Reader comments
Thomas Sowell: If you don't win, it doesn't mean your rights have been trampled on
30 comments | Read story
Oh, Mr Sowell | 1:56 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
So brilliantly stated. I really appreciated this article. Anarchy, certainly.
And the country seems to be going in a dangerous direction when they feel they
have a "right" to win.
Hidden Message | 2:17 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Such a wise man.
If I understand you correctly, whenever any group feels the need or desire to participate in the democratic process and have a goal worthy of pursuing, they should give up and go spend the next century in isolation if they don't win their prize quickly and easily.
Efforts that should have died quickly: American independence, emancipating the slaves, women's suffrage, establishing voting and civil rights for all citizens regardless of race.
By inference, do I now understand correctly that with two electoral drubbings in a row and the humiliation that comes with an ideologically fractured movement now scattered in shards with no cohesion or figurehead, that the previously Grand Old Party (Republicans) will now wander into the desert to exsanguinate the vile humors and let groups with workable programs rule for the foreseeable future?
What a noble period lies ahead for this country! Perhaps enough time to rebuild the damage of the last 30 years.
If I understand you correctly, whenever any group feels the need or desire to participate in the democratic process and have a goal worthy of pursuing, they should give up and go spend the next century in isolation if they don't win their prize quickly and easily.
Efforts that should have died quickly: American independence, emancipating the slaves, women's suffrage, establishing voting and civil rights for all citizens regardless of race.
By inference, do I now understand correctly that with two electoral drubbings in a row and the humiliation that comes with an ideologically fractured movement now scattered in shards with no cohesion or figurehead, that the previously Grand Old Party (Republicans) will now wander into the desert to exsanguinate the vile humors and let groups with workable programs rule for the foreseeable future?
What a noble period lies ahead for this country! Perhaps enough time to rebuild the damage of the last 30 years.
Linguist | 5:47 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
I'd amend the title of Mr. Sowell's op-ed to read: "doesn't
NECESSARILY mean your righrs have been trampled on...but then again, it
might."
In this case, it does.
The highest court in California had ruled that gay couples had a fundamental right to marry, under the equal protection clause.
The voters removed that right.
It's at best disingenuous to pretend that someone who has a fundamental right taken away should simply give up and give in.
We have a system of governance designed to protect unpopular minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". That's what this case is about.
And no one, including blacks or members of the LDS church, should feel comforted by that simply because they like the result this time.
Next time, they may be the unpopular minority whose rights have been removed by "the People".
In this case, it does.
The highest court in California had ruled that gay couples had a fundamental right to marry, under the equal protection clause.
The voters removed that right.
It's at best disingenuous to pretend that someone who has a fundamental right taken away should simply give up and give in.
We have a system of governance designed to protect unpopular minorities from the "tyranny of the majority". That's what this case is about.
And no one, including blacks or members of the LDS church, should feel comforted by that simply because they like the result this time.
Next time, they may be the unpopular minority whose rights have been removed by "the People".
Comments continue below
Joe | 7:06 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Just because the Kalifornia Supreme Court declares that gays have a right to be
married doesn't necessarily make it so. Marriage throughout time has been
defined as a relationship between opposite sexes. Gays wish to change that
definition, and with the assistance of the court, they succeeded for a time.
That was a "manufactured" right, not a true, civil right.
The voters corrected that error by the court. Of course, the court may attempt to intervene once again.
The voters corrected that error by the court. Of course, the court may attempt to intervene once again.
Toby | 7:40 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
To Hidden Message: I didn't see anyting in Mr. Sowell's piece that
suggested those who didn't get the outcome they wanted should just quit and
go home. What I did see was that threats and attempts at intimidation were
wrong. You lost, get over it. If you want to continue in your cause do it in a
manner that reflects well upon you and your cause. Keep working. What I am
seeing is a bunch of spoiled, entitled brats. Not the kind of people I'm
enclined to support, or even listen to.
Thinkin' Man | 8:04 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Sowell has it exactly right. Hard to dispute.
Puzzled | 8:18 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
I understand the venting of frustration, and I understand the the gay community
believes in their cause as a case of civil rights. What I don't understand
is how intimidation and scare tactics will aid in people changing their minds.
