once we have pulled out of the combat zones, we need to: (1) Regroup, cut costs, and recover psychologically and fiscally from a decade of war. One benefit of a pullout will be a reduction of the impact of continual violence on our collective psyche. We need to think of PEACE instead of war for a while.  (2) Redirect the efforts of our military toward the threat at our doorstep. We should assist Mexico with the incipient insurgency it faces in the form of drug cartels. This would NOT be an action against the nation of Mexico, our neighbor and ally. It should be a cooperative effort with a neighbor to solve a problem we share here in our North American home. The goal of helping Mexico fight the drug lords and cartels should not be eradication of illicit drugs, but eradication of violence and criminal influences that threaten to undermine and corrupt our two nations.  (3) Rebuild neglected relationships with our allies, those with whom we share close cultural or historic ties, and our geographic neighbors.

CONCLUSIONS

Our idealistic attempts to right all wrongs may be noble in intent, but our efforts are ultimately impractical and doomed to fail. Hopeful optimism, grounded in reality and patience, should replace naïve utopian ambitions.

We are overextended, emotionally weary, becoming poorer by the day, and stressed. Reassessing our commitments, priorities, and methods of dealing with adversity overseas will begin to repair some of these problems.

One definition of stress is being responsible for things over which we have no control. If we reexamine our objectives, reassess our priorities, accept our limitations, and modify our behavior accordingly, we will reduce our collective level of stress. We will become saner, happier people. We will undercut the criticism (however unjustified) of those who malign our motives and cry “imperialist.” At the same time we will improve our financial situation.

We should continue to be committed to doing the right thing for our fellow human beings. We should continue to extend a helping hand in response to injustices and disasters whenever and wherever doing so will solve problems and increase the greater good. But we have no warrant or responsibility to remake entire societies, no responsibility to reform the ethical priorities of the entire human race. 

When innocents are oppressed, we may find a moral justification to act, but we should only do so if we can honestly expect to make a positive difference. Oppression which provokes warfare but does not end the oppression makes the situation worse, not better.

When a group is apart from our American and Enlightenment traditions of human rights and liberty, and when that group is committed to maintaining that distinction, then we are not obliged to change their minds or to force them to comply with our values.

When a culture is opposed to our intervention, actively or passively, we must realize that we will not be able to change their ancient and ingrained ways any more than we can control their weather.

We do not need to force our ways on others. If our ways and values are as attractive as historical precedent demonstrates, then ultimately many others will adopt human rights reforms voluntarily. People have been flocking to America for centuries because we represent to the world freedom, dignity, and opportunity. For the past 50 years, they have been flocking to many nations of Western Europe for the same reasons. If we believe in our free society and our commitment to human rights, then we should also have faith that others will ultimately choose, of their own accord, to adopt similar values and standards.

No approach can ever prevent us from taking military action when necessary in the defense of our own national interests. We reserve the inalienable right to take whatever action necessary to preserve our own freedom and security. With this in mind though, our situation will be improved by reducing involvement in places where our presence is not really appreciated.

We can offer our hand in friendship to all who wish to join us, without using coercion to spread our ideals. We can encourage others to affirm human dignity, create justice, improve standards of living, and live in accordance with the ethics of human rights. In common cause with all who show interest in our system of government, with all who demonstrate appreciation for our values, we can continue to work together cooperatively for the greater good of all.
- - - - - - - - - -

So what should we do about Libya now? That is a difficult decision which will require a great deal of wisdom. Military action may be necessary in the short term to prevent another episode of genocide.

Given the demands for freedom echoing throughout the Arab world over these past months, though, the prospects are encouraging. But this much is certain. We should not allow Libya to become another nation-building exercise for the United States. Our resources are too far spent, and the job can be better done by the Libyan people and their neighbors from the Middle East and the Mediterranean region.

