Another coup? Or is he just getting real close to admitting that the right many years ago took control of the military. How many more military patches and flight suits and uniformed military officers at republican campaign events are needed for the coup to be fully realized?

Yes, but all of a sudden more and more high ranking military officers are starting to come out against the "Surge" and even the winnability of the Iraq war itself. Who's going to overthrow them?

Scratch a conservative, wound a fascist.

I am just in the middle of "Hitler: Nemesis" a recent biography of Hitler by Ian Kershaw, Chair of History at Oxford. The level of detail is extremely high - overkill in many cases.

2 important points:

1) Hitler did not burn the Reichstag but used it as an excuse for reactionary overreach. Bush did not bomb on 9/11, but used it as an excuse for reactionary and fascist overreach. 9/11 WAS Bush's Reichstag fire.

2) Hitler obtained power by the most desperately small margin. Soon thereafter, he had outlawed all other parties, and was on his way to dictatorship. Bush obtained power by the most desperately small margin in the 20th century. SOon thereafter, he and Rove TRIED to set up a permanent Repukeliscum majority, but have been foiled I think.

The Bush-Hitler analogies are much closer than I had remembered.

Wow. Finally, a conservative says what he really believes.

Wait, that's not why this is notable, right?

If there is a military coup then I'll be taking a few conservatives I know down with me before they finish me off.

You better believe that.

"I'm tired off those comparisons between Hitler and George W. Bush! Hitler was a highly decorated combat veteran who won office by majority vote!" - Jon Stewart

But seriously, might Banana Republican (hey, I coined that term back in '88, Kevin) Thomas Sowell actually be saying what more and more of the unhinged right be thinking?

It may not be comforting, but it is certainly a conservative thought.

Does he explain how a military coup would fix those problems? It seems like a bit of a non sequitur solution to "..worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia.."

I am a fervent anti-gunsel, but the rhetoric of conservatives makes me think seriously about arming myself and ensuring that I am prepared for the fascist intefada.

Does Sowell count as "media" or "intelligentsia"? In either case I'm inclined to agree with him.

Haven't conservatives always hated democracy?

People sometimes vote to change things in a democracy.

I guess that is Bush Handlers, Inc. next best choice after their Supreme Court coup in 2000 finishes falling apart.

What will it take to end this nightmare of insanity ?

"...Ambition must be made to counteract ambition..." - Federalist No. 51

Makes you think twice about opposing the Second Amendment, eh, POed Lib?

The context is exasperation with various things in the country today. The coup line is not great writing, just an expression of frustration. You folks are making too big a deal of it, but I think in part that is because liberals often are more critical of black conservatives. I suspect a white could have made the statement and not caused a ripple of interest.

'Does he explain how a military coup would fix those problems?'

Shold I stock up on candy and flowers to greet my liberators with?

Re the majority vote:

Actually, this is not true. Hitler became chancellor in 1934. In the election immediately before he was given the chancellorship, his party lost seats. So, why did he get power?

Hitler's NSDAP had about 34 % of the seats. Thus, to obtain power, he had to go into coalition. He went into coalition with Zentrum and other conservative parties. His cabinet was all conservatives, not NSDAP. Basically, he had a lot of control, but there was no requirement that he be given power. Papen and others believed that if they were in the Cabinet, they could control Hitler. Papen became Vice Chancellor.

Question: what does the word 'country' mean in Sowell's quotation?

It doesn't mean 'the United States', since there is currently no threat either to the Union or to any one particular State.

It clearly doesn't mean 'the Constitution', which a coup would destroy.

It clearly doesn't mean 'the American people', who were originally defined as such by their eternal rejection of tyranny.

I honestly can't think of any answer to this question, unless 'country' = the National Review's sense of self-importance.

Poor, pathetic, traitorous fools.

Shorter Thomas Sowell: "Kids these days, with their crazy clothes and loud music! And get off my lawn!"

'The context is exasperation with various things in the country today.'

As George Carlin said: "they identify with your anger then tell you who to blame for it".

Yea yea yea - it was a great line from Jon Stewart. No need to deconstruct good art.

brian: I suspect a white could have made the statement and not caused a ripple of interest.

You cannot be serious. You cannot possibly be serious. Please tell me you're not serious.

I hope Republicans are the ones to decide how many troops they're going to need.

I rather hope that someone has just spoofed brian. He's a nut and consistently wrong (especially when talking about military matters), but he's seldom just plain stupid.

Brian: liberals often are more critical of black conservatives

Actually, I didn't even know the author of the remark was black until you told me. Batshit is colorblind, pal, and Sowell is batshit.

That is not even the disturbing quote from NRO today. See here for K-Lo fawning all over Jack T. Ripper.

Also, to the liberals contemplating arming up in preparation for the coming coup, don't worry about it. The idea of a coup among soldiers and Marines is akin to suggesting that maybe the solution to our problems is that the army begin burning American flags. The military is extraordinarily professional and patriotic. Suggesting a coup is only something the living embodiment of the stereotype of a "chicken hawk" would consider a viable option.

mouse, I hope you're right. I hope someone is spoofing. But that's a variation on a theme we keep hearing.

