Thomas Sowell is Still a Fucking Liar

For some reason, I've suddenly been getting a lot of hits on a post I, um, posted, back in August of 2009 titled "Thomas Sowell is a Fucking Liar."

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Thomas Sowell is a Fucking Liar

 

Apparently, someone referenced this posting on Craig's List Seattle because apparently people use Craig's List to have arguments about issues now. And four years after posting that Thomas Sowell is a fucking liar, which he clearly is, I suddenly get this comment from some "anon" as the kids say:

Anonymous said...

Yes because you lefttards have more education, experience and know-how than Dr. Sowell. According to liberal logic, since you're calling a black man a liar, that would make you racists now wouldn't it?

October 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM

 

 

So, hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Thomas Sowell is an honest broker of ideas. Maybe I should double-check.

Let's just see what Mr. Sowell has written lately:

 

Who Shut Down the Government?

Thomas Sowell | Oct 04, 2013

 

I think you see where this is headed. . .

 

There is really nothing complicated about the facts. The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted all the money required to keep all government activities going -- except for ObamaCare.

 

Okay, that's a lie already. The Continuing Resolution on which the Congress voted did not have anything to do with the funding of "obamacre" which should be obvious since, when the government was shut down, the implementation of "Obamacare" proceeded apace with only glitches in the website to slow it down.

 

The hundreds of thousands of government workers who have been laid off are not idle because the House of Representatives did not vote enough money to pay their salaries or the other expenses of their agencies -- unless they are in an agency that would administer ObamaCare.

 

They were laid off because even thought the Republicans ad denocrats had both agreed to budget numbers that approached Paul Ryan levels, Boehner reneged on the deal because his Tea Party faction demanded that they be given Obamacare's head on a platter as a reward for doing the most basic function of their jobs.

 

Now here comes a blatant lie:

 

 

Since we cannot read minds, we cannot say who -- if anybody -- "wants to shut down the government."

 

Not the part about reading minds, that part is actually true, but we can certainly say who threatened to shut down the government, who bragged about shutting down the government. To pretend otherwise is pathetically dishonest.

Sowell's column was published October 4. On Sept. 28, Michele Bachmann had already been quoted saying this:

 

“We’re very excited,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.). “It’s exactly what we wanted, and we got it.”

 

about the shutdown.

 

 

 

 

That same Washington Post article also had this quote:

 

 

 

“It’s wonderful,” said Rep. John Abney Culberson (R-Tex.), clapping his hands to emphasize the point. “We’re 100 percent united!”

 

This is actually what John Culberson looks like.

And let's not forget:

 

"This is my idea of fun." –Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) on the government shutdown

 

 "I said, like 9/11, 'let's roll!'" –Rep. John Culberson, describing his reaction at a meeting of Republican lawmakers planning to shut down the government, invoking the famous phrase used to fight 9/11

 See? I told you!

 

 

 

And of course:

"We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." --Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) on the government shutdown, Oct. 1, 2013

 

So, yeah, we can say who "wants to shut down the government." Sowell is just lying.

 

Because Thomas Sowell is a fucking liar.

Dick Of The Day

Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell thinks that major American Cities should be allowed to go bankrupt.

Really.

Jewish World Review Jan. 18, 2011 / 13 Shevat, 5771 Budget Crisis Rhetoric By Thomas Sowell

Perhaps the most famous American budget crisis was New York City's, back during the 1970s. When President Gerald Ford was unwilling to bail them out, the famous headline in the New York Daily News read, "Ford to City: Drop Dead." 
. . .
What would have happened if President Ford had stuck to his guns and not set the dangerous precedent of bailing out local irresponsibility with the taxpayers' money?
New York would have gone bankrupt. But millions of individuals and organizations go bankrupt without dropping dead. 

Yeah, but isn't bankruptcy pretty much always bad? Even if it doesn't actually kill you?

Bankruptcy conveys the plain facts that political rhetoric tries to conceal. It tells people who depended on the bankrupt government that they can no longer depend on that bankrupt government. It tells the voters who elected that bankrupt government, with its big spending promises, that they made a bad mistake that they would be wise to avoid making again in the future. 