Or is it just a case of Machiavell's "the ends justify the
means". Do they want their cause to win someday because I'm afraid
for my children's safety. I've never been a homophobe, until these
past two weeks. I truly cried when Obama won because of what he said about our
Constitution. His own words, no pundits, but I am trying to talk to people who
voted for him to gain some kind of understanding for why. That doesn't
mean I give up on what I believe, but scaring people who feel differently is not
the answer.
faults easy to find | 8:38 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
funny how once again Mr. Sowell and other conservative commentators cannot use
this same logic to reflect on the childish language and behaviors during the
election when it did not look good for their candidate or after McCain lost. Its
easy to find fault in others but hard to recognize in ourselves. At least McCain
acted like a statesman.
sad | 8:45 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
how ironic and sad that Mr. Sewell would see fit to disparage the civil rights
movements since he has clearly been such a beneficiary of it. Does Mr. Sewell
really believe he would have been allowed by the white power structure at the
time would have allowed him to ascend to where he is now (regardless of how
smart and deserving) if it where not for the civil rights movement? To stand by
and let other fight for your rights then disparage them seems a little sick.
Concerned | 9:00 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
To Hidden Message: If this and other similar issues are simply about the
"unpopular minority," where does it end? Consensual sex between a
minor and an adult? Who determines who is an adult? Is bestiality OK? Gays may
do what they please in the privacy of their homes, but marriage wasn't
ordained for two people of the same sex. Many times the majority is correct.
Anonymous | 9:00 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
"Hidden Message" provides a perfect example of just what Mr. Sowell
was talking about. Our vastly superior intellectuals can find hidden meanings
while being oblivious to the real content of the message.
jfs | 9:19 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
sad
How did he disparage the civil rights movement? Because he talks about the belief of entitlement beyond given rights. Have we overcome the stigma of color, appearently not. You question his accomplishments only by color as if he was currently "allowed to achieve" because of the civil rights movement. Your world is still colored. The civil rights movement was an effort to remove color as an issue. Some used the civil rights movement to gain power and use the cover of civil rights to further their own special interests.
How did he disparage the civil rights movement? Because he talks about the belief of entitlement beyond given rights. Have we overcome the stigma of color, appearently not. You question his accomplishments only by color as if he was currently "allowed to achieve" because of the civil rights movement. Your world is still colored. The civil rights movement was an effort to remove color as an issue. Some used the civil rights movement to gain power and use the cover of civil rights to further their own special interests.
Hatuletoh | 9:36 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
To paraphrase Dr. Sowell's own literary construction: he makes points that
sound plausible until one thinks too much about them.
For example: the "right to win" has always been part of the American mythos. I am not saying that there such a thing as a "right to win", only that Americans throughout history have believed there is whenever a cause stirs their passions. When the "Founding Fathers" rebelled, they evoked the notions of "natural rights", and even "divine rights."
Another example: Manifest Destiny
Another example: The Suffrage Movement
Another example: The Civil Rights Movement
Another example: The "Ku Klux Klan" and its defense of "traditional Southern society", as they put it.
Another example: The Temperance Movement
Another exmaple: Robber Barons
Another example: WWII and the subsequent Cold War
So whatever one's feelings about Proposition 8, to say that this "right to win" mentality first appeared in The 1960's (cue spooky music--Doc Sowell HATES the '60s and blames the decade for all that ails society) demonstrates serious ignorance of American history. Or it demonstrates a serious bias towards a socially conservative explanation of American history. Knowing that Dr. Sowell is a Standford professor, I'd bet on the latter.
For example: the "right to win" has always been part of the American mythos. I am not saying that there such a thing as a "right to win", only that Americans throughout history have believed there is whenever a cause stirs their passions. When the "Founding Fathers" rebelled, they evoked the notions of "natural rights", and even "divine rights."
Another example: Manifest Destiny
Another example: The Suffrage Movement
Another example: The Civil Rights Movement
Another example: The "Ku Klux Klan" and its defense of "traditional Southern society", as they put it.
Another example: The Temperance Movement
Another exmaple: Robber Barons
Another example: WWII and the subsequent Cold War
So whatever one's feelings about Proposition 8, to say that this "right to win" mentality first appeared in The 1960's (cue spooky music--Doc Sowell HATES the '60s and blames the decade for all that ails society) demonstrates serious ignorance of American history. Or it demonstrates a serious bias towards a socially conservative explanation of American history. Knowing that Dr. Sowell is a Standford professor, I'd bet on the latter.
to Linguist | 10:30 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
'And no one, including blacks or members of the LDS church, should feel
comforted by that simply because they like the result this time.