Worst Performance by a Jackoff in Defense of the Indefensible: The context is exasperation with various things in the country today. The coup line is not great writing, just an expression of frustration. You folks are making too big a deal of it, but I think in part that is because liberals often are more critical of black conservatives. I suspect a white could have made the statement and not caused a ripple of interest.

Seriously, what happened in your life to make you such a obtuse jackoff? Your worldview has been so discredited — while its sickening rhetoric has become so ingrained in what's left of your withered, feeble soul — you think it's because of racism that we find it grotesque when a conservative muses the positives of a military coup? And it'd be cool with us if some other fascist tool like Limbaugh said it so long as he was white? Seriously?

Thankfully, the fully believeable sentiment proffered by a jackboot-licking warmonger like Tom Sowell is so obviously part of the authoritarian mindset of the modern conservative movement it's now out in the open for the world to see what you truly believe. It's a service to the rest of us, really. Ensuring that the only way you'll ever get back into power in my lifetime is through a military coup, and most in the military wouldn't go along with it.

Slightly longer Thomas Sowell (adapted from Constantine): "Kids these days, with their crazy clothes and loud music! And get off my lawn! Or I'll send in the tanks, kill your parents and send you to camps!"

A Bush Administration move against Iran might trigger a coup...against Bush.

I guess that is Bush Handlers, Inc. next best choice after their Supreme Court coup in 2000 finishes falling apart

Sowell's ilk kept telling me six years ago that the best reason for Bush to have been selected president in 2000 was that he wanted it bad enough to steal it, such zeal for the Fatherland being, well, yeah, un-democratic, and anti-majoritarian, and probably unConstitutional, but that's a good thing.

Because he wanted it more.

For America.

Or something.

(I think the argument was being cross-applied from sports-talk radio...)

And anyways, democracy is for pussies.

First there was polarization and ambition and disorder, then there was Marius and the disorder was put to an end, and then there was Sulla to restore the Republic, and then there was Caesar. I wonder who, back then, was the first to say "A little coup wouldn't be a bad thing."

What does Thomas Sowell think the military would do to the politicians, media, educators, and intelligentsia if it engaged in an armed coup to save the country?

Kill those he dislikes and blames is what he wants them to do. It seems to me there was a nationwide condemnation a week or two ago against acting out this way. Perhaps Thomas Sowell should be institutionalized before he kills and sends a press kit to the WSJ.

I am a fervent anti-gunsel, but the rhetoric of conservatives makes me think seriously about arming myself and ensuring that I am prepared for the fascist intefada.

I recommend every progressive become licensed and learn how to fire a weapon, even if you refuse to own one. I view it like learning CPR -- you don't learn it because you expect to use the knowledge; you learn it because you hope you never have to.

Ironically, the same military he now prays will declare war on its own people is the same military that conservative president George Bush has broken with his failed war in Iraq.

I love these conservatives who keep thinking the military should run the country. Do they not understand that America was founded on precisely the OPPOSITE principle? George Washington turning in his sword to the Congress? The disbanding of the army after the war? The military serves the nation, it does not rule it.

Furthermore, it's so profoundly disrespectful of the amazing honor and integrity that's been shown by our military throughout its history, in which every soldier shelves his own political opinion and follow orders while in uniform.

I mean, there are soldiers who choose not to vote because they believe it's improper for the military to be political. Personally, I think that's taking it a bit far, but that's a measure of the self-sacrifice that our soldiers willingly endure. They're prepared to fight and die to defend decisions, regardless of whether or not they agree with them. They serve the nation.

Conservatives like this are disgusting. They've got a fetish for uniforms & pageantry, so they want to put the guys in the nice suits in charge. They don't understand that the uniform is the trappings of service, not its essence. They're as shallow as the fashion industry.

Sowell's rant was probably prompted by feelings of nostalgia provoked by the upcoming anniversary of the Kent State Massacre.

I recommend every progressive become licensed and learn how to fire a weapon, even if you refuse to own one. I view it like learning CPR -- you don't learn it because you expect to use the knowledge; you learn it because you hope you never have to.

I went thru the gun phase in high school. I got up to Marksman 2nd class, all in prone.

I recommend every progressive become licensed and learn how to fire a weapon, even if you refuse to own one. I view it like learning CPR -- you don't learn it because you expect to use the knowledge; you learn it because you hope you never have to.

If you refuse to own a gun, chances are even if you ever need to use one, you won't have one, unless you happen to be good friends and close neighbors with a liberal without such qualms who has plenty to spare.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your suggestion, just questioning its practical utility even in the ultima ratio.

If he is saying that today the country is ruined, someone needs to remind him that the liberals have not been in charge for some time. So, just exactly is to blame for the ruination????????? I think it has been ruined almost beyond repair by the current group of conservatives in charge. One thing Sowell isn't--he is not an expert of the obvious.