Yeah, but meanwhile, wouldn't a lot of people be out of work? People like cops and teachers, and . . . oh, I get it. That's the whole idea, isn't it?

 Legally, bankruptcy wipes out commitments made to public sector unions, whose extravagant pay and pension contracts are bleeding municipal and state governments dry. 

And there it is. See, Tom this is why you're the dick of the day, because nobody does the blindingly stupid/mean combo like you!


 It's really the fact that public sector employees make a decent living that is bleeding municipalities dry? It has nothing to do with American companies sending decent jobs overseas? The dwindling tax base caused by off-shoring jobs isn't what's hurting city budgets? And it's not the tax cuts for rich people? That's not it? It's the fact that cops get a decent pension? Not the fact that companies move from town to town based on which municipality is currently leading in the "race to the bottom" to see which city/county/state can offer corporations  the biggest tax breaks and the largest concessions in the hope of getting a few of the jobs that aren't going to China and India? No, it's those darn overpaid municipal employees.

I know a very nice couple back in California who are both public sector employees. One works for Alameda County and the other for University of California, and I can tell you that they are not living in the lap of luxury. They have the same trouble keeping up with bills as the rest of us. As a matter of fact, my father worked his entire adult life for the US Postal service, and while I didn't grow up in poverty, I can tell you that my father has never owned a new car in his life.  I don't think I ever wore a piece of new clothing until I started working and making my own money. Again, not exactly squalor, but come and say to my face that my father was overpaid. I dare you.

Politics being what it is, we are sure to hear all sorts of doomsday rhetoric at the thought of cutbacks in government spending. The poor will be starving in the streets, to hear the politicians and the media tell it.  But the amount of money it would take to keep the poor from starving in the streets is chump change compared to how much it would take to keep on feeding unions, subsidized businesses and other special interests who are robbing the taxpayers blind. 

So you would rather give handouts to people who have been reduced to beggary than pay city employees a decent wage for working in public service? That is some world-class assholery.

One of the political games that is played during a budget crisis is to cut back on essential services like police departments and fire departments, in order to blackmail the public into accepting higher tax rates. Often, a lot more money could be saved by getting rid of runaway pension contracts with public sector unions.
Bankruptcy can do that. Bailouts cannot. 

Really? The city doesn't have money for cops and firefighters, so they have to cut back on cops and firefighters, and you think that's a game they're playing? If I go to the gas station with ten dollars and I can only get a quarter tank of gas with ten dollars and the station owner says he can fill my tank if I give him more money, I don't accuse him of blackmail. I understand that gas costs money. You know what else costs money? Having cops and firefighters. If the city doesn't have the money to pay them, what are they supposed to do? They can't force them to work for free any more than I can force the gas station to fill up my tank for no additional money.

What the public needs are current policemen and current firemen, not retired policemen and retired firemen, much less bureaucrats retired on inflated pensions. 

Yeah, and good luck hiring all those cops and firefighters there in Sowellville once they know that you will use any budgetary excuse to yank their pensions. 


Thomas Sowell, Dick of the Day

Here's a Shock! Thomas Sowell Gets it Completely Wrong!

I don't know whether I've ever mentioned what a despicable turd of a human being Thomas Sowell is. But he is. And in their ongoing attempt to increase the velocity of their downward spiral from respectability, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution keeps reprinting this turd's columns. Here's the latest:a

Thomas Sowell

Deficit Reduction 

Another deficit reduction commission has now made its recommendations. My own recommendation for dealing with deficits would include stopping the appointment of deficit reduction commission

 Ooooh, good one!

Deficit commissions make it politically possible to spend money first and get somebody else to recommend raising taxes later. They are a virtual guarantee of never-ending increases in both spending and taxes.

Okay, good point. Except that the recommendations of the Debt  Comission include:

Tax Reform
Goals:
! Lower Rates
! Simplify the Code
! Broaden the Base
! Cut Spending in the Tax Code (Tax Expenditures)
! Improve Compliance (Tax Gap)
! Make America the Best Place in the World to Start
and Grow a Business
! Reduce the Deficit

And this:

 

Yeah, lowering the top rate from 35% to 23%, that sounds like "never-ending increases in both spending and taxes."

