But that was mild. It is not obvious that having a Chicago Ph.D. in economics qualifies one specially to opine about Trayvon Martin (heck, it isn't even obvious that it specially qualifies one to opine about economics, but that's a topic for another day), but Sowell did anyway.
Wonkette's Alex Ruthrauff provided a funny takedown. Nut sentence:
Thomas Sowell earns a good living by expounding silly, unsupportable, poorly conceived “ideas” that appeal to lunatic right-wingers and make everyone else’s heads explode.America, land of opportunity.
Yes, Sowell is least respected from left-wingers and Krugman is least respected from right-wingers.
ReplyDeleteOk, now that I've read Sowell's article, which part is untrue?
ReplyDeleteAll of it. As Wonkette pointed out, the allegation that the government paid agitators to agitate is a lie, and the charge that the Obama administration is lawless is just rightwing craziness.
ReplyDeleteBut, hey, anybody can repeat phony internet memes. Doing so is a fast way to be unrespected, though.
OK, I'll give you this one. It does look like the meme started by judicialwatch and repeated by instapundit, sowell, and others is on (at best) shaky ground and may well be a total fabrication by judicialwatch.
ReplyDeleteBut Sowell's main claim is that there was lack of serious evidence that Zimmerman broke the law. Given that he was acquitted, that's likely correct. Ruthrauff's snark about a dead man, gun, and confession purposely paint a misleading picture - another "fast way to be unrespected," except of course by those who want to agree for ideological purposes.
Pretty much everyone who strongly wants gun control wanted Zimmerman reamed regardless of law or evidence, including the Obama administration. That's what Sowell means by lawless.
It's an evil law, passed for evil purposes.
ReplyDeleteLet's ask ourselves: who was acting suspiciously that night?
The kid walking home from the candy store, or the racist, armed nut sneaking around in the dark and the rain, looking to act as policeman, judge, jury and executioner for crimes never committed?
It is hardly a sign of lawlessness to want such a situation investigated and clarified. Which the racist local government was not interested in doing.
But it is the law. Period. Those who want to punish people outside the law are lawless. Period. You and the Obama administration are lawless. Period. You think that's a good thing because it's an "evil" law. Fine. But you're still lawless. Period. That's what Sowell is saying and it's absolutely correct.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean lawless? He got his day in court.
ReplyDeleteThe law in question is vicious and the verdict, while lawful, was immoral. Your and Sowell's complaints aew delusional. Zimmerman is free.
He should've never had to go to court. It was clear from the beginning that there was no case.
ReplyDeleteWe can only hope that it will not always be the law. I used to support people who broke the law, back in the civil rights drive.
ReplyDeleteI believe I probably broke it myself a few times.
People who complacently accept the verdict without questioning the situation are, I hope, on the downside of history. Vigilantism and reckless carrying of firearms are deplorable.
So is racism.
We can only hope that it will not always be the law. I used to support people who broke the law, back in the civil rights drive.
ReplyDeleteI believe I probably broke it myself a few times.
People who complacently accept the verdict without questioning the situation are, I hope, on the downside of history. Vigilantism and reckless carrying of firearms are deplorable.
So is racism.
Alex Ruthrauff's "takedown" is not even remotely funny. It serves only as a moronic rant to the witless and ignorant echo chamber that is Wonkette's readership. In contest between Ruthrauff and the commenters as to which is the most immune to inconvenient facts, well, it is a dead heat.
ReplyDeleteThe very worst that can be said of Sowell's article is that one sentence is factually incorrect. Fine. Strike it. The rest of the piece still stands. What Sowell didn't say, but easily could have, is that to the baying hounds of the MAL, evidence doesn't matter.
Let's ask ourselves: who was acting suspiciously that night?
The kid walking home from the candy store, or the racist, armed nut sneaking around in the dark and the rain, looking to act as policeman, judge, jury and executioner for crimes never committed?
Clearly, it doesn't matter to you, either, because everything preceding the question mark is demonstrably wrong.
