Think of what you’re saying
You can get it wrong and still you think that it’s alright . . .
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While you see it your way
There’s a chance that we might fall apart before too long
You cannot be, I know, nor do I wish to see you an inactive Spectator, but if the Sword be drawn I bid adieu to all domestick felicity, and look forward to that Country where there is neither wars nor rumors of War in a firm belief that thro the mercy of its King we shall both rejoice there together.
I greatly fear that the arm of treachery and violence is lifted over us as a Scourge and heavy punishment from heaven for our numerous offences, and for the misimprovement of our great advantages.
If we expect to inherit the blessings of our Fathers, we should return a little more to their primitive Simplicity of Manners, and not sink into inglorious ease.
We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.
— Abigail Adams, 16 October 1774
“So I will ask you once again”
A go-to tactic of the dead certain is to make damn sure the debate never reaches the merits of the matter.
There was a time when I would have written that with the Right mostly in mind.
now it’s the nation
It’s critical to acknowledge that evolution of observation. I never denied behavioral issues on the Left — I just wasn’t aware of them as much until Obama came along.
Once I saw it, my scrutiny followed.
If I had an idea that could turn the tide — and it involved the Left taking responsibility for its role in the decline of our culture, I’d try that too.
But with hundreds of years of baggage behind their beliefs — those waters are too murky. For what I have in mind, I need something narrow in scope and impossible to deny.
Undeniable plays no role in America anymore. I aim to bring it back.
Lemme get this straight
You want the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace . . .
Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on . . .
While you won’t even look at the material properties of a tube: The manipulation of which f$@*#% up the future of the entire world.
What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?
Percentage of people peddling “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” — who couldn’t write a sound argument on the subject to save their lives:
There’s a reciprocal relationship between the Right and the Left — so the bulk of the problems what we face . . .
Both parties created them by ceaselessly jockeying for the upper hand.
In one form or another, inevitably there are consequences for convictions unguided by conscience.
When Rumsfeld passed away, his defenders talked a good game about decency for the dead.
If they gave a damn about decency — they should have held him accountable while he was still alive
He made his choices.
If he wanted to be remembered more fondly, he should have made better ones — or at least accept responsibility for making such brazenly bad choices and lying about ’em to boot.
And now you have a choice
That the Left brings the piñata on themselves is another matter.
The issue at hand is how the Right so easily gets away with their abominable behavior, record of recklessness, and hypocrisy that knows no bounds.
As pointed out in Part 8:
Not a trace of Sowell’s “follow the facts” claim to fame can be found on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history. . . .
But because the Left provides a piñata for the Facts Over Feelings parade, people like Sowell can forever pounce — creating an impression about themselves that simply doesn’t square with their record . . .
The Mariana Trench of Mendacity
- The Right went batshit crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze — and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly . . .
- Systematically, gleefully, and endlessly mocked anyone who questioned their beloved Bush — treating him like the Second Coming of Christ
- And when ya came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch
- You defend the indefensible as a badge of honor — and with decades of practice, it gets easier every day
- Any anniversary on Iraq of some sort — you trot your ridiculous rationalizations and trite taglines like “The Lie that Bush Lied”
- It’s repulsive that you think your smug catchphrases are clever — while refusing to even glance at the mountain of evidence that buries your baseless beliefs
- You’re dead certain about matters you couldn’t muster up a molecule of curiosity to question
- As evidence is easily accessible (especially since I did all the work for you) — your hypocrisy on follow the facts in this fiasco for the ages — is staggering beyond belief
- Then there’s the fact that I can crush your convictions inside of 5 minutes
- On the most world-altering topic of our time — you tap dance to talking points in doubt-free delight (butchering every ounce of goodness in that Bible you belt people with)
- You never did your homework and to this day mock anyone who did
- Shit shovelers are never satisfied in perpetuating the lies they live by — so there is no pile too high for glorifying themselves with regurgitated garbage
Rather than writing another article on the next anniversary for rolling out your righteousness — why not find some decades-overdue courage & courtesy to ask questions for a change?
Ah, but I may as well try and catch the wind
- It’s bad enough you’ve never met a lie you wouldn’t swallow in service of your agenda — but no amount of incompetence matters to you either. As long as it’s your boy, Anything Goes.