Prosperity, such as that enjoyed during the Clinton years, is the most dangerous time for a democracy. When the prosperity ends, as it always does, the man on horseback arises and promises the restore the good times if the people will only give him a little more power. In the final act of this recurring drama, the tyrant has all the power and all the wealth, and the people have nothing.

It is all made possible because the masses will always trade freedom for prosperity. Blinded by their own greed, they never notice the shackling of their children's feet. Then, who cares; not that many people have children these days.

Bring on the bread and circuses; let's feast.

If he is saying that today the country is ruined, someone needs to remind him that the liberals have not been in charge for some time. So, just exactly is to blame for the ruination?????????

Isn't it obvious? GWB and the rubber stamp GOP congress was a liberal plot to embarrass and marginalize the Republican Party....

Victimhood knows no shame.

...the man on horseback arises and promises the restore the good times if the people will only give him a little more power.

Sometimes it isn't even that nobly motivated. Caesar crossed the Rubicon in arms not to feed the hungry or shoe the barefoot, but because the Senate had dinged his auctoritas, and you can't take that lying down. So he plunged the Roman world into civil war.

A war of choice, based on petulance.

Sounds vaguely familiar.

Military dictatorship: that's all they've got left in terms of ideas. Great. At least Sowell's honest. I hope that blurb gets circulated around the blogosphere for many days and weeks to come. It succinctly captures the doomsday paranoia at the heart of contemporary conservatism.

Gosh - if don't like democracy, or a Dem President - just have coop how Ann Counlter of him.

And just like the GOP pigs they are, REPUGS squeal and squeal and squeal...and STILL MOST Americans DON'T like Bush so the Broder cult club members just can't deal with anything except preaching to Cheney about a military coup, anything to get their nasty paritsan way.

Sowell's comment is seditious. Right?

He's not saying there might be a coup, he's saying it will "save" the country.

That's advocacy in my book. Advocating the overthrow of the US government by the military, and all of the ugly things that come along with that idea.

And in National Review - even linked to from the home page.

It's disgraceful.

It will be interesting to see if anyone has the courage to comment on this in The Corner. I'm betting not - silence, I suspect.

Combine this kind of thinking with the increasing evangelism of the military brass and its not hard to imagine the possibility that some rogue general would conclude that a coup directed against a more "secular" leader would be appropriate to remake the country as a "Christian" nation. And there is a significant segment of our country that would have no problem with this concept.

Now I don't think this is really going to happen, but its possible enough to make a pretty convincing movie or book out of.

If I were king of the forest.....

Combine this kind of thinking with the increasing evangelism of the military brass and its not hard to imagine the possibility that some rogue general would conclude that a coup directed against a more "secular" leader would be appropriate to remake the country as a "Christian" nation. And there is a significant segment of our country that would have no problem with this concept.

"7 days in May" x "Dr. Strangelove"

Now I don't think this is really going to happen, but its possible enough to make a pretty convincing movie or book out of.

Already been done, and published in the US Army War College quarterly, Parameters, no less.

The prolog:

The letter that follows takes us on a darkly imagined excursion into the future. A military coup has taken place in the United States--the year is 2012--and General Thomas E. T. Brutus, Commander-in-Chief of the Unified Armed Forces of the United States, now occupies the White House as permanent Military Plenipotentiary. His position has been ratified by a national referendum, though scattered disorders still prevail and arrests for acts of sedition are underway. A senior retired officer of the Unified Armed Forces, known here simply as Prisoner 222305759, is one of those arrested, having been convicted by court-martial for opposing the coup. Prior to his execution, he is able to smuggle out of prison a letter to an old War College classmate discussing the "Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012." In it, he argues that the coup was the outgrowth of trends visible as far back as 1992. These trends were the massive diversion of military forces to civilian uses, the monolithic unification of the armed forces, and the insularity of the military community. His letter survives and is here presented verbatim.

They had their fuckin' coup 7 years ago.

I've been alive in America for just over 50 years, now, and I feel the level of anger that's been whipped up between so-called conservatives and so-called liberals is frightening.

Which is why I'm thinking Hillary should wait another round before running. Too much Clinton hatred out there. Can't we chill with an Edwards for a while?

It seems we've been lamenting the breakdown of the political process for three decades or more, basically since Watergate.

Every few months there are more editorials, more books, more pundits' comments on how politics are dirtier, more corrupt, further afield than every before.

I wonder how much of it is legit and how much is just critics' alarmism.

Isn't Mr. Sowell's a treasonous statement? Is not advocating the violent overthrow of the government a crime? I'd say so - truly bloodless coups are the very rare exception.

Seen from outside the US, one line makes sense:
"When I see the worsening degeneracy in our politicians (He means the Bush Admin, right?), our media (Fox News, right?), our educators (Regents U), and our intelligentsia (endless list of rightwing lamebrains)."

Most of us who read this and similar blogs would agree that there is a "worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia."

What separates us from the NRO readers, though, is not just our understanding of what's causing this degenracy. It's also that, by and large, we believe our system of government provides the mechanisms for correcting these problems, while Sowell et al. seem ready to ditch the whole experiment and call in the military.

