Posted on 01/20/2014 9:14:46 AM PST by jazusamo
Someone summarized Barack Obama in three words — "educated," "smart" and "ignorant." Unfortunately, those same three words would describe all too many of the people who come out of our most prestigious colleges and universities today.
President Obama seems completely unaware of how many of the policies he is trying to impose have been tried before, in many times and places around the world, and have failed time and again. Economic equality? That was tried in the 19th century, in communities set up by Robert Owen, the man who coined the term "socialism." Those communities all collapsed.
It was tried even earlier, in 18th century Georgia, when that was a British colony. People in Georgia ended up fleeing to other colonies, as many other people would vote with their feet in the 20th century, by fleeing many other societies around the world that were established in the name of economic equality.
But who reads history these days? Moreover, those parts of history that would undermine the vision of the left — which prevails in our education system from elementary school to postgraduate study — are not likely to get much attention.
The net results are bright people, with impressive degrees, who have been told for years how brilliant they are, but who are often ignorant of facts that might cause them to question what they have been indoctrinated with in schools and colleges.
Recently Kirsten Powers repeated on Fox News Channel the discredited claim that women are paid only about three-quarters of what a man is paid for doing the same work.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Liberals simply duplicate failure throughout history.
I hate these “print” versions. How about just taking money directly out of Thomas Sowell’s pocket?
I see you’re still on that kick, give it up.
Thanks for the ping to another great column by Thomas Sowell
Hiya, Kas, you’re most welcome.
Don't tell jaz where to post from
Gonna have to disagree with Sowell on this one. I’d say that Obama, like most educated liberals, is well aware of socialism’s record of failure. The problem is that it’s irrelevant to them. Socialism gets its hooks into people too deeply for mere historical fact to change their minds.
You’re probably right. Every socialist/liberal I have ever confronted with the factual evidence of socialism’s failure simply replies that it hasn’t been tried “hard enough” or “long enough”. They seem to think that if they can just milk a little more money out of the makers’ pockets and give it to the takers, there will be a tipping point reached where socialism will simply come into being and everyone will live in a socialist utopia. That a “few” eggs get broken along the way (makers destroyed), well, that’s just the price “we” pay for the socialist revolution. Of course, when challenged to walk the talk (i.e., give me all your money right now as a gesture of good faith and walking the talk), they usually spit and splutter something about racism and homophobia.
What’s important is how the partial
picture make you “feel.”
This is a carefully planted desire
from the first years of government
education:
Feelings first; then end the investigation
and move on.
Empirical studies that follow income brackets over time repeatedly reach opposite conclusions from studies that follow individuals. But people in the media, in politics and even in academia, cite statistics about income brackets as if they are discussing what happens to actual human beings over time.Basically, Sowell’s message is that the bottom quintile of the income distribution is loaded with young people just starting out. And in any given year, more than a few of the people who were in the top quintile the prior year weren’t there the previous year - and won’t be there the following year, either.
Reality is neither liberal or conservative, it just is. But I've found out over the years that the people with the closest relation to reality happen to be conservatives.
Well stated, cIc.
Reality is neither liberal or conservative, it just is. But I've found out over the years that the people with the closest relation to reality happen to be conservatives.
It’s not that reality has a “liberal" bias, it is the way that “liberals” perceive the world that has a “liberal” bias.”Liberals” perceive the world through the sampling system of wire service journalism - which in turn is biased against “the man in the arena” because journalists are natural critics:Journalists are heavily biased by their inherent tendency to promote themselves at the expense of the people who take responsibility to actually get things done, and they are biased by their insulation from the public:
- From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
- There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (Book I, Ch 10)Because the AP newswire is a continuous virtual meeting of people of the trade of journalism, journalists default into a go-along-and-get-along mode in their relations with each other - at the expense of “the man in the arena,” and of the public which depends upon “the man in the arena” to get things done for the public.
Journalists claim that all journalists are objective - but it is an arrogant claim of the sort that disgraced the ancient Greek Sophists, and made “sophistry” a term of derogation. Its intent and effect is to censor opposition to journalism’s cynical criticism.Still, it is prudent to cut people - and cut ourselves - a little slack. After all,
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments
The biggest fault in liberal thinking is what I believe is their failure to understand that most people fail on their own volition, and that some people will win and some will lose. Libs always want to believe people fail because “the system” or some other impersonal force is against the losers. Basically, most failures fail because they’re losers. Many lib efforts/programs try to make losers succeed by punishing the winners. The losers continue to lose, but that doesn’t stop libs from beating their heads against a rock trying to equalize things.
Calm down. The print version is still a click on the website, just to a version of the page with graphics removed. It's an old tradition on FR from the days when few of us had high-speed Internet connections.
The good Doctor [or the website] isn't suffering for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