- After your infinite willingness to see no evil, hear no evil — the second the tables are turned, evil is all the rage
- It’s all about feelings to protect your interests — and occasionally about facts to flog theirs
- Either way, you’ll ceaselessly pound that piñata with pride — congratulating yourselves over your meaningless mantra
You’ve put on a masterclass of complaining for 30 years — but because the intelligentsia on the Left perennially pumps candy into the piñata:
You beat the hell out of them — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of your own behavior.
And why not, when you’ve got professional know-it-alls who package all you need to know in a box of baseless beliefs.
He doesn’t write with that tribalist sense. He’s trying to be purely objective and there’s nothing in him of — here’s what we down here think. Here’s what we’ve been through. It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.
“Some people took one view — some people took another”
“He doesn’t write that tribalist sense”
What would you call “Weapons of Crass Obstruction” and regurgitating talking points on a matter of world-altering magnitude?
Where is his record of objectively combing through evidence in a “white lab coat” or any coat?
And he wasn’t just wrong on WMD . . .
He did absolutely nothing in the spirit of what McWhorter described above. That’s bad enough, but once it was abundantly clear that he was wrong . . .
Right on cue with his crowd
If you’ve got a following, you can open your mouth on anything and your loyalists will buy it . . .
As long at it aligns with their agenda, it’s gospel.
And even reasonable minds like Loury and McWhorter — sanction Sowell’s conclusions simply by virtue of casually commenting on his commitment to facts . . .
Never mind that it’s not true
It confounds me to no end that you guys don’t understand how dangerous and destructive that is.
However over-the-top and flat-out wrong your blind faith in Sowell is — it’s nothing compared to the cult-like army of sycophants you’re unwittingly helping to amass.
I find their kiss-ass commentary on Sowell to be sickening.
If only this National Treasure could live for 150 years
We’ve seen enough false idol worship for one century, don’t ya think?
That’s how we got here
But you’re so wrapped up in your world, fighting the good fight — that you don’t see how all these things are interrelated . . .
Acting as an impenetrable force to your fight.
Your whole world revolves around discernment — and then you turn around and be wildly undiscerning on Sowell. And all you fans follow suit . . .
But will you correct your mistake — showing your audience the way in your willingness to be wrong?
Or will you rationalize why you won’t?
And if you do that, what makes you any different from the minds you’re trying to change? The Left wouldn’t correct the record on Trayvon’s weight, the watermelon drink, and what he really looked like.
If you won’t admit that you’re wrong when your interests are at stake — why should they?
If you won’t set the record straight on Sowell, you’re protecting a lie no matter how you slice it.
And protecting that myth protects a MUCH bigger one by proxy.
And why not — everybody does it
Well, almost everybody.
I go after the truth — and I don’t give a damn who gets in the way . . .
And that especially includes me.
People love to plug the “nobody’s perfect” line, and yet so many of ’em proudly refuse to be corrected on anything.
The incorrigible in that camp act like they’re never wrong, never rude, never foolish, never over-the-top, never unreasonable, and never insulting.
In the spirit of the “only guilty man in Shawshank” — I’ve been all of those things at one time or another.
If you wanna gauge someone’s commitment to doing right by their fellow man — ask ’em how many times they didn’t.
I’m keenly aware of each instance.
From Part 3
The Yellow Brick Road is the path of America’s pursuits.
When are you gonna come down?
When are you going to land? . . .
We cannot solve life’s problems except by solving them. This statement may seem idiotically tautological or self-evident, yet it is seemingly beyond the comprehension of much of the human race. This is because we must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
What if Kaepernick kneeled and acknowledged that they need to do their part while asking the police to do theirs?
“Hold the phone — you want us to share some responsibility?”
You wanna solve the problem or protest about it?
Unlike Thomas Sowell & the Facts Over Feelings Parade — I really am objective and follow the facts. But I don’t go around slinging slogans to do it:
I just do it
I don’t need a mantra — my record speaks for itself.
And because I am objective, I apply the same scrutiny to Glenn and John as I would anyone else. How highly I think of them is immaterial.