So who's more true to American principles, in the end?

David Mamet said Thomas Sowell was a fucking spectacular economist and social historian.

Think how lucky we are that Bush has been so incompetent. With his contempt for democracy, hardly hindered by a cowardly opposition, it's our good fortune that he bungled the whole war on terror and everything else.

Caesar he is not.

I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's.

I suppose those were all written by conservatives masquerading as liberals?

It seems we've been lamenting the breakdown of the political process for three decades or more, basically since Watergate.

Nothing new, at all, under the sun. They've been lamenting the breakdown of the political process since Americans formed political parties. Or take when Adams signed the Anti-Sedition acts. Hell, some worried that Washington was a tyrant. It's never stopped.

Except for being black, Sowell is an old-fashioned bigot. Yeesh.

I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's.

I'm sure they were warmly received. Now, if you don't mind Nate, why don't you actually say something about Sowell's comments -- or are you going to stay with the "Kos Folk do it too!" horseshit.

First, I don't believe you, but, if someone on Kos advocated for a military coup to restore American Greatness, they are as big a bootlicking dupe as Tom Sowell (not to mention a majority of the failed conservative movement).

My word....

From a magazine that accuses just about all liberals of being traitorous scum...we have a writer who seems to advocate military overthrow.

Isn't that...I don't know...somewhat of an Anti-American, traitorous thought? I mean, the man is considering the validity of the government and country, and what it's built upon, being taken down and stampeded upon to put the military in charge.

That's a damn lot more traitorous than saying 'We've Lost The War' in this dangerous lefty's mind. But then again, I'm a liberal. According to the National Review, I'm a traitor by dint of that alone.

Vice President Dick Cheney already has openly discussed, in a speech before the cadets at West Point, the possibility that they could suspend or void the 22nd Amendment, which limits a president's tenure to no more than two terms.

His rationale was that this war's importance to national security is of such sufficient magnitude that this administration might have to remain in place throughout its entirety until its succesful conclusion, because they're the only ones who fully realize the high stakes involved.

What a creepy read, with repulsive sentiments.
Therapy may be the needed intervention because that is a most despondent set of paragraphs...scorched with bad vibes and political grandeur gone haywire.
It wreaks of humiliation and desperation.
Of course, I totally disagree and see all kinds of sophistication emanating around us, the new glamour has appeal, and is liberating.
The crowd he represents has been so beaten down with fear they have lost perspective. A coup??

P.S. Thanks, Mr. Drum, for so many quality reads today. A treat after the long commute and veto.

First Hitler was appointed Chancellor in Jan.'33;
he through the,"Enabling Law,"assumed the office of President,after the death of Hindenburg in '34.
AS for the coup this isn't new or suprising in the
John Birch Society sleeper cells.In,"Americas Last
Days,"Douglas MacKinnon imagines it.Of course if a
leftie said this .................

m

That's rich--Thomas Sowell complaining of someone else's degeneracy!

I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's.

When y'all start bleating that bad behavior should be acceptable because some Democrat did something once, I laugh out loud, because I envision General Disarray following Professor Chaos through South Park saying "Simpson's did it!" to Professor Chaos' (Butters) every idea.

It's that fuckin' funny to me.

MaxGowan: "Makes you think twice about opposing the Second Amendment, eh, POed Lib?"

Why? Are you actually organizing "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"?

As long as we're critizing Tom Sowell, how about Sowell's fellow compatriot at the Hoover Institute, Victor David Hanson? That clown actually has a Ph.D in history, but you'd never know it when reading his very questionable assertions, which are based upon cherry-picked historical facts.

I'm going to be sick. George and Laura just made an appearance on American Idol...

Now that's a comforting, conservative thought, isn't it?

Actually it's an extremely conservative thought, since "conservatism", throughout history, has been nothing more deep down than an ideology of power worship and protection of the entrenched privilege, whether that privilege took the form of Royalism, Nazism, Soviet Communism, or our present day GOP.

Went to link. Could not find Thomas Sowell quote as given. Can somebody direct me to the column written by Sowell that has the quote -- I want to bash my son-in-law over the head with it.

Claimsman: the quote is the third paragraph from the end at the link given. I suggest writing it on a wooden bat before doing the bashing.

As if we needed another example of how the conservative mind understands only itself --they are the"..worsening degeneracy in our politicians, our media, our educators, and our intelligentsia.."

Donald, relax. Cheers. Just a tongue-and-cheek. I don't even want to go into the whole Second Amemdment, blah blah blah. This other stuff is more interesting anyway.

It would be a mistake to characterize them as fascist.

All they are doing is to try to eliminate liberal fascism.

(By the way, a previous post of mine in another thread in which I called conservatives ass---holes has been unceremoniously deleted. Touchy PA, touchy!)

Any number of commentators have noted that the military is one of the best examples of (true) liberal values in our society - providing the support and backing of a community united by values, not personal identities or loyalities, but at the same time holding people accountable for their performance (at least below the politicized command level). Can't support a coup, but the Democrats could do far worse than to seek the support of the retired generals who have spoken out against the disaster that Bush has created.

