Uncommon Knowledge: Thomas Sowell on Dismantling America

"He talks about how dangerous Iran is but it's ok for us and for Israel to have them!!?"

- Israel and the United States do have nuclear weapons -- an indisputable fact. However, Iran is excusing itself from the entire debate by stating that it has nuclear plants in order to generate nuclear power.
Also, if groups such as al-Quaeda, Hamas (whose flag by the way, is now a mushroom cloud with a threat to the Jews written under it), Hezbollah, etc got their hands on WMD's, you're implying that this is just as dangerous as nations such as the United States having nuclear weapons? There's only one type of group right now in the world with the capabilities of obtaining nuclear weapons -- and detonating immediately when they obtain them -- Islamic fundamentalists.
*
You have a valid point on this. No doubt, any fundamentalist would pose a risk to the world. However, I’m sure you would agree that it’s near impossible to establish lasting peace with Iran when you have Israel who is not in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and refuses to officially confirm or deny having a nuclear arsenal, or having developed nuclear weapons, or even having a nuclear weapons program. Any neighboring country would certainly feel threatened by such stance. Any middle east country would also be resentful that Israel would reprimand them for having nuclear weapons when Israel imposes such double standard. No doubt, Israel has nuclear weapons that’s ok but as long as they do, it will only create tension and resentment in that region of the world.

"Sowell is certainly is able to see many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:"
- Please, step off your moral high horse. If you really do not concur with Sowell's analysis, then why don't you write a book rebutting and perhaps refuting his points of contention? Stop placing words in his mouth when at least evidently, you don't know anything near the capacity of he does.
In contemplating your comment, I suddenly realized that Sowell's take on things is not intended so much in seeking solutions to the many intractable problems we have in government, society, or education, rather, he is akin to diagnostician in being able to reveal the many dysfunctions of our institutions. So to expect him to have solutions would not be his expertise.

"In only 30min Kahane explains the underlying cause of human suffering and how difficult it is for us -as humans- to cultivate balance between Power and Love." - I find this quite hypocritical. First, you flame and heavily criticize Sowell for "[not having] a monopoly on the truth
........I said no one has a monopoly on the truth.........

and Sowell is certainly no exception" and "he can be just as biased as anyone else and more than we realize".
Who's to say that Kahane isn't biased and has a monopoly on the truth, like Sowell doesn't according to you? Don't criticize Sowell for his beliefs when your diatribes are applicable to any thinker, your favorites included.

You might want to read it again:

"In only 30min Kahane explains the underlying cause of human suffering and how difficult it is for us -as humans- to cultivate balance between Power and Love."
In Kahane's talk he said that power and love have, respectively, a generative and degenerative side; that love without power is weak and feeble while power without love is arrogant and repressive. Trying to balance both on an emotional and psychological level is difficult he said but essential if we are to move forward in life. You can see these polar opposite play out between Republican and Liberals, between husband and wife, boyfriend/girlfriend, and in world governments.

"Unlike Sowell, Kahane is seeking causes and it seems to me that Sowell, if he really cares should be doing the same by finding solutions to our political and social problems. Judging and criticizing only polarizes us (as Kahane describes so well in his story on the G-20 summit) and such behavior gets us nowhere."
- Again, you're entitled to your own opinion. However, like you do imply here, your analysis is not final and you shouldn't, again, like you've implied throughout your arguments, act like your analysis is worth more than anybody else's with no peer reviews.

Actually, you have just given me your comments and I sincerely appreciate them. You brought to my awareness the distinction between Sowell and Kanene hence to compare them would be unfair -my bad. Both authors have much to offer but in very different ways and degrees.

As for Sowell, I think he's quite correct about this "point of no return" -- take the scenario in the future if Hamas detonates an atomic bomb in Times Square -- utter wreckage of civilization, radiation seeping through towards proximate cities/states, etc. If you think by then we will be able to rebuild and reconcile our relations with Iran and such insurgent groups -- well, I'll leave that with you and the others who read this comment.

Sowell may be right about the "point of no return" but it implies that there is no solution; that this problem rest solely on Iran and the only way to deal with it is either more sanctions, war, and even preemptive strike. But we already know that these measures are ineffective and counterproductive.
Andrew Bacevich and Lawrence Wilkerson would agree. Both are exceptional military men, scholars, and devout Republicans and have insightful things to say about Iran. Should you ever listen to what they have to say about the fallacies -not only of Democrats but of their own party, you would be astonished. What Bacevicth and Wilkerson are to Democrats/Republicans is what a psychotherapist is to his client- neither wants to hear the truth about themselves. Bacevitch in particular, sees the Iranian threat quite differently than Sowell and the difference is that Bacevitch -I believe- is more objective since he has no qualms calling out his own party for the errors of the past -especially during the Bush administration. Being more on the Liberal side, and when I hear Bacevitch express his concerns as a conservative, there is nothing he said that I disagree with. He has given me more respect for what it means to be a conservative. I don't see him as being harshly judgmental towards anyone, rather, concerned about our country and our future in the same way a psychotherapist is concerned about the emotional well being of his/her clients.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionande...y-policy/6761/

Let me tell YOU Mr.Sowell about the elaborate ways of doing nothing:
1.Entering in a war in Afghanistan to get Al-Qaida and catch Binladin and ending up with murdering a nation, dragging the NATO to a 9 years-war with no exit plan, Al-qaida spread over three other countries & Binladen never caught.