The law in question is vicious … Presuming you mean the SYG law, you have gotten that completely wrong, as well.
But let's take some time to analyze just how vicious that law is, because you certainly haven't provided any basis for that conclusion. I'll take first hand experience as an example.
As you may recall, I was the target of a completely unprovoked attack and, if the situation had been slightly different could well have been severely beaten. Fortunately, in that instance, I was able to get away. But what if the circumstances had been slightly different — say there was enough crossing traffic to make running the red dangerous.
Now what?
Of course, I could have backed up — but the car door would have knocked him down. Conceivably, he could have suffered serious injuries, especially if his head hit the pavement. In England, without a SYG law (or even a Castle Doctrine) what would happen?
Let's say my wife was driving, and he started pounding her. Clearly, I could run away. In fact, according to your characterization of the SYG law, I would be obligated to.
How about another problem. Many states have Good Samaritan laws. Compare and contrast with SYG.
A source of continuing puzzlement to me is how reflexively the left sides with predators, which is precisely what your opposition to the SYG law amounts to.
(BTW, your review of "The Housing Boom and Bust" amounts to a self inflicted wound. Almost from the git-go you said … of course, lending to people with small incomes can be quite safe. Even mortgage lending to people who offer nothing down can be safe. Millions of GI Bill loans show that. as a means of deflecting criticism of the CRA. Which is singularly odd, far from supporting your preposterous position, the GI Bill instead completely contradicts it. No surprise you got it so wrong, since you haven't yet managed to take on board the completely inescapable knock-on effects of the CRA. No wonder I don't find your slanging of Dr. Sowell so unpersuasive.)
Well, Skipper, let's go back to that night, but suppose that one of your children is walking home.
ReplyDeleteIt's dark and rainy. Nobody much is around.
Who do you feel more uncomfortable having around: Martin or Zimmerman?
How was what I said wrong? Was Zimmerman not armed, delusional, looking for trouble? Was Martin armed, delusional, looking for trouble?
The question answers itself.
(I will wait for you to explain how countries without a CRA had exactly the same kinds of mortgage troubles as the US.)
... but suppose that one of your children is walking home.
ReplyDeleteThat means supposing that I would have allowed one of my children would have gone out at midnight to get some Skittles.
And, having given that already questionable supposition, that one of my children, instead of walking straight home, was walking in such a manner as to much more closely resemble loitering.
Of course, to keep your hypothetical in contact with reality, one of my children would also have to have considerable practice in mixed martial arts, had been expelled from a high school, and been caught with burglary tools and women's jewelry.
All of which you comprehensively failed to mention.
Yes, Zimmerman was armed. But he wasn't delusional, unless you are as willing to completely disregard the 12 home invasion burglaries as you are to neglect mentioning them. Moreover, you assertion that he was looking for trouble has also been rejected.
Here is where the irony meter kicks in. If you had been keeping up, you might have noticed Martin's girlfriend's appearance on Piers Morgan's show. In it, she mentioned that the proper understanding of "creepy ass cracker" is not "creepy-ass cracker", but rather "creepy ass-cracker".
In other words, it is well within the realm of possibility (and far closer to that realm than anything you have said) that Martin erroneously profiled Zimmerman as a cruising gay, and then pulled a Matthew Shephard on him.
In other words, in case you can't connect the dots, Martin was the perpetrator of a hate crime, and it was only because Zimmerman had a gun that he wasn't far more seriously injured.
In more other words, the gun had nothing to do with the sequence of events, only the outcome.
I will wait for you to explain how countries without a CRA had exactly the same kinds of mortgage troubles as the US.
When I am explaining the necessary consequences of the CRA in the US, I have absolutely no need to explain other country's mortgage problems.
What you have to explain is why the CRA did not require: a vast expansion of GSEs and the secondary market; bundling of mortgage backed securities; and, the hiding of high risk mortgages within those bundles.
Which is going to be a tough row to hoe, because those things are precisely what the CRA caused.