Next time, they may be the unpopular minority whose rights have been removed by "the People".'
These things have already happened. (Think Jim Crow Laws and the extermination order from MO where all their lands and property were then free game for the mob to claim.) Both these groups, black, and Mormons, have spent ALL of their existence in the US as the minority. One minority (homosexuals) threatening the rights and privledges of another (blacks and Mormons) is juvenile at best and criminal at worst. You are welcome to work for a different outcome through peaceful and acceptable means (lawsuits, protests that actually HAVE a permit), but harassing peaceful people in their places of worship is like a 3 year old having a tantrum. You'll get noticed, but more likely get your message will be ignored until you control your emotions and can communicate like a grown up.
Next time, they may be the unpopular minority whose rights have been removed by "the People".'
These things have already happened. (Think Jim Crow Laws and the extermination order from MO where all their lands and property were then free game for the mob to claim.) Both these groups, black, and Mormons, have spent ALL of their existence in the US as the minority. One minority (homosexuals) threatening the rights and privledges of another (blacks and Mormons) is juvenile at best and criminal at worst. You are welcome to work for a different outcome through peaceful and acceptable means (lawsuits, protests that actually HAVE a permit), but harassing peaceful people in their places of worship is like a 3 year old having a tantrum. You'll get noticed, but more likely get your message will be ignored until you control your emotions and can communicate like a grown up.
Nathan | 11:14 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
@Hidden Message: "If I understand you correctly...."
You don't.
You don't.
Just an observer | 11:34 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
To return to Dr Sowell's premise: too many sore losers in the recent
election. I'll say. Immediately the results were known, a veritable flock
of Chicken Littles ran to their computers, logged on to message boards
everywhere, and proclaimed that the sky is falling in! They were joined by
Turkey Lurkey, Duckey Lucky, and many others: the sky is falling in! The
socialist hoards that were at the gate have breached the wall and they are
taking over! Let us run to tell the king! Funny, Dr Sowell doesn't talk
about these folks.
Anonymous | 11:47 a.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Losing a vote has nothing to do with trampled on rights. When lies were spread
by groups donating large sums of money, the validity of the vtre is soiled. The
question arises, would they vote had won if votes hadn't been lied too?
What if voters had voted to overturn gun rights? Sure the court become involved. Should the court be able to cast off the will of the voter?
The best thing, in a perfect world, would be to let voters overturn Prop 8 in two years. This would remove the will of the majority argument.
What if voters had voted to overturn gun rights? Sure the court become involved. Should the court be able to cast off the will of the voter?
The best thing, in a perfect world, would be to let voters overturn Prop 8 in two years. This would remove the will of the majority argument.
Toby to Anonymous @11:47 | 12:34 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
The courts have said the Constitution says we have the right to carry guns. The
Constituion contains a way to change that. It is called an ammendment. I think
the voters in California just ammended their constitution. Maybe they can
change it back, but I doubt that holding their breath until they turn blue, and
other equally childish behavior will get the job done.
georgiaonmymind | 12:41 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Excellent article. Well stated and explained. I, too, have lost a lot of respect
for the people I have seen in the gay and lesbian community. It is sad that is
has come to this in this great country. Hopefully we can all do better!
Re "Anonymous | 11:47 a.m." | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
[Anonymous | 11:47 a.m.] said...
"Losing a vote has nothing to do with trampled on rights. When lies were spread by groups donating large sums of money, the validity of the vtre is soiled".
Is he talking about all the millions donated to the Obama campaign???
"Losing a vote has nothing to do with trampled on rights. When lies were spread by groups donating large sums of money, the validity of the vtre is soiled".
Is he talking about all the millions donated to the Obama campaign???
anonymous | 2:20 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
how about the $30 million the anit Prop 8 people spent???? And still they
didn't win.
Voice of Reason | 2:49 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
My own brother, who is an attorney in the bay area, has to keep his support for
Prop. 8 a secret . . . out of a real fear for his safety.
