Random Thoughts
Opinion Editorial by Thomas Sowell -
Jul 29, 2008
30 ratings from readers
Are radical feminists overlooking something important about men? Does Barack Obama represent change we can finally believe in? And what does the word "glass" in "glass ceiling" really mean, anyway?
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Government bailouts are like potato
chips: You can’t stop with just one.
Anyone who is honest with himself and
with others knows that there is not a snow ball’s chance in hell to
have an honest dialogue about race.
I wonder what radical feminists make of
the fact that it was men who created the rule of “women and
children first” when it came to rescuing people from
life-threatening emergencies.
Barack Obama’s
motto “Change you can believe in” has acquired a new meaning —
changing his positions is the only thing you can believe in. His
campaign began with a huge change in the image he projects, compared
to what he was doing for 20 years before.
Despite the New York Yankees’ awesome
record over the years, no one has ever made 3,000 hits in his career
as a Yankee, nor has any pitcher ever had 300 lifetime victories with
the Yankees. Despite their well-deserved reputation as “the Bronx
Bombers,” there is only one Yankee among the top ten career homerun
hitters.
After getting DVDs of old “Perry
Mason” TV programs and old “Law & Order” programs, I found
myself watching far more of the “Perry Mason” series. The
difference is that too many “Law & Order” programs tried to
raise my consciousness on social issues, as if that is their role or
their competence.
What is amazing this year is how many
people have bought the fundamentally childish notion that, if you
don’t like the way things are going, the answer is to write a blank
check for generic “change,” empowering someone chosen not on the
basis of any track record but on the basis of his skill with words.
With all the big-name entertainers who
have put on shows in prisons, why have so few put on shows for our
troops in Iraq?
To me, the phrase “glass ceiling”
is an insult to my intelligence. What does the word “glass” mean,
in this context, except that you can’t see it? Yet I am supposed to
believe it without evidence because, otherwise, I will be considered
a bad person and called names.
When New York Times writer Linda
Greenhouse recently declared the 1987 confirmation hearings for Judge
Robert Bork “both fair and profound,” it was as close to a
declaration of moral bankruptcy as possible. Those hearings were a
triumph of character assassination by politicians with no character
of their own. The country is still paying the price, as potential
judicial nominees decline to be nominated and then smeared on
nationwide television.
Some of the most emotionally powerful
words are undefined, such as “social justice,” “a living wage,”
“price gouging” or a “fragile” environment, for example. Such
terms are especially valuable to politicians during an election year,
for these terms can attract the votes of people who mean very
different — and even mutually contradictory — things when they
use these words.
It may not be possible to have machines
call balls and strikes in baseball, since the vertical strike zone
depends on the height of each batter. But a machine can tell whether
any part of the ball passed over any part of the plate, so that
umpires won’t be able to call their own “wide strikes” any
more.
It is hard to get the supporters of
Barack Obama to give a coherent reason for their support. The basis
for their support seems to be guilt, gullibility or — in the case
of some conservatives — a hatred of John McCain.
It is heart-warming to see the Williams
sisters maturing as people. They made tennis history from the
beginning but they had a lot to learn about human relations — and
now they seem to have learned it.
How many in the media have expressed
half as much outrage about the beheading of innocent people by
terrorists in Iraq as they have about the captured terrorists held at
Guantanamo not being treated as nicely as they think they should be?
Although most of the mainstream media
are still swooning over Barack Obama, a few critics are calling the
things he advocates “naive.” But that assumes that he is trying
to solve the country’s problems. If he is trying to solve his own
problem of getting elected, then he is telling the voters just what
they want to hear. That is not naive but shrewd and cynical.
Thomas Sowell is a Senior Fellow at The Hoover Institution at Stanford University in California. He has published dozens of books on economics, education, race, and other topics. His most recent book is Economic Facts and Fallacies, published in December 2007.