So, Thomas is engaging in one of two types of dishonesty. Either he hasn't bothered to read the commission's recommendations and is basing his argument on what he assumes they probably are, or he has read them and is just flat-out lying about them. 

But being honest or getting things right or using sound logic are not among the requirements for the recipients of wingnut welfare. As long as Sowell keeps churning out columns complaining about taxes and big government and how the darn liberals are just ruining everything his position at the Hoover Institution will not be in any jeopardy. And his bullshit column will continue to run as long as the Hoover Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation, and the Manhattan Institute, and the Cato Institute etc., etc., etc. are around to keep pressure on media outlets to move further and further rightward, lest they be accused of *gasp* LIBERAL BIAS!!!!!!

So why is it that these righties don't just argue their case honestly? Could it be that they know they can't win an honest debate? Um, yes. Yes, I think that's exactly why. That's why they turn to scumbags like Frank Luntz.

 

Luntz is the man who brought focus-group marketing techniques into politics. Which is like being responsible for introducing sewage into the drinking water supply. Luntz knew that if you refer, correctly, to the estate tax as a tax that heirs pay on money and/or property which they did nothing to earn; if you say, correctly, that the tax only applies to very large estates so most Americans will never be affected by it, it's a little tough to convince people that this tax ought to be abolished. It's not an easy sell to say "Paris Hilton should not have to pay any tax on the money handed to her by her late grandfather, but you should pay income tax on the money you earned by the sweat of your brow." You're just not gonna get a lot of takers on that.

But if you call it the "Death Tax," people suddenly look at it as something fundamentally unfair. Which it would be if it were really a tax on death. If an IRS agent showed up at your death-bed demanding payment from you before you were allowed to drift into the sweet hereafter, that really wouldn't be fair. So now every conservative refers to the estate tax as the Death Tax. And support for abolishing this perfectly reasonable tax is pretty high. 

So a proposal to allow more clear-cutting is named the "Healthy Forests Initiative," and allowing more air pollution is the "Clear Skies" something-or-other. And someone decided that the word "Democrat" used as an adjective, sounds worse than "Democratic." So now every conservative refers to the "Democrat Party" or says "My state has a Democrat governor." I don't know why, I guess it sounds sort of dismissive?

And it's not just the word games. it's BS like "Raising taxes on the rich will hurt the economy." or "Social Security is insolvent." It's a crock of lies of course, but say it often enough and people start to believe it. Almost everyone now thinks that Social Security is going bankrupt. It isn't. And it won't. But most people think it is. Thanks to scumbags like Frank Luntz and Thomas Sowell.

Thomas Sowell thinks that the, um. . . HITLER!!!

He's at it again!

Hmmm, look how pensive I can Be. You know, I think. . . HITLER!!! Stalin!!!

Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

By THOMAS SOWELL

Well, I guess the short answer would be "no." The long answer would be "hell no, what are you, fucking insane?"

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s. . . .

Stop! Okay, just stop there. There's no good way out of this. You can't begin with a Hitler analogy and end up anywhere other than crazyville. Cut your losses and stop now!

When Adolf Hitler was building up the Nazi movement in the 1920s, leading up to his taking power in the 1930s, he deliberately sought to activate people who did not normally pay much attention to politics.

So anyone who seeks to get people interested in politics is, um, wait. . .I know this one, Hitler? No, wait Stalin! No, Hitler. Final answer.

Rock the Vote: Hitler. League of Women Voters: Hitler. Got it!

"Useful idiots" was the term supposedly coined by V.I. Lenin to describe similarly unthinking supporters of his dictatorship in the Soviet Union.

Ooh, the daily double! I'll take Pol Pot for the win!

In our times, American democracy is being dismantled, piece by piece, before our very eyes by the current administration in Washington, and few people seem to be concerned about it.

Yes, why aren't more people concerned with imaginary, made-up threats to the nation? I for one am losing a lot of sleep over the army of Yetis amassing at the Canadian border, but no one else seems too concerned.

