Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Quote of the Day

Thomas Sowell predicts our future under Barack Hussein Obama:

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year and accepting a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism such as Iran are not things from which any country is guaranteed to recover.

Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II. It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender — especially with people in control of both the White House and the Congress who were for turning tail and running in Iraq just a couple of years ago.

Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law.

Sure, but does the United States of Islam have a universal health care system? And does it include a public plan? Don't leave us hanging here, Sowell!

(Via Tyler Cowen.)

By Ezra Klein  |  June 29, 2009; 6:04 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Designing the Health Insurance Exchanges
Next: Does Medicare Work by Dictat?

Comments

Okay, Sowell's whole premise is ridiculous, but yeah, those two atom bombs were the only bad things that happened to Japan in WWII.

Posted by: chrisbateson | June 29, 2009 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Thomas Sowell's great, isn't he? Here's my favorite Sowell quote:

"The most fundamental fact about the ideas of the political left is that they do not work. Therefore we should not be surprised to find the left concentrated in institutions where ideas do not have to work in order to survive."

Would you say that describes WaPo???

Posted by: whoisjohngaltcom | June 29, 2009 6:14 PM | Report abuse

A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year? Apparently economist Thomas Sowell doesn't know the difference between debt and deficit. Either that, or he is a liar.

Posted by: cjo30080 | June 29, 2009 7:10 PM | Report abuse

Ezra, what is wrong with you today to take one stupid after another? Sowell is one of those 'mad men'. (Others in the club are Victor Hansen, Sir Kudlow.)

So if mere presence of nukes mean surrendering, how many times India has surrendered now that Pakistan has pile of bombs? And oh well, Sowells will conveniently forget that CSSR had tons and tons of bombs....

Very well, we can not waste our life in reading these foolish folks nor commenting upon them any further.

Posted by: umesh409 | June 30, 2009 1:05 AM | Report abuse

Good Lord, how much idiocy in just three paragraphs! And conservatives hold up Sowell as an intellectual.

Shall I make a list?

1) "A quadrupling of the national debt in just one year" - as cjo30080 already noted, Sowell apparently doesn't understand the difference between the annual Federal deficit, and the cumulative national debt.

2) Through September 30, we're still running on Bush's last budget. While some of Obama's stimulus money will fall into FY09, that's his primary contribution to the FY09 deficit boost. The rest is Bush.

3) "a nuclear-armed sponsor of international terrorism such as Iran" - Sowell apparently knows that the Iranians have the Bomb. He must be some sort of super-sleuth, because none of our spy agencies know that.

4) "Just two nuclear bombs were enough to get Japan to surrender in World War II."

Funny, I thought it took three and a half years of war in the Pacific to make them surrender. Think they would have surrendered in 1942, when they dominated the Western Pacific, if our "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" raid had been armed with two nuclear bombs? Of course not. They surrendered because those two bombs followed Midway, Guadalcanal, Leyte Gulf, and a host of other military defeats that reduced their empire to their home islands.

5) "It is hard to believe that it would take much more than that for the United States of America to surrender" - this part doesn't even make sense.

Let's suppose the Iranians somehow set off nukes in NYC and LA. (We'll leave DC out of it, so that there'll be a government that can surrender.) Exactly how would we surrender? What would it mean? It's not like the Iranians can come over here and occupy the U.S.

Even if Sowell's worst fantasies about the nature of President Obama were correct, about the worst he could do would be to apologize for our previous interference in Iran and the Middle East, and further apologize for having put them to the inconvenience of having to blow up two of our cities.

6) "Perhaps people who are busy gushing over the Obama cult today might do well to stop and think about what it would mean for their granddaughters to live under sharia law."

Again, how exactly would this be possible? See #5.

Apparently, "right-wing intellectual" = "I.Q. of a kumquat."

Posted by: rt42 | June 30, 2009 9:46 AM | Report abuse

You don't know too much about Japan at that time, do you? None of what preceded the bombs was enough to make them surrender. not nearly. How can you be so sure that had the bombs been delivered three years earlier they would not have surrendered?

Posted by: truck1 | June 30, 2009 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Holy cow, that was ig'nant.

Posted by: davestickler | June 30, 2009 11:58 AM | Report abuse

truck1 - since you ask, the reason why Japan wouldn't have surrendered if the "Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo" raid of 1942 had nuked two of their cities, is that there would have been, in effect, nobody to surrender to.

We were still trying to get our war machine up to speed at that time, and we were still, for the most part, halfway across the Pacific from Japan. They still would have controlled everything they did the day before the nukes fell.

The possibility that we might be able to do it again might have made them willing to negotiate a separate peace with us, but one that would have been far short of unconditional surrender. Even if we had more nukes at the ready, there would have been a lot that Japan could have done to make it less likely that another such mission would have succeeded: they controlled the waters and the airspace in that part of the world, and the Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo mission only worked (to the extent that it did - not very well, really) due to stealth.

Posted by: rt42 | June 30, 2009 12:37 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company