Yeah, for a few years I've thought one of the biggest mistakes in the 60s was the ovveruse of the word "fascist." Because it's not as effective now as it ought to be, given then versus now. A few years ago, before Bush 43, a veteran Anti-War buddy (Oberlin, late 60s etc) exclaimed, "Back in the 60s we kept saying things like 'Tear down the institutions.' But now I realize it was the institutions that kept the Fascists from taking over!" I've thought a lot about that observation over the past six years, as the real fascists have destroyed one federal agency after another.

I recommend every progressive become licensed and learn how to fire a weapon, even if you refuse to own one. I view it like learning CPR -- you don't learn it because you expect to use the knowledge; you learn it because you hope you never have to.

Too much butter on the popcorn.

Even if the Ripuplican party thought they could get away with something like that it would go absolutely nowhere!

And even if it could go anywhere, which will never happen, you couldn't do much with your pop gun except attract attention.

Better to save yourself for the 300 million man march.

Nathan wrote: I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's.

Then I'm sure you won't have trouble citing one, linking it and providing a quote here to demonstrate how it's "an identical sentiment to Sowell's."

Given your history of misrepresentation, Nathan, your word is no good.

I'm going to be sick. George and Laura just made an appearance on American Idol...

Well, there's no pulvinar at the Circus any more, I guess it'll have to do.

Yeah, well, Thomas Sowell might have advocated the military overthrow of the United States in the pages of the National Review, but I'm pretty sure a commenter on dailykos said something similar, somewhere. I mean, don't ask me to prove that, but I'm pretty sure it happened, sometime in some comment on a diary somewhere. So both sides are just as bad!

G-d in heaven... the far Right fucks things up, the only thing that can save us is the farther Right. What a moron.

Nathan wrote: I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's.

I'm with Gregory. Prove it, or shut the fuck up.

"I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's."

LOL... Note the complete lack of supporting evidence and the even more complete lack of any real equivalency between anonymous (and powerless) commenters on a blog and Thomas Sowell. Man, aren't there any honest conservative posters here anymore?

You know, the more nuts they get the more I like it.

But, that's it, isn't it?

They're not getting more nuts, they're just showing their nuts.

As if daring someone to say they're not the biggest nuts they've ever seen.

Substitute the word "Jews" or "Cosmopolitan Elements" for the word "liberals" in this essay, and see what you get.

Look ... I don't want to belabor the point, but disjointed and illogical as they are, Sowell's ruminations read like something out of 1920's Germany or 1930's Russia. Logic isn't the point. The grievances don't have to be logical. But the conclusion is crystal clear.

Is Sowell trying to float an idea here, put it out in the public forum -- and inure us to how radical it really is?

So -- I wonder if the mainstream media will stop reporting on left wing bloggers and their "hate" long enough to ponder this odd little idea that seems to be kicking around in, oh, a mainstream opinion journal of the political right. No biggie ... just the overthrow of the Constitution, martial law, imprisonment of political opponents, that sort of thing. Yawn.

-- Bokonon

That they published Sowell regularly is why I finally quit subscribing to my local paper, The Baltimore Sun. He's always foamed at the mouth.

A coup? Against whom? Who's going to decide which Americans are enemy combatants?

Congress better get cracking at rescinding that apostasy, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, in case Bush-Cheney attempt another coup (besides 2000) before November 2008. Aloha, Donald from Hawaii at 8:29 PM.

And this accentuates how completely unhinged from reality Sowell is:

The last time I saw a Republican express outrage was 1991, when Clarence Thomas told the Senators what he thought of the smear tactics used against him.

busted boomer: ...the Democrats could do far worse than to seek the support of the retired generals who have spoken out against the disaster that Bush has created.

Apr. 28, 2007: General William Odom Delivers Democratic Radio Address on Iraq. Odom is the same general who described the Iraq invasion as "the greatest strategic disaster in United States history."

liberals often are more critical of black conservatives. I suspect a white could have made the statement and not caused a ripple of interest.
Posted by: brian on May 1, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Brian, I know you won't believe me but I want to help you see the light, your comment reflects your racism. It really says nothing about Liberals, except that you hate them.
Repent.

the military is one of the best examples of (true) liberal values in our society

Hi Busted Boomer. Robert Wright of Bloggingheads was a guest columnist at the NY Times last month and published a fan-freakin-tastic piece laying out that very case. I am a Navy brat. I agree whole heartedly. I'm not a liberal because i rebel against my military upbringing. I am a liberal because I internalized the core values.

oops. Forgot to close my link tag. It works, but I still apologize for shouting in red.

I'm a big fan of Sowell. Most of what he writes is insightful or even brilliant. But, that comment struck me as a clinker.

It's fine for liberals to pick out the occassionial dumb comment Sowell makes, but it would be a mistake to evaluate him based on his worst.