I don’t just go along — I expect better of you. If you’re the people you claim to be, you would want me to . . .
And so would Sowell.
So I ask you, Glenn & John: You wanna solve problems or talk about ’em?
We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.
“Heroes in Error”
Your shows are informative and enjoyable — but talking about the same ol’ subjects with the same ol’ people in the same ol’ ways . . .
Is not “looking at the deep questions.”
But maybe this guy below is right — that it’s all for “entertainment purposes.” I don’t wanna believe that, but if it’s true — I’d like to hear it from you.
What I suspect is the truth:
That the increase in your well-deserved attention is giving you guys the impression that you’re making more of an impact than you really are.
I spent $19.47 to prove a predictable point: Not one word on WMD — and fittingly, Iraq shows up only once in a footnote.
And Mr. Riley — it’s just precious that you peddle his prescience — while conveniently ignoring his role in creating chaos that feeds the very polarization he predicted.
Quite the self-fulfilling prophecy, don’t ya think?
Sleight of hand
I’m often amazed for someone who writes about so many controversial issues — not just race — how little real criticism I get.
That’s convenient — most people don’t know who this guy is (I didn’t until over the last year or so). So the notion that nobody challenged him on WMD is preposterous — since few would have known about him or even bothered to if they did.
And it’s not like he didn’t know there was massive disagreement on the matter — where he could have “engaged” to welcome a challenge to his claims.
Why bother — when you can chalk it up to “Weapons of Crass Obstruction” — and still be seen as Sherlock Holmes . . .
Free from partisan “seasoning” and “tribalist” talking points — “purely objective” in hot pursuit of the facts with his “white lab coat” flapping in the wind.
Push the man as a “maverick,” a “nonconformist,” a “national treasure,” and that’s all he’ll ever be in your eyes.
They say nothing. And that’s their strategy. They cannot engage. There are people who do engage, but the people on the other side do not.”
Since he didn’t follow the facts on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history . . .
What are the chances that he’s a repeat offender?
That’s the thing about people like Sowell — once you start digging around for real, you find that they’re all over the place on their convictions.
Note: I can’t speak for his core expertise — so that comment is confined the scope of inconsistencies I’ve seen so far.
I agree with what he wrote below on Feb 20th, 1999:
The entire Democratic Party corrupted itself to save a man most of them distrust, but know to be key to their own political survival. Finally, even the Senate GOP leadership joined in, throwing House Republicans to the wolves, in order to wear the faded flower of “bipartisanship.”
As I wrote in Part 10:
I actually changed my mind about Clinton’s impeachment. The me of today would have supported it for lying under oath alone — regardless of what it was about.
I was the same way about principle back then as I am now — it’s just that I couldn’t see clearly through the underhanded motives of those trying to bring him down.
The me of today would cut right through that crap.
And weigh his actions purely on the merits of the president doing the right thing — regardless of any wrongdoing done to him.
He put protecting his reputation over the good of the nation (not to mention breaking the law). I’m of the Dave doctrine when it comes to the presidency:
See, there are certain things you should expect from a President. I ought to care more about you than I do about me. I ought to care more about what’s right than I do about what’s popular. I ought to be willing to give this whole thing up for something I believe in.
But that’s me
And “squabbling for the scraps” is you
You’re so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank’s table . . . that you’ve missed your God-given right to something better
How did you miss this in your research, Mr. Riley?
Donald Trump has no such exemption [on impeachment]. Neither the media nor congressional Republicans would automatically spring to his defense, if he overstepped the line.
Prescient, you say?
Anyone with an inkling of objectivity would know what Republicans would do.
Ya know — exactly what they always do (post Nixon, anyway).
That’s one of the many problems with people like Sowell:
They never admit mistakes that come with a political cost (so they never learn from them).
And he’s got company
But this Thomas Sowell below seems like a “maverick” — or anyone using their brain.
How comes he’s not such a “national treasure” in his spot-on assessment of Trump in 2016?
Oh, I see — you just ignore all that and latch onto the Sowell that suits you.
A lot of that goin’ around
Here’s somebody who took issue with Thomas Sowell on Trump — but it’s nowhere near the realm of reality.