Certainly we should continue to help the Libyan people in their quest for justice, liberty, and human rights. However, once the immediate crisis is resolved our assistance in a military capacity should end. We should continue to help in the role of cooperating equals, allies, supporters in common cause. This approach will be best for Libya, best for the United States, and best for all concerned.
- - - - - - - - - -

ONE FINAL COMMENT…

I fully understand the controversial nature of my conclusions. I fully understand the claim of many honest people that leaving Afghanistan now would be a betrayal of trust, that once we depart it will only be a matter of time until the violent, immoral forces of the Taliban make rivers of innocent blood run in the streets. I cannot argue. There would likely be pain, oppression, abuse, and killing. I have difficulty saying that we should withdraw for these very reasons. Yet when I am able to put aside my emotional reactions, these comments represent my best judgment about what we should do. Of course, I could be wrong. You’ll have to make up your own mind about that.

Gryphem

It’s Time to Come Home (Part ONE)

These comments were written with an eye on Afghanistan. Given the events of this week in Libya, and the sudden potential for a new long-term entanglement there, they take on new significance. 

When I use the words “we” and “our” in this post, I am referring sometimes to the United States, sometimes to all the people and nations of Western Civilization, sometimes to all the “Children of the Enlightenment” throughout the world.

‘Bottom Line Up Front’ – Except in defense of the innocent against atrocities, we should not force change on other cultures which are not willing to change. We are financially and emotionally weary from a decade of war. We need to pull back, reevaluate, and take time to heal.

[This article is presented in two parts; this is the first. Thank you for reading. –Gryphem]
- - - - - - - - - -

“It’s Time to Come Home” (Part ONE)

OUR LIMITATIONS

We cannot guarantee that our great-grandchildren will live in a better world. Removed from them in time, we cannot control the actions of our descendants. We cannot ensure that the world of the future a century hence will be prosperous or just.

Likewise, we cannot control the experience or environment of those who exist outside our realm in other ways. Some of those with whom we share this planet today are far removed from us by distance, or by cultural values and traditions. The social and philosophical frameworks by which they comprehend reality are utterly different from our own. For these, our distant human brothers and sisters of the year 2011, we can no more guarantee a good and just society than we can for our distant descendants of the 22nd century.

Here are a few essential beliefs that we live by.
       • All human beings are of value, and have certain rights.
       • All human beings share similar hopes, fears, abilities and aspirations.
       • We are all connected. All human beings are, at some level, children of a common family. We are all cousins.
       • We do not have the ability to correct all the problems of all the troubled societies of the world.

Those of us who live in nations that are prosperous and free do have a certain ability to influence, perhaps even a responsibility to improve, the bigger world beyond our borders. But we need to realize our limitations. We do not have either the understanding or the resources to fix all the problems of humanity. We may be persons of goodwill, yet we are human beings nonetheless. We are not gods. Our nations may be more prosperous, our governments more libertarian, our cultures morally superior to others.* Even so, it is unreasonable for us to attempt to control things which we have no right or ability to control, no matter how much we want to help.
[* Not all cultures are morally equivalent. For a defense of this statement see the Gryphem post of November 29, 2010 entitled, “All Cultures Are Not Created Equal.”]


THE PRESENT SITUATION

At present, the United States and the NATO Alliance are pursuing a noble cause in Afghanistan. Some might argue that the motives are not noble, but whether we choose to believe the best or the worst of ourselves is largely irrelevant. It is irrelevant because no matter how high (or low) our motives, no matter how powerful our military, whether or not we have the right to do so, the United States and NATO do not have the ability to radically change the people and cultures of Afghanistan.

The problem is that we are attempting to impose our enlightenment values on people who find those values utterly foreign. The people of Afghanistan are not invested in the process. Many do not share the goal of a free society; many do not value human rights. If they did aspire to these things, the story might have a different ending. That appears to be the way the story will end in Iraq, which shares more cultural history with Western Civilization than Afghanistan does. In Afghanistan we are battling on behalf of a population that does not share our values or even our goals. That is not to say that most Afghans want a return to the times of oppression under the Taliban. They do not. But it does not matter that most Afghan people do not support the Taliban… because they do not support us, either. It does not matter that we mean well. It does not matter that we are militarily powerful. It does not matter how much we wish it were otherwise.