A comment I liked from that same article was:

“Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented worker’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist.’“

Hey, Globe,

Thanks for the letter boilerplate for use in calling for Gonzales' impeachment at WTWC. Revised and inserted my own disgust at the corruption of the Civil Rights Division in bullying Toby Moore and colleagues in the division's voting section over the Georgia voter I.D. law, a nasty situation that involved your state's western district USA, Bradley Schlozman.

I think Sowell's comments are more similar to Derbyshire's "I like little girls" ruminations rather than actual calls for a military coup.

After all the degeneracy displayed in these last 6 years has almost entirely been republican made, with the media acting as willing hand maidens to said degeneracy. Or is Sowell still mad about Clinton's transgression?

dontcallmefrancis: Or is Sowell still mad about Clinton's transgression?

dcmf, I'm a regular reader of Sowell's column and have read several of his books. I'm a fan. Neverthelss, I have no idea what particular degeneracy he's talking about. Your guess is as good as mine.

Thanks for the kind words, Apollo. And thank you for taking the time to write to your delegation. If I had a mission statement it would have something to do with facilitating direct participation in our democracy.

Sowell's last little rattle until his name is spoken on 20/20 this Friday.

Uncle Tom Sowell's opinion isn't worth the paper it is printed on. He is a moron. I saw him interviewed once and his lips were moving as he formulated his response to a question. He is either a loon or brain-damaged.

Translation of Sowell for Greater Accuracy: "I wonder if the day might come when crazy military officers who believe the same psychotic things I do take over in a military coup and let me run something really important which I could rip off like all Cheney's buddies are doing in Iraq?"

Sowell is no better than Hannity, especially when we consider Hannity's segment, "Enemy of the State," now changed to "Enemy of the Week."

SOURCE: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/01/29/hannity-abandons-enemy-of-the-state/

That is not even the disturbing quote from NRO today. See here for K-Lo fawning all over Jack T. Ripper.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.)

Just to let you know about Buzz Patterson's relationship to reality, here's a quote from July 6, 2005:

"The war is being won, if not already won, I think," Patterson, who is retired from the U.S. Air Force, said. "[Iraq] is stabilized and we want the soldiers themselves to tell the story."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161463,00.html

[i]Isn't it obvious? GWB and the rubber stamp GOP congress was a liberal plot to embarrass and marginalize the Republican Party....[/i]

I swear to God my brother, who listens to way too much KSFO, told me this is why Kerry lost on purpose in 2004. Gah. I chewed him up one side and down the other. Well, actually I just said BULLSHIT really loud, but same difference. He was stunned. Sorry, I love him, but he can be thick thick thick. That's what happens when you listen to Rush Limbaugh all the time when you are out on the USS Cole for months on end.

Nathan, You write
"I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's."

I've spent an hour a day on DKos for the past 3 years and have never seen a sentiment like that uttered - even by conservative trolls. Please provide a couple of links.

Tommy, we don't need a coup, we need Remo...

Tommy, we don't need a coup, we need Remo...

I love that movie! (And I get the highest calling reference).

For god's sake, what greater "degeneracy" could there be than a military coup?

Thomas Sowell: Moral Cretin

Military coup? Why is that so remote a possibility?

Been saying this for a while. What can justify the actions taken by this administration, the wiretaps, the lying, the cronies, the justifications for war, on and on? Bush is destroying our military, destroying our National Guard. If a coup occured, who will fight against it? Those fighting for it of course are easy to justify; mercenaries fight the war in Iraq, their companies make tons of money. Think these people will want to give up their privilige when the Democrats take over? Do you think the faith-based extremists will go quietly? Do you think the hardcore will let go all the gains made for them by bush? Maybe Sowell is doing this country a favor, maybe he's warning us of an ongoing right wing coup. Instead of ignoring the idea of a coup, perhaps we should mull it over, integrate it into our thinking, decide what should be done in the event of. Nobody in this country could ever have forseen what this administration has brought us; it is capable of anything.

I can't remember the last time I read Sowell when he didn't spend most of his time wailing about liberals and/or Democrats. (And that goes for almost any conservative pundit I can name, as Bush gets worse, they get worse - or so it seems to me.)

A reader writes: “Liberals hold us individually responsible for nothing but collectively responsible for everything.�

Since conservatives seem to hold liberals responsible for everything and their own responsible for nothing - this seems incredibly ironic, even if it made sense.

The last time I saw a Republican express outrage was 1991...

I can't begin to say how Bizarro World that sounds to me . Sowell himself is in a constant state of outrage. And he missed Clinton's entire term? Never saw Gingrich or DeLay?

One more..in a sea of more irony and howlers:

The people who are scariest to me are the people who don’t even know enough to realize how little they know.

Meet George Bush - Master of Certainty, Actual Knower of Almost Nothing.

And why doesn't Sowell deserve the "Elitist" label from NR, I'd like to know? He's saying the people who disagree with him are ignorant fools.
And how does he know that? I wish he took that fear quoted above a little more seriously.

Since Lincoln's death, the Republican Party has functioned as a criminal organization, against the interest of the public on every conceivable subject...from women's rights to civil rights to child rights to anything moral.