And I just love these bits about “accused lack of maturity” and “accused lack of character.” This is when your precious “maverick” is living up to what you should expect of him, and then you don’t listen and learn . . .
Don’t be inspired to heap praise upon him when he tells ya what you wanna hear.
Be inspired by finding the willingness to change your mind when reality warrants it.
By the way, this aspect of the guy’s argument seems sound on the surface:
As for the accused lack of maturity, I find it hard to believe that anyone who has amassed a multi-billion dollar empire, apparently legally, at least by today’s standards, could have done so without a reasonably high level of maturity, intelligence, and self-control.
Just one problem
Trump loved the world that he was in — and apparently paid attention to detail.
His leadership issues and shady deals aside, he seemed happy. The love of the business, the freedom he enjoyed, and being in charge of the whole show . . .
That went a long way to mitigate his immaturity.
Any objective observer could see that Trump never really wanted to be president. Evidence of that has come out, but I knew it all along (I’m sure a lot of people did).
Nobody who enjoyed the job and wanted to make the most of it — would waste half the day Tweeting and watching TV.
He was bored — plain and simple
I said this from the get-go — that whatever value Trump brings in the business world, would not transfer to the White House.
This didn’t help matters — and I say that especially for those who refused to rein him in.
They made him worse — and he returned the favor.
So why would he run again?
Avoiding legal jeopardy may have been part of it — but this is much more of it:
This is a man who would make himself miserable for another 4 years just to save face.
So what seemed sound on the surface — was nothing of the kind:
In my seemingly endless research on this subject matter, I came across the tiniest of discrepancies that did nothing to change the truth of what took place.
Nevertheless, I sought to square those inconsistencies — because accuracy is of paramount importance to me. With rare exception, issuing the facts was equally imperative to those who wrote the original material — but I had the luxury of looking at all of it together. . . .
So I found a few things that didn’t match up, and it’s just in my nature to want to know why. No one harboring a “Bush hater” mentality would go so far to understand every single element of this story.
— Richard W. Memmer (Epilogue)
That is research, Mr. Riley
You began with “maverick” as the basis of your book — and backed it by anything that aligned with that image.
Conveniently ignoring what didn’t.
That’s a flagrant breach in the fundamentals of research.
All the like-minded intellectuals and loyalists on Earth — can’t change the part of Sowell’s record you egregiously ignored that flies in the face of these claims:
You’re all doing what I did in COM 101 30 years ago — drawing conclusions based only on the limited set of information that suits you.
As explained in that Pink Floyd story in Call Sign “Maverick” — I proved myself wrong, and gladly!
You have no such notion — even in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence . . .
Of world-altering consequence, no less.
I hope to God I’m wrong — and that someone within a community of people who pride themselves on compelling argument, will show the same commitment to truth when receiving it.
I hope against all hope — that someone of influence has the guts to admit that they’re wrong about Sowell and openly say so.
And mark my words — it’s in everyone’s best interests (including his) that you do.
But I know human nature
In all likelihood, you’re all gonna go to your graves objecting to people behaving as you do. You may be more elegant in your approach, but in the end — it’s all the same shit:
They protect their interests — you protect yours.
Truth be damned
If you wanna instill some integrity into your kids — not cheering “4 More Years!” for pathological liars is a pretty good place to start.
And by the way — I said that about 25 years ago.
America has gone totally off the rails in its worship of the wildly undeserving.
I said that 7 years ago.
Baby you come knockin’ on my front door
Same old line you used to use before
I said, “Yeah, well what am I supposed to do?”
I didn’t know what I was getting into
I have repeatedly proven that Thomas Sowell is not remotely the “maverick” you see. No “fearless” and “brilliant thinker” would have his record of partisan hackery:
Brazenly ignoring the debauchery on his own side so he could politely pounce on the other.
And then go around tooting his own horn on “following the facts” — as he butchers them on the biggest and most costly lie of our time.
Oh, you’re concerned about propaganda — me too:
How you listen to legends who repeatedly get it wrong — and deem them brilliant to boot — never ceases to amaze me.
Rest assured, Mr. Sowell: I’m defining you as the hypocrite that you are — and I don’t care what color your lack of character comes in.