But we shouldn't be surprised that gay activists are using threats and intimidation to get their way. That is exactly how they got the APA to de-list homosexuality as a treatable condition at their national convention in 1973 . . . at a time when the majority consensus among psychiatrists was that same-sex attraction was deeply harmful and should be treated.
In a highly coordinated effort, gay activists repeatedly and violently disrupted APA seminars over the preceding few years (1970-73) demanding that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality altogether, and flatly threatening the lives & safety against those who resisted in a few cases.
In a bald-faced cave-in to physical threats, the APA leadership voted to de-list homosexuality from its diagnostic manual. Science had nothing to do with it. Just a little background history to help understand gay activist's typical methods.
The desire for dangerous sexual perversion will drive some people to do things they'd never otherwise do.
But we shouldn't be surprised that gay activists are using threats and intimidation to get their way. That is exactly how they got the APA to de-list homosexuality as a treatable condition at their national convention in 1973 . . . at a time when the majority consensus among psychiatrists was that same-sex attraction was deeply harmful and should be treated.
In a highly coordinated effort, gay activists repeatedly and violently disrupted APA seminars over the preceding few years (1970-73) demanding that psychiatrists stop treating homosexuality altogether, and flatly threatening the lives & safety against those who resisted in a few cases.
In a bald-faced cave-in to physical threats, the APA leadership voted to de-list homosexuality from its diagnostic manual. Science had nothing to do with it. Just a little background history to help understand gay activist's typical methods.
The desire for dangerous sexual perversion will drive some people to do things they'd never otherwise do.
Get A Grip People | 2:57 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
You cannot compare the noble civil rights struggle of the '60's for
African American equal rights with a bunch of people demanding that they &
their gay lovers be called "married" by the government. The very
comparison offends reason, and offends the memory of those who suffered REAL
discrimination as blacks & other racial minorities.
Sexual preference is nowhere NEAR the same thing as race. One is a harmless & helpless physical trait (race), the other a deeply harmful and preventable choice (gay sex).
You can try to hitch your gay activist sail to the noble racial struggle ship, but don't expect anybody to buy it.
Sexual preference is nowhere NEAR the same thing as race. One is a harmless & helpless physical trait (race), the other a deeply harmful and preventable choice (gay sex).
You can try to hitch your gay activist sail to the noble racial struggle ship, but don't expect anybody to buy it.
Z | 3:23 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Re: Voice of Reason - Thanks for the excellent post. I did not know the
specifics of that change by the APA but I'm not terribly surprise.
I posted this earlier on another thread, so forgive me if you've heard of this, but in so many ways it is illustrated time and again that those who espouse "tolerance" are the least tolerant of all. It's simply codespeak to silence dissent. Anyway, on with my point...
A high-school girl performed a wonderfully telling experiment at her high-school just before the elections. She wore identical T-shirts on back-to-back school days. One said simply "McCain Girl" and the other "Obama Girl". She carefully logged every comment she received each day. I think you can imagine what she found.
She received non-stop, brutal, repugnant personal insults when she wore the McCain shirt--including death threats!
She received a few compliments and virtually ZERO derogatory comments when she wore the Obama shirt. You can google this on the web and read about it yourself. It's certainly receiving no airplay on the mainstream media.
I'm afraid this girl's experience exactly jives with my own. Don't cross those who scream for tolerance because they'll come after you!
I posted this earlier on another thread, so forgive me if you've heard of this, but in so many ways it is illustrated time and again that those who espouse "tolerance" are the least tolerant of all. It's simply codespeak to silence dissent. Anyway, on with my point...
A high-school girl performed a wonderfully telling experiment at her high-school just before the elections. She wore identical T-shirts on back-to-back school days. One said simply "McCain Girl" and the other "Obama Girl". She carefully logged every comment she received each day. I think you can imagine what she found.
She received non-stop, brutal, repugnant personal insults when she wore the McCain shirt--including death threats!
She received a few compliments and virtually ZERO derogatory comments when she wore the Obama shirt. You can google this on the web and read about it yourself. It's certainly receiving no airplay on the mainstream media.
I'm afraid this girl's experience exactly jives with my own. Don't cross those who scream for tolerance because they'll come after you!
Christine Howell | 3:36 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
I believe Mr. Sowell observations are accurate. Let the "sheep" or
silent majority get out of their comfort zones before it is too late and speak
up with the voice of reason and in support of values and all we hold dear!
