This is in reply to Mike, in Norwalk (CA?) and Logan, in Memphis--- Mike begins his diatribe in typical Repugnantcan fashion, by attacking those he disagrees with as ones who "...forgot to study the issues..." and who use "...the rhetoric of tv awareness." He calls ideological opponents "...the non-studied..." WELL, Mike, you certainly shut us down, didn't you?--- Mike then asks: "'how did the US become the most powerful, prosperous, philanthropic, charitable, giving, technologically advanced, greatest food producing, most productive, highest living standard, etc. nation on earth without the mindset of governmentally compelled compliance, including income tax?"I WILL BE BRIEF; we did it with hard work, dedication, foresight, perseverance---AND BY TAKING LAND FROM THE INDIANS AND KILLIING AND SUBJUGATING THEM. WE DID IT BY ENSLAVING MILLIONS OF AFRICANS, WHO WORKED FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS WITH ONLY DEATH AND DEGRADATION, DISENFRANCHISEMENT, JIM CROW, DISCRIMINATION, SEGREGATION, RACISM AND THE DENIAL OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS THEIR ONLY COMPENSATION. WE DID IT BY EXPLOITING CHINESE LABOR, BY EXPLOITING MEXICO AND STEALING HER LAND, by exploiting the peoples of the earth "From the halls of Moctezuma to the shores of Tripoli" and beyond. We did it by propping up dictators around the world, from Arabia to Zimbabwe as we raped their countries of resources (and often, their women, too). We did it by force and threat and violence and at the point of a gun. THAT'S WHY THE WHOLE WORLD HATES US--even those who depend on us for their protection--and that's why we have to change. It's not too late yet, but after we have lost our last vestiges of power, THEN, it WILL be too late to change and to secure a good future for ourselves and for our posterity. And we are NOT the most "...philanthropic, charitable, giving..." country in the world, nor do we give to the most needy. We give more to Israel in one year than we give to the entire Continent of Africa in 10 years. And even when we call it a "loan," that "loan" is quietly "forgiven" after a couple of years, while we extract interest from far poorer African nations that can't even feed themselves (Look up "US TREATIES OF FRIENDSHIP AND COOPERATION WITH AFRICA). One could go on for weeks and not exhaust the pitiful history of our exploitation of the weak and poor.----As to your contentions about Russia, they are, I admit, PARTLY true; people everywhere want to be able to work for themselves and to share the wealth of their nation--but the most important asset in the revitalization of Russia is its OIL.---- As to Logan, in Memphis, who argues that: "The government was NEVER intended (per the founding fathers) to "serve" the people's needs," ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS THAT THEN THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE WRITTEN EITHER THE PREAMBLE TO IT, NOR THE CONSTITUTION, ITSELF: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL..." (I PRESUME THAT MEANS THAT ALL SHOULD BE treated equally, as well). "We the people of the US, in order to form a more perfect union...and PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE, do ordain and establish the US of A". It all began "WE THE PEOPLE." and continued, "...that this GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE..." who in hell knows what natural law is? Is it the survival of the fittest, i.e., strongest? Because, if it is, then maybe all the thugs and hoodlums and hooligans should take over. AS TO YOUR STATEMENT: "Give me ONE time that the founding fathers stated that the government was to take care of the needs of the people's existence (outside the protection of their rights)!! TO THAT, I SAY THAT THE THE GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER PROTECTED THE RIGHTS OF ALL OF ITS CITIZENS--AND IF IT HAD PROTECTED EVERYONE'S RIGHTS, PEOPLE WOULDN'T BE IN THE SHAPE THEY'RE IN TODAY. WHEN EVERYONE'S RIGHTS ARE PROTECTED(whatever that means), be sure to come back and THEN you may ask me the question again.

Thumbs down on the Sowell quote!

WOW! Everybody else who posted here seems to understand EXACTLY what Thomas Sowell meant by this quote, but I'm not quite sure that I do. First, Sowell says: "One of the sad signs of our times is that we have demonized those who produce..." TO WHOM, EXACTLY, IS HE REFERRING? I don't know WHAT PEOPLE who "produce" are being "demonized"--or HOW they are being "demonized," and Sowell certainly doesn't tell us. I suppose it's left up to the readers of this quote to fill-in-the-blank. That makes the reader take OWNERSHIP of SOWELL's statement, almost as if WE wrote the entire quote, ourselves--even though we may not know exactly what group(s) he is really referring to. But, for the sake of argument, let's just logically assume that by "producers," he means those who make or create or grow something, and that he says these people are being "demonized". Then he continues: We "...subsidized those who refuse to produce..." Here, again, I don't know WHOM he's talking about--and I'm not certain who "REFUSES" to produce, although many who have posted here seem to think he's talking about farmers who are paid to keep their land fallow and NOT PRODUCE crops--but technically, if farmers really are the ones Sowell is referring to, then he should refer to them as 'those who AGREED NOT TO PRODUCE FOR PAY,' instead of as people who "REFUSE" to produce. Anyway, just for the sake of argument, let's assume that he is referring to farmers who are paid NOT TO PLANT as "...those who refuse to produce..." Finally, he says, we "...canonized those who complain." Once again, I don't really know WHOM he regards as "...those who complain". Is he referring to those who PRODUCE as the ones who complain? I think NOT, because that would be a contradiction, since he already said that they are being "demonized". Since Sowell is not talking about "...those who produce..." being canonized (and "demonized" simultaneously), maybe he's referring to "...those who refuse to produce..." as the ones who complain and are being canonized--but that doesn't make sense, since they are getting paid, essentially, to do nothing. Why would THEY complain? And if they really ARE complaining, why would they be "canonized" (treated as saints or respected and held in very high regard)? I just don't get it. Since it is NOT logical that either the producers or those being subsidized are the complainers (and they are the ONLY groups mentioned in the quote), there must be ANOTHER GROUP that is NOT mentioned in the quote whom Sowell regards as the 'complainers'. Who, then, are they? (Is it US, the common people?) Sowell gives us no clue; he only gives us another fill-in-the-blank statement. But here again, once we fill in the blank, we are assuming OWNERSHIP of HIS statement although we aren't certain what or whom he is talking about. This is the trademark of the idealogue and the demagogue. Sowell is an Republican fanatic and idealogue; he has never seen a Republican idea he doesn't like--EVEN IF IT WILL BANKRUPT OR OTHERWISE RUIN THE COUNTRY--and THAT'S JUST ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WILL CAST MY VOTE FOR SENATOR BARACK OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.