The president's poll numbers are going down because increasing numbers of people disagree with particular policies of his, but the damage being done to the fundamental structure of this nation goes far beyond particular counterproductive policies.

Really? Fundamental damage? Like when President Obama decided that he could wiretap Americans without a warrant, make habeus corpus optional and expose an undercover CIA agent out of spite. . .Oh, wait! That wasn't him. That was the last guy, so those changes are not bad in any significant way. It's a good thing ya done that, George, a real good thing!

Just where in the Constitution of the United States does it say that a president has the authority to extract vast sums of money from a private enterprise and distribute it as he sees fit to whomever he deems worthy of compensation?

The same place it says that a citizen can be declared an "enemy combatant" and held indefinitely without charges?

And yet that is precisely what is happening with a $20 billion fund to be provided by BP to compensate people harmed by their oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Sure, if by "precisely" you mean "not really."

But our government is supposed to be "a government of laws and not of men."

If our laws and our institutions determine that BP ought to pay $20 billion — or $50 billion or $100 billion — then so be it.

But the Constitution says that private property is not to be confiscated by the government without "due process of law."

Of course, nothing was "confiscated," but I'm going to go ahead and just assume that that won't be a relevant distinction.

Technically, it has not been confiscated by Barack Obama, but that is a distinction without a difference.

No it isn't! You can't just say "oh, well there's no difference," as if saying makes it so! You can't complain about property being confiscated and then say that the fact that it has not been confiscated is not relevant.

Hello, police? I'd like to report my car stolen. Well, technically, I traded it in on a newer model, but that hardly seems germane to the matter at hand!

Maybe the Dumbest Argument Ever

I thought that the Thomas Sowell column of a couple days ago might have contained the dumbest argument ever when he posited the claim that if healthcare were made affordable, people would go to the doctor at the drop of a hat:

Back when the "single payer" was the patient, people were more selective in what they spent their own money on. You went to a doctor when you had a broken leg but not necessarily every time you had the sniffles or a skin rash. But, when someone else is paying, that is when medical care gets over-used. . . Both waiting lines and waiting lists grow longer when people with sniffles and minor skin rashes take up the time of doctors, while people with cancer are waiting.

Because, sure, once people have decent insurance, they will just take every opportunity to take time off of work, drive to the doctor's office, fill out paperwork, sit for 45 minutes reading year-old Golf Digests, then wait another 30 minutes half-naked in an examining room to be poked and prodded by nurses and technicians before the doctor finally comes in an tells you take Tylenol and get plenty of rest. People just LOVE going to the doctor. I know I can't wait to turn my head and cough!

But, no. This, I think is even dumber.
From the New York Daily News.com:

Cupp">

Can the Smoker in Chief really lead America in health care reform?

S.E. Cupp

Wednesday, March 10th 2010, 4:00 AM

With President Obama making his final push for health care reform, I ask you to consider the following "If, Then" theorem: If our health is the President's business, then the President's health should be our business.

Okay, couple things. First, the President is not claiming that our health is his business. He's just trying to find a way to make it possible for more people to be able to see adoctor when they need one. (so far, not doing a great job, but. . .)

Second, even if your premise were true, that doesn't mean that the inverse would be. That's like saying, since the president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, shouldn't the Armed Forces be commander in chief of the president?

(I don't know why everything is getting underlined, and I don't know how to make it stop)

The recent revelation that Obama still sneaks a cigarette now and then, contributing to an industry that costs us more than $167 billion a year in lost productivity and health care, and gambling with a substance that kills more Americans every year than anything else, means that the issue deserves a healthy debate (pun intended).

Yeah, sure. The president's personal habits are so super totally relevant to the debate over healthcare. And I can tell that the pun was intended because of your earlier attempt at humor, which I was just going to ignore, but, now...

Alas, I chose to commune with the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles of the art history department instead - Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello and Raphael.

There's an outside chance that that joke might have come off as slightly clever if it wasn't common knowledge that the turle characters were named after Rennaissance artists.
But even then, it's pretty weak.

So let's consider the following arguments:

* The President's push for health care is disingenuous.