But if Maverick serves as a useful survey of Sowell’s ideas, it at times sacrifices depth for breadth. Riley emphasizes over and over again that Sowell is, as his title suggests, a “maverick” and a “contrarian” who likes to think for himself.
But too often, these assertions of Sowell’s uniqueness serve as a substitute for any meaningful engagement with the broader social and intellectual currents that shaped his work.
If this man were a “maverick” — his long record of egregious hypocrisy and gross negligence would not be plastered all over my website.
If he were a “national treasure,” he wouldn’t bask in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to talk about responsibility to boot.
And he’d have a helluva lot higher expectations of his supporters.
When discussing black problems, the Left forbids any discussion of behavior or culture. To do so is “racist.”
I agree — look around
And while you’re lookin’ . . .
Perhaps you can explain why it’s okay for Republicans to resort to childish crap like “Bush hater,” “libtard,” “libturd,” “snowflake,” “TDS” to beat back any and all criticism.
You don’t like people dismissing you the way you dismiss them?
And you want them to stop — while you keep at it.
Is that it? Just wanna make sure I understand the rules.
On top of all that . . .
You wanna worship a guy who pompously pretends that this “way of life” of “hostility and hatred” — doesn’t even exist on the Right . . .
Never mind Mentality of a Mob and Mariana Trench of Mendacity:
I just made ’em up from my imagination — just like I imagined the mountain of evidence in my documentary.
By Sowell’s own standard — I offer facts and you account for them.
That’s the deal
So even if I were the biggest card-carrying Bush hater / libtard / libturd / snowflake / TDS afflicted person on the planet . . .
It still wouldn’t have a f#$%!*& thing to do with this:
Sowell is either unduly pessimistic by nature or unearthily prescient
— Jason L. Riley
I’m horrified by my typos
So I’m not making fun of you to point out that it’s “unearthly.”
Just be more careful . . .
On that — and your misguided conclusions to manufacture a “maverick” out of someone who is not.
But hey, there’s a market for it — so who cares, right? Ya got about 45,000 followers to eat it up, buy your book, and spread the word.
I’ve got 9 and I’m nobody, but I obliterated the basis of your book with ease.
So there’s that — and this
From Call Sign “Maverick”
And this young man is making a huge mistake in following your footsteps on that front:
And that is a microcosm of America
13 years ago, just a few weeks on the job — I discovered a blunder that 4 other developers had missed for over a year.
These are smart guys — and I learned a lot from them.
So how could they have possibly missed that all the decimal places were missing in a key source with over 100 million records?
What’s more — how could they still not see it once I pointed it out to them multiple times?
Even my manager said, “That data’s been validated.” I thought to myself:
Yeah, that can happen when you’re comparing two wrongs that make it look right
Once again, I sent out more screenshots to compare the source to destination side by side.
The first guy on the project replied, “You’re right, they’re all gone.”
They had to go back and re-pull all the data over again — which was pretty time-consuming considering the volume.
No politics, no religion, no heroes, no raging egos involved . . .
And yet they couldn’t see what was right in front of their faces. How can that be?
Groupthink — plain as day.
I’m not fond of this first definition in this case, because it includes an “urge to conform” and possibly having an agenda.
This one’s more applicable
Each developer had followed the ones before. 2nd assumed 1st was right. 3rd assumed first two were right. And 4th assumed the other 3 were right.
5th guy comes along and says, “Wait a minute!”
And they can’t wrap their mind around it
No matter how glaringly obvious it was that they blew it.
So they rationalized why it couldn’t be true — instead of simply taking a look for themselves.
They weren’t being dismissive or blowing me off — they just couldn’t believe that 4 guys at their level could botch something that big.
That data was worthless without those decimal places, but we were able to salvage the situation before it got to the customers.
Now imagine the waste and destruction on a daily basis . . .
When politics, religion, money, power, narcissism, greed to get your way, the Almighty values, attention seeking, and hero worship are involved.
And then handing down the horseshit to those who follow in your footsteps.
When it comes to the truth — be wary of those who have something to protect.