A few of the Afghan people do understand human rights, liberty, and the potential for a better life. But they are a minority. We do have the ability, with extreme effort and expense, to produce small changes. But the essential character and motivations of this region, so different from our own, are ultimately in the hands of the Afghan people, not us. We can create minor changes if we exert major effort. We can change the lives of individuals, but not transform entire cultures. We can influence… but in the end the people of Afghanistan are going to create their own reality and their own society, based on their own vision of how it should be.

Meanwhile, we are overextended. We have been overextended for many years. Our military is incurring long term degradation of mission capabilities. Essential training and maintenance, especially in the sea services, has been put on hold while we fight two land wars. The land forces are being exhausted by recurring deployments to war zones. Reserve Forces have been employed routinely as a normal part of the operating force composition to such an extent that we no longer have much military capability actually held in reserve. It’s all being used, and depleted.

Now consider the financial situation.  Our nation once was the world’s greatest creditor. In the past couple of decades we have become one of the world’s greatest debtor nations. This development is not solely because of military spending, but the expense of ongoing wars has certainly contributed to our economic decline. In a world in which economic factors can be as significant to national security as diplomatic or military factors, our overspending makes our nation less secure.

The American public is tired of constant war, even if it is far away. Children in middle school have no memory of a time when we were not fighting a war in Afghanistan. We have financial troubles that are made far worse by warfare.

We are obliged, if we are able, to defend the innocent, to aid the victim, to extend compassion and justice as far as we can. But it is neurotic for us to think that we can overcome all the evils of the world. We are not that powerful.

For ourselves, to the extent that we are able, we need to end the warfare.


UNACCEPTABLE ALTERNATIVES

Some readers are thinking that we really do have the ability to change Afghan society, if only we tried hard enough. In one sense, they are correct. We have the ability to utterly destroy.

If we decide we value victory more than we value human life, if we are willing to forsake our own values in order to win, then yes, we have the military ability to eradicate Afghan culture by killing most of the Afghan people and utterly intimidating the rest. Then we could create a new society in the rubble.

In centuries past we did that with Africans who were taken from their homes and brought into a slaveholding society. We did that with Native Americans when we eradicated many of them and forced most of those who survived onto reservations. Of course, few would argue that slavery or the Indian Wars were morally defensible.

We did something like that with Japan after World War II. The post-war occupation of Japan was the ultimate way to neutralize a nation which had been a threat and held the promise of becoming a threat again, in time. As an ongoing response to the unprovoked attack by Japan on the United States, the occupation had an element of moral defensibility. We remained true to our values in that case by staying out of most aspects of traditional Japanese culture and focusing our reform efforts on government and economy.

Some readers are thinking that we now have a moral obligation to Afghanistan, that it would be wrong for us to turn away from a people, nation, culture, who need our help to end oppression and avert a human rights catastrophe. It is true that when we remove ourselves from the Afghan situation, we should do so carefully, gradually, in order to minimize the chaos that is likely to follow. It is true that we should evacuate some individuals and families who would be targeted by enemies for their former support of our efforts.

As we withdraw, we should take every reasonable precaution to prevent chaos and injustice.  We will grieve for the inevitable tragedies that evil people will create for their fellow human beings. Those tragedies will happen because other people with other values will decide that is how they want their society to be.


THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS

Here is an opt-forgotten fact.  The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are ‘Wars of Choice.’ That means that our national survival is not at stake. That means that we have the option to end them.

Some say that the war in Afghanistan is a war against Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization behind the attacks of September 2001, which has as one of its stated goals the destruction of the United States. True enough. That is why our Afghan involvement began, and countering terrorism is still a consideration. We must balance expenditure of effort, energy, and wealth against the return we achieve. We must include in the calculation the ongoing damage we may be doing to our national psyche.