Please Learn! | 4:37 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
So many of the Supporters of GLBT group will not seem to get any reason or
sensibility. If people were to vote and AMEND the Constitution, that is the law
of the land. Period. Courts can't amend constitutions, only voters! Even
terrible, ugly practices could be legal if amended in. Power to the people.
to: faults easy to find | 8:38 a | 5:02 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
It is amazing that you are offended by the tepid disappointment of McCain
supporters who are bereaved by his loss; as opposed to the absolutely innane
action by gay zealots (even to Gore supporters who whined for years). Its like
comparing a hang-nail to a heart attack.
Sowell is absolutely correct in his assessment of the hypocrisy.
(BTW I am homosexual and completely appalled by the gay community)
Sowell is absolutely correct in his assessment of the hypocrisy.
(BTW I am homosexual and completely appalled by the gay community)
Dan M | 5:05 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Once again, many people have forgotten that marriage is not a right, either
civil or fundamental. It is a term used to define a certain kind of relationship
between a man and woman.
The people of california voted to keep the same definition for that word that has stood for centuries.
The people of california voted to keep the same definition for that word that has stood for centuries.
rasjr | 7:19 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
This is a great article, and to read the comments of those who "lost"
you would think it was hate speach. Will no logic or reason ever suffice?
If those who support "Homosexual Rights" feel so strongly that it was a poor outcome, then follow the rules and get your "laws" passed the American way. By that I mean to work it through your respective legislative bodies, do ballot inititives, or what ever legal means available. But never should you resort to the tactics of verbal warfare, disrespect of people and property. If you truely want mutual respect, then show some as this artilce implies.
My thought as to the origin of "the right to win, even if I lost" thinking was our 2000 presidential election!
If those who support "Homosexual Rights" feel so strongly that it was a poor outcome, then follow the rules and get your "laws" passed the American way. By that I mean to work it through your respective legislative bodies, do ballot inititives, or what ever legal means available. But never should you resort to the tactics of verbal warfare, disrespect of people and property. If you truely want mutual respect, then show some as this artilce implies.
My thought as to the origin of "the right to win, even if I lost" thinking was our 2000 presidential election!
samhill | 10:32 p.m. Nov. 20, 2008
Yet again, Dr. Sowell correctly assesses and articulates the essence of an
important topic.
How wonderful it would be if more people had such clear insight.
Kudos Dr. Sowell!
How wonderful it would be if more people had such clear insight.
Kudos Dr. Sowell!
Add your comment
Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.
Words Remaining
E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.
- Landreth Seed Co. turns 225 12:18 p.m.
- 911 tapes of Woods' crash on Sun. 12:03 p.m.
- Residents startle Provo burglars 11:57 a.m.
- Akron fires coach J.D. Brookhart 11:41 a.m.
- Canada engineers walk off job 11:35 a.m.
- Christmas shoeboxes for veterans 11:32 a.m.
- Roethlisberger sidelined 11:29 a.m.
- Louisville fires coach Kragthorpe 11:06 a.m.
- Houseplants can flourish 11:00 a.m.
- Russia: Bomb caused train crash 10:54 a.m.
- Cave to be sealed with body inside
- Predicting the unpredictable: BYU wins
- Efforts to save a life praised
- Rivalry Week is highly profane
- BYU's old uniforms?
- Vegas, Poinsettia bowls or bust
- Glover gives Utes last-second upset
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Cougars turn back Wildcats'
- BYU football: 5 keys to victory
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
271 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple213
- Thunder rolls by Jazz136
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin134
- Boys basketball rankings130
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin113
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies109
- Cave to be sealed with body inside102
- Letters: Trump card for believers94
- Rivalry Week is highly profane88
Latest comments
Folks, if you want to see angels landing from the top, you don't need to...
17 terrorist got Bush to double the national debt. I'm prety sure the...
To the family and friends of this young man, I send my heartfelt condolences....
We didn't only win. We DOMINATED them!
BYU by a touchdown!!
I agree with Utah Girl. I've never done any of the things I get accused of...
BYU fans, you are saying that you are the better team because you beat a...
Lets not forget Saddam Husein was telling the truth about not having any...
i feel very badly for the family. if he cannot be recovered then i think...
Yes, they still may be functional but upgrading to earthquake standards is...
Advertisements