They’ll look away from a mountain of evidence against their side — while nitpicking over pebbles to pounce on the other
Even against overwhelming evidence served on a silver platter, they will swat it away in disdain without so much as glancing at the goods
The Left is catching up in its tactics on Mentality of a Mob — but I originally wrote that list about the patriots who show nothing contempt for correction on the most crystal-clear facts imaginable.
As I wrote in Part 4:
Of all those in that crowd that I’ve challenged on WMD — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
Sadly, my best poem was inspired by people who have not an atom of reflection on their record of recklessness.
As they “support the troops” with their f*$%!+@ flair
It’s not anti-war — It’s pro-thinking
Preach responsibility and take none
Put that on your bumper for some truth in advertising.
And The Lie lives on — with a helluva lot of help . . .
Including from people not even trying to. Back to that in a bit.
Not even Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has accused Bush of “lying.” But Bush haters do?!?
— Larry Elder
You’re not stupid, Larry — however much you pretend to be at times.
Anyone who understands politics — knows that these empty assertions do not factor for how politicians operate.
And the idea that “bi-partisan” means it’s aboveboard — is equally asinine.
For one thing, Democrats can’t expose the lie without exposing themselves.
Secondly, D.C. should stand for Deception Central — as Eric Alterman beautifully brought to light when he referred to our nation’s capital as . . .
A town where it’s worse to call someone a liar than it is to be one
I’m only providing this clip as an example of how rare it is that a president is explicitly accused of lying (especially in this setting).
So without even getting into the evidence — the notion that you can conclude that “nobody lied” — simply by virtue of politicians not saying so, is so preposterous that we need a new word for it.
Compare Silberman’s words below to mine. Which ones strike you as sincere and compelling?
By the way, I noticed “You can’t believe everything you read” only applies to words you don’t like.
As with investigations — if the headlines tell you what you wanna hear, it’s the gospel. If not, it’s all made up. Either way, you don’t burden yourselves by looking into it on your own.
Why bother when you’ve got people to tell what to believe — leaving you plenty of time to regurgitate your convictions.
This is the culture you created and defend
This bit about Coleman Hughes captures the principle upon which my site and documentary were founded:
[Coleman] Hughes says he formerly accepted the premise of Black Lives Matter — that, in his words, “racist cops are killing unarmed black people” — but now believes that this premise does not survive scrutiny once factors other than race are taken into account.
“But now believes” . . .
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true? Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind. I changed my mind.’”
“Said so and so” — and all their ridiculous diversionary tactics to deny the obvious . . .
Cannot survive scrutiny once other factors are taken into account.
like evidence and stuff
Once again . . .
That you even think that something so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself.
So Thomas Sowell as a “maverick” — does not survive scrutiny once the totality of his record is taken into account.
No rational person would argue otherwise.
Merle’s sorrowful song has an uplifting twist at the end, and without that final 45 seconds — you’d miss the meaning of the message.
The underlying meaning in my message: Your beliefs should be backed by your record.
On Working the Refs, I wrote about how flopping parallels the emptiness of America today. You’d be laughed off the court for pulling stunts like that in my day. This man takes no pride in how he wins — and it’s increasingly rare to find people who do.
It’s all the more absurd when you consider that even with the hardest-hitting fouls back in the 80s — nobody flailed about like that on impact.
The only way that so many levels of sham & stupidity could be so easily accepted — is that it was normalized little by little over time.
I play an aggressive game. I don’t flop. I’ve never been one of those guys
— Lebron James
No one with a working set of eyes believes that
Lebron doesn’t believe that any more than Larry believes his own idiotic assertions.
But it doesn’t matter, because that’s the country we’ve become — where you can make claims that have no bearing on reality.
You can apply a follow-the-facts standard in one breath and utterly abandon it the next . . .
And get away with it with ease.
The NBA implemented an anti-flopping rule almost a decade ago, but it’s rarely enforced. That such a rule was needed in the first place is bad enough, but then they created one with fines that are a joke since they miserably fail to follow through.
So the saga continues — much like America’s ever-increasing acceptance of the asinine & flagrantly false.
A buffoon befitting of this circus music — that is the legacy he’ll leave behind. He doesn’t concern himself with the future and the harm he does in shaping it.
neither do you
Little did I know that something so comical would become so acceptable:
Above all else — That’s how we got here
There is no amount of gain you could give me to believe something to be true that is false.