In June 2009, he called the sweeping tobacco legislation that he passed "a victory for health care reform" and "a step that will save lives and dollars." Whether Obama's main interest in passing health care reform in America is to save lives or save dollars - and it has been both over the past year - one could argue that a President who smokes isn't really doing much of either.

Really? Let's say that he actually outlawed tobacco. But he kept his own private stash of cigarettes for extra-stressful days. Now Joe Smoker can't get cigarettes and has to quit, so he ends up avoiding lung cancer. And so do a bunch of other Joe and Jane smokers. Would the president's occasional smoke break diminish that? Would you really say, lung cancer is down 90% in the US, but since the president still has a puff now and then, it doesn't count? Well, you probably would, but would a sane person?

* But the President has rights, too, and smoking isn't illegal.

Libertarians and some conservatives will argue that the President should be able to do what he wants in private, as long as he doesn't break any laws. Whether he refuses to buckle up in the back of his limo, throws back his body weight in bourbon every night or wolfs down three Big Macs a day, how he treats his body is arguably his business.

Arguably? Would you really have to be a crazy libertarian to think that the president can eat whatever he fucking wants? He's an adult for God's sake. What he puts in his body is no one's business but his.

* Well, sure. But his body isn't just any body.

Even far-right Republicans like me are still patriots, and want the President to live a long, healthy life, especially while serving our country. His continued health, therefore, is important, and maintaining it should be one of Obama's priorities. In fact, he owes it to us to take care of himself. He isn't a private citizen anymore.

Oh, my God, your concern is so touching. Yeah, let's pretend that far-right Republicans haven't been upfront about praying for Obama to die. (really) (no, really) (seriously) Even if you're not one of those extreme assholes, do you really expect anyone to believe that you give a flying ratfuck about Obama's health?

* Obama's habit makes the health care bill hypocritical.

"The time for talk is over," as he said, all jacketless and fiery, at a speech this week. He wants an up-or-down vote on the Democrats' bill, which promises to change your life, whether you like it or not. From potential violations of privacy to ethical concerns over abortion funding and constitutional questions about penalizing Americans who don't buy insurance, the President is inviting the government into your private life in unprecedented ways. So maybe we should invite ourselves into his.

Change your life!!! By maybe making it somewhat easier to afford medical insurance? Oh, the heavy yoke of tyranny! And what potential violations of privacy are you talking about? Can you back up that claim at all? Give one example? No? Anything? Yeah, I didn't think so. But even if you could, what the fuck would that have to do with the President smoking?

The debate doesn't bring much in the way of closure. I for one see compelling threads of truth in every point. The only thing I know for sure is that we need health care reform, but this isn't the answer.

So this whole column was just to fill up space until you got the requisite number of words and then end with the current agreed-upon talking point for anti-healthcare folks wasn't it? You people have given up on the whole "we have the best system in the world, don't change a thing" theme, right? And now you're all conceding that, "well, we do need some sort of change, but not this particular one, because, um, Look Out! Nazis!"
Pathetic!

Thomas Sowell Continues to Have So Much Credibility!

This was in today's paper. For some reason I read it. Now I can't un-read it. You'd think I would learn.

Random Thoughts

By Thomas Sowell

Before I even start, you want to know something weird? I could not find this column on the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's website. I found it on Jewish World Review.com
I don't know why Thomas Sowell would be one of the regular contributors to http://www.jewishworldreview.com/
but he is.

Anyway. . . .

Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Sometimes we seem like people on a pleasure boat drifting down the Niagara river, unaware that there are waterfalls up ahead. I don't know what people think is going to happen when a nation that already sponsors international terrorism has nuclear bombs to give to terrorists around the world.

You aren't scared enough, people! I want to see some pants-wetting, hair-standing-on-end fucking cowering! Be Afraid!
At least he isn't using the old "mushroom cloud over an American city" scenario.

No one likes to admit having been played for a fool. So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up.

Oh come on! I was trying to give you a little credit!

So it will probably take a mushroom cloud over some American city before some Obama supporters wake up. Even so, the true believers among the survivors will probably say that this was all George Bush's fault.