Under Bush & Thugs, it has become the American Nazi Party. They tried a coup and it failed.

A military coup will result in the murder of every Republican-Nazi in the county.

It's fine for liberals to pick out the occassionial dumb comment Sowell makes, but it would be a mistake to evaluate him based on his worst.

You're right! Under this new, made-up standard you've instituted for conservatives who yearn for military overthrow of the US civilian government, you now have to give your absolution for the following:

Chappaquiddick
The meaning of is
Voting for a procedural vote before voting against a slightly different procedural vote
Briefly a klansman before apologizing for it
Getting a haircut
Winning an Oscar for an important documentary on an actual scientific fact

And even THEN, you're pathetic, bootlicking attempt at rationalizing away the call for a military coup seems, well, dumb for even a willful ignoramous like yourself. When Michael Moore calls for a violent coup, I'm sure you'll feel the way I do now, but since he hasn't, I'm wondering how much of an apologist you plan to be for an open traitor to the cause of American Democracy, you fascist asshole.

ex-liberal: It's fine for liberals to pick out the occassionial dumb comment Sowell makes, but it would be a mistake to evaluate him based on his worst.

Maybe, but that "worst" is really pretty bad. What problem "caused" by "liberalism" could possibly be cured by a coup? I have felt lately that Sowell wasn't as sharp as he used to be. That sounds like a transient despair.

Truly, unless he retracts that, how can anyone take seriously anything that he writes in the future?

Someone stop publishing this senile old man, because America is not a third world country and we don't have coups.

Discussions about coups at DKos? Sure, there've been comments like that over there. There were others, too, particularly in the impeachment threads. A minute or two searching the comment archives for "coup" will uncover a bunch of them.

So what? Whether they were comments by trolls or frustrated liberals, the comments advocating coups at dKos were slammed, as they should have been. The implied argument that "what Sowell said was okay, because some asshat at dKos said the same thing" is playground logic at best, and just illustrates how intellectually bankrupt people like Nathan are.

Once Bush makes the Republicans a permanent minority party a coup will become their only hope for power.

PaulB wrote: aren't there any honest conservative posters here anymore?

No.

This has been another edition of Simple Answers to Simple Questions (h/t Atrios).

(Of course, PaulB's question implies that there once were honest conservative posters here; a debatable proposition, that...)

I have read a fair number of statements on dailykos articulating an identical sentiment to Sowell's.

I wondered how they would jump to the defense of sowell. Anonymous posters on a web site = the writings of the rights favorite negro conservative published in the house organ of the rethug party. This is pretty weak but they always are.

Why a coup when impeachment will do just fine?

Irony alert: Marler wrote: Truly, unless he retracts that, how can anyone take seriously anything that he writes in the future?

Bonus: He did so in reference to a comment made by "ex-liberal"!

Marler, I think it's safe to say that no one takes anything you or "ex-liberal" say seriously, now or in the future. Your intellectual dishonesty, deliberate obtuseness, imperviousness to reality, incessant water-carrying for the Bush Administration and general bullshit is far too well-established.

And yet you and "ex-liberal" skip gaily from the smoking wreckage of one failed argument after another, blithely ignoring the many times you've been schooled, and post the same old bullshit again -- all the while pretending, at least, that anyone takes you seriously.

Looking at the conservative movement's spokespeople today -- Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Gingrich, Bush, Cheney, ad nauseum, it defies belief that you speculate that Sowell might lose credibility for some asshat comment at the expense of liberals.

Oh, and Nathan, we're still waiting for you to provide evidence for your assertions re: Daily Kos.

But then, waiting in vain for you to prove your assertions is something we're used to. Only the rich entertainment value of your occasional, pitiful attempts to actually do so -- remember your flailing when you attributed a position regarding sealed indictments to cmdicely and myself that we never stated? Good times! -- make it worthwhile.

Let's listen in on a White House conversation.

Bush: Hey. Have you come up with that Czar guy yet?

Under qualified evangelical Lackey: We're having problems Mr. President. We inputted high profile names and created a values' friendly list of those that hate gays, family planning and abortions; then we cross referenced this list to those that would be willing to let the Rove propaganda section politically sloganize any major ideas or pronouncements they might have: then we tested the then remaining candidates as to could they swallow their most heartfelt opinions if those opinions might be in disagreement with yours, praise Jesus.

Bush: And? Who did y'all come up with?

Under qualified evangelical lackey: Harriet and Brownie top the list for those currently available. George T. was on it but he's been scrubbed. Alberto and Condi got top grades too, but well, they already work for you.

Bush: Well, can't you tweak the inputs a little to get more names? Did you hear that? I said, "Tweak the inputs a little." That's pretty savvy, isn't it. "Tweak the inputs." I like that. I'm not as rigid and uninformed as people think I am. Am I?

Sowell used to be a leading libetarian intellectual. It is sad that he is morphing into a fascist.

Too extreme for the New York Post?!?

The same column ran on the opinion page of today's New York Post, minus five bullet points, including the call for a coup.

