Saturday, April 05, 2008

He's at it again

In a previous critique of columns by Thomas Sowell, I spoke of his role as apologist for the War Party, and of his put down of young Americans who refuse to do their “duty” by offering up their lives for the useless wars concocted by the special interests who have usurped the federal government.

Now here is the erudite scholar turned warmonger complaining about the media's failure to give us the Iraq story that we ought to be seeing on television. Why aren't they showing what “heroes” our soldiers are through the actions they engage in every day?, he demands to know. And why are they displaying all those “pictures of badly wounded and disfigured military veterans?” Why didn't they report on the incident where a soldier fell on a grenade to protect his buddies, “smothering the fatal blast with his body, so that those around him might live when he died.” Sowell laments that this story “never made the front cover of Newsweek.”

Well, now, wise Dr. Sowell, what would you make of the following scenario? Two men break into a neighbor's home while he is away, with the intent of taking his stuff. Unexpectedly, the neighbor shows up, armed with a shotgun, which he points at one of the invaders. The second invader throws himself between the shot and his friend. I would say that was a brave, courageous act. Individual acts of courage can happen anywhere, and giving over your life for another, no matter the circumstances, is, indeed, an act of bravery.

But do you mind, Dr. Sowell, if we ask what the hell those two invaders were doing in that man's home in the first place? Who asked for their acts of bravery? Who needed those “courageous” actions? Why not have our soldiers engage in heroics right here at home, like on the borders of California and Arizona? Rightwing apologists like Sowell would like to change the subject from one of questioning U.S. policy of intervening where we don't belong, to one of “bravery, honor and loyalty” of the poor men who must carry out these ill-contrived missions.

The perceptive Sowell believes that the media is “filtering and spinning” the news. He doesn't like the idea of networks “parading casualties.” Can you beat that? It's all right that these unfortunate young men, some of whom will never see their 21st birthdays, are used as tools who disappear from earth, acknowledged and mourned only by their few relatives and friends. The country at large should not be subjected to the fact of their deaths, and most important, they must not become an embarrassment to the administration in Washington.

According to Sowell, the media's use of such terms as “honoring the dead” is “part of the general corruption of language for political purposes.” Honoring the dead? And this is the man who taught us so much about how the leftwing manipulates society and plays with our heads through the use of politically correct terminology.

Apparently, only stories about soldiers who throw themselves on grenades should be broadcast to the world. However, the media should remain mute about their comrades, who are regularly blown apart by IEDs. After all, there's no grandstanding that can be done with those run-of-the-mill stories.

The demonstration of contempt for all these lost lives is palpable among these rightwing partisans, who sometimes sound deranged. Maybe it's time for Sowell to leave his keyboard and take his big derriere off to Iraq, to do battle. Surely, the military can make a special dispensation for age for this intrepid warrior.


Anonymous said...


Your dissection of Sowell is spot on. I think his rationale goes like this: The Civil Rights movement either went too far or was wrong from the start. The Civil Rights movement was anti-war. Therefore, in order to reject the Civil Rights Movement I have to become pro-war.

Does it ever occur to him that:

1) Left-wing black (and whites) weren't really anti-war in principle. They just rode the anti-war wave into power. Evidence of this is their apologies for Clinton's interventions.

2) Can on be anti-Civil Rights and anti-war?

3) Is it possible that things are worse in Iraq that the "liberal" media is telling us?

4) Why did the "liberal" media support the war in the first place?

5) Don't you know that conservatives, libertarians and some liberals opposed the run up to WWII and it was FDR that maneuvered the Japanese into attacking?

I think that he doesn't ask himself these questions because he likes his place in the Establishment.

Elizabeth Wright said...

Yes, I've often wondered how the scholarly Sowell handles the details of the Roosevelt administration's trickery in getting this country involved in WWII. He must be well aware of these facts, but chooses to dismiss them as "revisionism" -- as if history isn't about making revisions as we acquire more data. History is always being revised.

Anonymous said...

I sometimes think some of my fellow libertarians are in a way racist when it comes to individuals like Sowell and Williams. They must feel that because these men are called Uncle Toms by some on the Left, it is somehow wrong to criticize them. While I do believe that Uncle Toms exist (on the "left" and the "right"). I don't believe these gentlemen are. I just think they are neocons and should be referred to as such.