They will probably say that Iran developed its nuclear program during the Bush administration which is so unfair because it's true. They might even point out that out of the three "Axis of Evil" nations, Bush invaded the only one that didn't have an active nuke program. Some total true-believers might even stoop to claiming that this sent a clear signal to the world that the best way to avoid being invaded by the US is to get some fucking nukes. I'll bet they will even toss in the fact that North Korea also went nuclear during the Bush years, which is totally not even fair!



Here is a math problem for you: Assume that the legislation establishing government control of medical care is passed and that it "brings down the cost of medical care." You pay $500 a year less for your medical care, but the new costs put on employers is passed on to consumers, so that you pay $300 a year more for groceries and $200 a year more for gasoline, while the new mandates put on insurance companies raise your premiums by $300 a year, how much money have you saved?

OOh, Ooh, I got one. If a newspaper saves $1,000 by cancelling its contract with Thomas Sowell, but then readership increases lead to an additional $1000 in revenue, and the paper saves another $100 by leaving the space previously occupied by Sowell blank, because a blank space has more credibility, then how much have you saved?

What? Oh, I thought we were making up hypothetical scenarios with random dollar amounts. Isn't that what we were doing? 'Cuz I think that's what you were doing.

There has probably never before been as drastic a decline in the quality of vice presidents as there has been when Dick Cheney was replaced by Joe Biden.

You don't know what the word "decline" means, do you?



There has probably never before been as drastic a decline in the quality of vice presidents as there has been when Dick Cheney was replaced by Joe Biden. Yet the New York Times is lionizing Biden as a wise counselor to President Obama. When you support the liberal agenda, that makes you brilliant ex-officio in the media, whether or not you are vice president— and whether or not you have even common sense.

Yeah, can you believe this clown Biden? He hasn't even advised Obama to invade any countries yet, and it's been almost a year! He hasn't come up with any new ways to skirt the Bill of Rights, he probably hasn't even tortured anyone.If he doesn't expose an undercover CIA agent soon, Obama should fire him!


People who are urging us to do things to win the approval of other countries seem to put an excessive value on other country's approval, as distinguished from their respect that we can lose by such bowing to "world opinion." Do the world champion New York Yankees try to curry favor with teams that are also-rans?

That's why you have to invade smaller, weaker countries with no connection to 9/11! Everyone repects a bully!

. . . Do the world champion New York Yankees try to curry favor with teams that are also-rans?

Hell, no they don't! Although if they were going into the 425th inning with no real plan for getting out of Fenway Stadium, they might. But then they'd be pussies!


(for the record, I hate the Yankees and Red Sox equally)

Thomas Sowell is a Fucking Liar

Thomas Sowell

Rose and Milton Friedman Senior Fellow The Hoover Institution Stanford University Stanford, California 94305

With these sterling credentials, you know you're getting a loonie or a liar. It's generally a good rule of thumb that anyone associated with the Hoover Institution should be implicitly distrusted.

But here's Mr. Sowell's column on healthcare that ran in today's paper:

Whose medical decisions?

By Thomas Sowell

Let's see how many lies we can find, shall we? The column begins:

There was a time when rushing a thousand-page bill through Congress so fast that no one has time to read it would have provoked public outrage.

That time must have been pre-PATRIOT act, but this sentence is not technically a lie.

The current "health care" bill threatens to take life-and-death decisions out of the hands of individuals and their doctors, transferring those decisions to Washington bureaucrats.

That is a lie. It is a lie because life-and-death decisions are NOT currently in the hands of doctors, they are in the hands of insurance company flacks whose job it is to minimize payments. So there's one.

The mainstream media are again circling the wagons to protect Barack Obama, but this time it may not work.

That is a lie. They are doing no such thing. The mainstream media insists on presenting this as a "debate" or "controversy" as if those on Mr. Sowell's side of the dispute are putting forth reasonable arguments for their position rather than screaming COMMUNISM! and DEATH PANELS! So that's lie number two.

One of those front-page editorials disguised as a news article in the New York Times begins: "The stubborn yet false rumor that President Obama's health care proposals would create government-sponsored 'death panels' to decide which patients were worthy of living seemed to arise from nowhere in recent weeks."