For nearly a decade we have contained, but not destroyed Al Qaeda. Here are some hard questions we need to bring to the light of day. How long are we willing to maintain our forces in Afghanistan to contain Al Qaeda? How much effort are we willing to give? How many American casualties are we willing to accept? How much more damage are we willing to accept to our image among the community of nations, and to our own self-image as we continue to fight a war that might not be necessary? How much are we willing to increase our budget deficit to keep boots on the ground in Kabul, Kandahar, and the Afghan outback? Is perpetual warfare justified? What are the other alternatives?

The unspoken secret is this: There ARE alternatives. There are alternatives that will continue to check Al Qaeda and keep us safe. We do not have to keep doing the same thing in the same way just because that’s how we’ve been doing it. We need an honest national dialogue to answer these questions: (1) What are we accomplishing in Afghanistan? (2) Is there some way we can end combat operations there and accomplish the same or better results?

It is important that we not waste our effort and resources in futile attempts to change far-away and exotic societies who don’t really want to do things our way anyhow. If we spend our effort and our resources in futile attempts, we reduce the amount of effort and resources we have available to do real and lasting good… and we can do real and lasting good in places that are closer, to whom we are more culturally connected, who are more willing to partner with us in the effort. That is where our efforts will do the most good. But only if we return home, regroup, and refocus.
- - - - - - - - - -










[To Be Continued…]

Raising the Threat Level

The following is not original, but I found it entertaining. Sometimes a little humor is good for your disposition and your heart.

Let me say in advance that I have the utmost respect for all our NATO and ANZUS Allies, including the French, who regularly get worse than they deserve. Incidentally, I am particularly proud of the comments about my Scottish kinsmen.

All in good fun, gentlemen and ladies. So smile.
- - - - - - - - - -

Nations around the world are raising their national Threat Level in response to international unrest.

The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved."

Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from "Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued "A Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when they were threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are "Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to "Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides."

The Germans have increased their alert state from "Disdainful Arrogance" to "Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs." They also have two higher levels: "Invade a Neighbor" and "Lose."

Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual. The only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the B*****ds." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years.


The Spanish are excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.

In the Pacific, New Zealand has raised its security level from "baa" to "BAAAA!" New Zealand has only one more level, which is "I hope Australia will come and rescue us."

Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to "She'll be right, mate". Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey!” and "We may need to cancel the barbie this weekend." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final level.
- - - - - - - - - -

Gryphem


[With appreciation to www.scotster.com and www.singletrackworld.com.]

Thomas Sowell

Today I present some quotations from the wisest man I never heard of until this week. I don’t know how I missed Thomas Sowell before, but I consider this post to be the first step toward correcting my indefensible oversight.

Thomas Sowell remains an astute commentator on the national scene at age 80. His website can be found at www.tsowell.com. Some quotes:

• "The most basic question is not what is best, but who shall decide what is best."

• "It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."

• "What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don’t like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don’t expect freedom to survive very long."

• "Many bad policies are simply good policies taken too far. For example, we have taken tolerance to such an extreme that we tolerate the immigration into our country of millions of intolerant people who hate millions of Americans who are already here."

• "If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."

• "One of the most fashionable notions of our times is that social problems like poverty and oppression breed wars. Most wars, however, are started by well-fed people with time on their hands to dream up half-baked ideologies or grandiose ambitions, and to nurse real or imagined grievances."

• "Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late."

• "The problem isn't that Johnny can't read. The problem isn't even that Johnny can't think. The problem is that Johnny doesn't know what thinking is; he confuses it with feeling."

• "If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today."

• "For bureaucrats procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing."

• "The march of science and technology does not imply growing intellectual complexity in the lives of most people. It often means the opposite."

• "Anyone who is serious about extending the same benefits to others must become serious about developing the same abilities in others—that is, raising them up to the same standards, not bringing the standards down to them."

• "Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good."


It is my hope that sharing these quotes will inspire thought and conversation among people of good will about our situation, the future of our nation, and our American values.

Gryphem