When you are more irresponsible than the editorial page of the New York Post, I think you can safely be called a wingnut. Congratulations, K. Lopez and NRO.

The sad thing is that NROthe website is more influential that NR the magainze.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on May 1, 2007 at 8:39 PM :

When y'all start bleating that bad behavior should be acceptable because some Democrat did something once, I laugh out loud, because I envision General Disarray following Professor Chaos through South Park saying "Simpson's did it!" to Professor Chaos' (Butters) every idea.

The Baltimore Sun publishes Sowell one day and Cal Thomas the next.

Usually, the topics and the amount of thought going into the columns are identical with Sowell's writing at a slightly higher academic level.

Sowell is published in our local rag, and I make myself read him sometimes.

He NEVER has a context. He ALWAYS writes a list of dyspeptic observations, with no explanation, logic, context, or apparent thought.

MaxGowan wrote, Makes you think twice about opposing the Second Amendment, eh, POed Lib?

Can't speak for POed Lib, only for myself, but I'm not "opposed" to the Second Amendment, but rather in favor of actually reading it. You know, the clause with the word "regulated" in it.

Secondly, having current access to guns is never a necessary or sufficient condition for overthrowing a tyranny. If a resistence movement is politically viable (well-led, has sufficient popular support, etc), it will be able to get the guns when it needs to. If it's not politically viable, it will fail anyway. So current access to guns is simply irrelevant.

Thomas Sowell or Cal Thomas

Yeah, two insightfull writers - Sowell writing about how raising motel and hotel prices astronomically following Andrew, kept the riff and the raff out allowing only those truly needy travelers a place to stay - Or how the young women from Asia, who were forced and interred into slave labor in South El Monte, were at least allowed the "freedom" to come to America.

Or Cal Thomas, writing about a renewal of "Carousel" in London had been ruined for him because of ethnic changes in the case. Why they included Blacks - Not withstanding that "Carousel" was originally set in Hungary and then Paris, and the film was to be first made using a New Jersey beach community, and finally shot in Maine, changing many of the characters to that of the local Portuguese fishing people.

Yeah, two real heavyweights.

It's one bullet point in a long series of dyspeptic observations about how liberals have ruined the country.

... which demonstrate how wrong Republicans have been about everything for years, yes. It was kind of sad.

I think that the Republicans promote Sowell because he helps perpetuate the racist stereotype that black people aren't very bright.

Even the ones with Ph.D.'s.
.

liberals often are more critical of black conservatives

Yes, and I also wouldn't think much of a Jew in the SS.
.

Yes, that cryptic "well regulated militia": You may have a heard time hearing this from a Democrat, but keep in mind a rural Democrat (and a-pox-on-both-your-houses-centrist): Of course this is an individual right, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights; name any part of the Bill of Rights that isn't individual. (And who ever heard of a militia not having the right to keep and bear arms?) I think it's plain English: The government does not have the right to disarm the law-abiding public. (When guns are outlawed,only the government, and criminals, will have guns.) "Regulated" = this does not mean you have the right to a Glock. Or a fully automatic AK-47.

Sowell exemplifies the degeneracy of "our intelligentsia". The only ones who would stage a military coup are the very far right, who would march Sowell and the rest of black America right back to the plantation. If they didn't simply kill us off.

Sowell was, is and will remain--a fool and a tool.

Has anyone noticed the inanity of Sowell's inserting the Babe Ruth pitching comment in the midst of his rant? It is totally without relevance or context.

"Of course, PaulB's question implies that there once were honest conservative posters here; a debatable proposition, that...)"

There definitely were, including folks like John Cole and Sebastian Holsclaw. You have to go back about 4 years or so, but when I first started reading and posting here, this was one of the premier sites in the blogosphere to get a reasoned, and reasonably honest, political debate. That's why it pains me so much to see what it has become.

I can't resist a quick comment on the 2nd Amendment sidebar.

The 2nd references "a well regulated militia". The Constitution itself defines "militia", for purposes of the Constitution and presumably the Bill of Rights.

“Militia� is defined as a body organized, armed and disciplined by the Congress with officers and training provided by the states (Article 1, Section 8), under command of the President of the United States when called up Article 2, Section 2.

(Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power: .......To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;)

The "People", as individuals, have no constitutional authority to organize, arm, discipline, govern, appoint the officers of, or train the militia. The Constitution has the first, defining word on the subject, whether people like what it says or not.

Thomas Sowell is an intellectual in the clique that has largely been setting direction for the country since early '95. Sowell's ideological allies had control of all three branches of gov't from 2001 until January, 2007. Sowell's allies retain control of the courts and the executive branch.

How does Sowell make any sense?

There definitely were, including folks like John Cole and Sebastian Holsclaw. You have to go back about 4 years or so

I agree, if you go that far back; unfortunately, they were long gone by the time CalPundit made the big time here at WM.

FWIW, I've found Cole and Holsclaw's own blogs to be refreshing in their honesty.

Thank you, zak822, for elaborating on this sidebar