See, that's an example of a newspaper stating an obvious fact. That this particular fact happens to be that the president's opponents are LYING about "death panels" does not mean that the Times is rallying around the president. They are just telling the truth. (I know that's a foreign concept to you Hoover Institution types, but look it up in the dictionary.)

Nowhere? Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is "Special Advisor for Health Policy" for the Obama administration. That's nowhere? He is also co-author of an article on Americans' "over-utilization" of medical care in the June 18, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. Is that nowhere?

I don't know if that's technically a lie so much as it is just fucking stupid, so I'll give Mr. Sowell the benefit of the doubt.

Dr. Emanuel's article points out that Americans do not visit doctors or go into hospitals more than people in other industrialized countries. In fact we go to both places less often than people do in those other countries, which include countries with government-controlled medical care. As the article points out, "It is more costly care, rather than high volume, that accounts for higher expenditures in the United States."

So, in other words, DEATH PANELS!!!!!!!!

There are more Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) devices per capita in the United States, more coronary bypass operations and Americans use more new pharmaceutical drugs created within the past 5 years.

Americans also have more of what the article calls "amenities" with their medical care. "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy, comfort and auxiliary services than do hospital rooms in most other countries."

In other words, it is not quantity but quality that is different — and more expensive — about American medical care. This is what Dr. Emanuel's "over-utilization" consists of.

Ok, so?

At one time, it would have been none of Dr. Emanuel's business if your physician prescribed the latest medications for you, rather than the cheaper and obsolete medications they replaced. It would have been none of his business if you preferred to have a nice hospital room with "amenities" rather than being in an unsanitary ward with inadequate nursing care, as under the National Health Service in Britain.

That is a lie. Hospital wards in Great Britain are certainly not unsanitary. "Inadequate nursing care" is a matter of opinion, so that is technically not a lie, but it can probably be classified as bullshit.

The involvement of government gives Dr. Emanuel the leverage to condemn other Americans' choices

Actually, anyone can condemn other Americans' choices. Watch, I'll do it now: I condemn the choice of many Americans to subject themselves to the asinine drivel of Thomas Sowell. See? No government involvement.

As for a "death panel," no politician would ever use that phrase when trying to get a piece of legislation passed. "End of life" care under the "guidance" of "some independent group" sounds so much nicer — and these are the terms President Obama used in an interview with the New York Times back on April 14th.

Technically not a lie. No politician would use the term "death panel" and 'end of life care" does sound nicer. But clearly intellectually dishonest. Just because those two statements are technically true doesn't mean that they form any sort of larger truth in tandem. It's like saying "adorable, fluffy bunnies" sounds a lot nicer than "prison rape." True, but if you're implying that "adorable fluffy bunnies" is somehow code for prison rape, as in "Tony da weasel got adorable fluffy bunnied in da showers," then you are full of shit.

But when you select people like Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel to give "independent" guidance, you have already chosen a policy through your choice of advisors, who simply provide political cover. The net result can be exactly the same as if those providing that guidance were openly called "death panels."

That is a lie. Actually several lies. The first lie is that end-of-life counseling would be provided by the doctor of one's own choosing, probably one's primary care physician. But not by Dr. Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel is an advisor tho the president, he certainly would have neither the time nor the authority to make end-of-life decisions for every senior citizen in the country. Nor would he want to. (full disclosure, I have never met Dr. Emanuel, I am simply going with the assumption that he is not a drooling maniac)

It is also a lie that the net result of end-of-life counseling would be the same as "death panels." That is a disgusting lie, and Mr. Sowell should be ashamed of himself. Doing end-of-life counseling has to be extremely difficult for any doctor, especially when he or she has established a relationship with a long-time patient. Doctors go through this emotionally draining process in order to minimize the suffering during the patient's last days on Earth. To equate this with "death panels" is not only dishonest, it is morally offensive.

So that's what, six lies? In one column? Not counting weaselly half-truths, and disingenuousnesses. (I think that's a real word)

Given the evidence, I can come to only one conclusion.

Thomas Sowell is a Fucking Liar.