2.Claming a connection between Binladen and Saddam and getting in another war to take the weapons form Alqaidas hand, a plan that ended up with INSTALLING Alqaida terrorists who were not there prior to the invasion. again murdering a nation in a 7 years war with no exit plan & the invisible Binladen is still free.
Now this D bag is repeating the same LIES again, insinuating a connection between Iran and Binladen!! Binladen hates Iranians and fight their allies in Iraq and Pakistan do u know that?
If his argument is based on one of the 24 hrs episodes where a terrorists group manages to get an access to a nuke, and he presumes this scenario would happen in Iran then he should think of a nuke-free US first cz its hard to got a nuke head +a cross-continental ballistic rocket + a guarantee of no US counter attack with an anti-missile. It's much easier to do it on the US soil.

i.e this guy is either extremely stupid OR he thinks we are extremely stupid.

The Iranian regime is oppressive and tyrannical yet it NEVER started a war. The argued Islands of Arab Emirates were occupied during the time of the beloved US ally THE SHAH.

Scorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrre! A nuke and all the benefits from the American Misadventure In Iraq.

Sounds like they died (and are still dying) for the vanity of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Carl Rove.

"What does it matter to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless whether the mad destruction
is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty or democracy?" Gandhi.

"He talks about how dangerous Iran is but it's ok for us and for Israel to have them!!?"

- Israel and the United States do have nuclear weapons -- an indisputable fact. However, Iran is excusing itself from the entire debate by stating that it has nuclear plants in order to generate nuclear power.

Also, if groups such as al-Quaeda, Hamas (whose flag by the way, is now a mushroom cloud with a threat to the Jews written under it), Hezbollah, etc got their hands on WMD's, you're implying that this is just as dangerous as nations such as the United States having nuclear weapons? There's only one type of group right now in the world with the capabilities of obtaining nuclear weapons -- and detonating immediately when they obtain them -- Islamic fundamentalists.

"Sowell is certainly is able to see many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:"

- Please, step off your moral high horse. If you really do not concur with Sowell's analyses, then why don't you write a book rebutting and perhaps refuting his points of contention? Stop placing words in his mouth when at least evidently, you don't know anything near the capacity of he does.

"In only 30min Kahane explains the underlying cause of human suffering and how difficult it is for us -as humans- to cultivate balance between Power and Love."

- I find this quite hypocritcal. First, you flame and heavily criticize Sowell for "[not having] a monopoly on the truth and Sowell is certainly no exception" and "he can be just as biased as anyone else and more than we realize". Who's to say that Kahane isn't biased and has a monopoly on the truth, like Sowell doesn't according to you? Don't criticize Sowell for his beliefs when your diatribes are applicable to any thinker, your favorites included.

"Unlike Sowell, Kahane is seeking causes and it seems to me that Sowell"
- Surely we can deduce that from your almighty logic, correct? Because you aren't partial, opinionated, and play no favorites whatsoever. Yup.

"Unlike Sowell, Kahane is seeking causes and it seems to me that Sowell, if he really cares should be doing the same by finding solutions to our political and social problems. Judging and criticizing only polarizes us (as Kahane describes so well in his story on the G-20 summit) and such behavior gets us nowhere."

- Again, you're entitled to your own opinion. However, like you do imply here, your analysis is not final and you shouldn't, again, like you've implied throughout your arguments, act like your analysis is worth more than anybody else's with no peer reviews.

As for Sowell, I think he's quite correct about this "point of no return" -- take the scenario in the future if Hamas detonates an atomic bomb in Times Square -- utter wreckage of civilization, radiation seeping through towards proximate cities/states, etc. If you think by then we will be able to rebuild and reconcile our relations with Iran and such insurgent groups -- well, I'll leave that with you and the others who read this comment.

Nuclear Iran to the point of no return?!! Is that so?!

ooh I'm so scared!....nothing like instilling fear in others to sell books!

I've heard this guy before and posted about him at length. He talks about how dangerous Iran is but it's ok for us and for Israel to have them!!? Why is it that Sowell refuses to be inclusive by saying, as Obama did, that we must make these weapons obsolete?

As I said in previous posts,
Sowell is certainly is able to see many fallacies of intellectuals but he apparently is not able to see the limits of his own intellectual position and even intellect itself. Had Sowell known this, he would have said something akin to this:

“I believe we need to cultivate the kind of knowledge and awareness that would allow us to transcend our inner conflicts, our respective ego, our feeble intellect, and the unconscious primitive emotions that keep us in bondage”

Apparently, Dr. Sowell ought to consider that there is more to human nature than what he or any expert in the field can fathom. Blaming intellectuals is only one small piece of a very big puzzle.
I have yet to hear Sowell say in a very direct way the complexity of human nature and how it affects ALL OF US in profound and pervasive ways. and no one has a monopoly on the truth and Sowell is certainly no exception. He can be just as biased as anyone else and more than we realize.

I'd like to see Sowell give his undivided attention and listen to Adam Kahane: Power and Love which is on this web site. In only 30min Kahane explains the underlying cause of human suffering and how difficult it is for us -as humans- to cultivate balance between Power and Love.
Unlike Sowell, Kahane is seeking causes and it seems to me that Sowell, if he really cares should be doing the same by finding solutions to our political and social problems. Judging and criticizing only polarizes us (as Kahane describes so well in his story on the G-20 summit) and such behavior gets us nowhere.

It is a blessing to the world that it will have Dr. Sowell's books in the future to tewach people how to think. His classic, [I]A Conflict of Visions[I] has had a profound influence on me. I highly recommend this and all of his books.