When warranted, I will defend those I despise and call out those I like.
I call a spade a spade, period.
That got ’em – that took the fight out of ’em. Look at ’em quit!
If only you had the guts to know when you’ve been beaten — as decisively as anyone has ever been.
Then you could get up off the ground — and we could get to work
Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask!
What I have in mind is something of a JSOC — to join forces for a greater good that’s the gold standard of unimpeachable integrity.
Institute for Honesty? Institute for Integrity?
Something along those lines. Let’s just stick with JSOC for now — since it sounds cool and it’s got a nifty badge and all. Whatever the name . . .
JSOC’s scrutiny spares no one
These are just the first voices that came to mind to float the idea.
I’m really aiming for a Team of Rivals, but I’d need some help in finding people who could put their politics aside when representing JSOC.
When I couldn’t think of anyone else, I looked around and came across Transparency International:
To end corruption we must first understand it. That’s why we look at what causes corruption and what works against it. . . . We advocate for power to be held accountable. Everywhere.
Now we’re talkin’
You say goodbye and I say hello
Since the psychological gymnastics of human nature is at the root of our culture’s decline, exploring that would be central to JSOC’s mission.
I’m not familiar with the people in The Psychology of Politics, but they’re asking the right kind of questions.
Even 20 years ago, it would have been impossible for Trump to be seriously considered — let alone win.
If you’re not looking into that — you’re not looking.
Exactly in line with Black Lives Matter, the language in The Lincoln Project is pure fantasy — as they act like they had nothing to do with creating the problem that they’re trying to solve.
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
Every time I go on Twitter to share my latest link, I shake my head — even at the stuff I wholeheartedly support.
You seem to think that if you just continue to pound the point home — that it will eventually register.
You want the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into America’s long history of brutality and disgrace . . .
While the Right won’t even factor for mathematical certainties that put an end to their baseless beliefs on Iraq WMD.
Once again: Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on . . .
While you won’t even look at the material properties of a tube.
It’s bad enough that you swallowed the lies so easily. But instead of living up to those “values” you wear on your sleeve (by admitting that you were wrong and holding both parties accountable) . . .
You just bought more bullshit and belittled the “Bush bashers” who were right all along.
The damage that deception has done and continues to do — cannot possibly be overstated.
And yet all you do is bitch and moan about the Left day in and day out . . . as if your record vanished off the face of the earth.
If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done, why would they?
Better yet — why should they?
And if you don’t come clean . . .
You go on and do whatever it takes to serve your agenda — and they’ll do the same. That’s the game you want, that’s the game you’re gonna get — and you deserve it.
And why not — when it’s worked out so well for America.
Making matters worse is how this horseshit is sanctioned — as even the most genuine in their purpose are unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata.
One again . . .
That the Left brings it on themselves is another matter.
The bulk of the Right worships probably the biggest goddamn crybaby who’s ever lived — but liberals are the “snowflakes“?
I don’t dispute the underlying merit in that insult.
I’m just appalled by the childish language and the height of hypocrisy behind it.
I wouldn’t stoop to that juvenile crap for any amount of gain.
When the Left loses an election, they’re “crying” in protest. When the Right loses, they’re “fighting.”
Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
It’s all about framing the narrative — and the Left institutionalizing weakness is a gimme for the Right to rail on them.
And the icing on the cake
Sincere intellectuals justifiably calling out universities and racially rigged incidents and such:
Providing endless fodder for the Right to ridicule people for behavior that pales in comparison to what they did after 9/11 and to this day.
This — is faith-based belief at its “best” . . .
The Left’s anti-racism religion and whatnot — they’re amateurs.
Lemme me get this straight:
- The Right refuses to even look at the mathematical certainties in centrifuge physics that crush their baseless beliefs that Iraq wasn’t a lie
- Their behavior after 9/11 was exactly in line with Glenn Loury’s quote above — and has gotten increasingly worse ever since
- Your beloved leaders just made shit up — and the Right’s response: Make up some more shit — and keep it comin’
- You won’t lift a finger to listen and learn from anyone who challenges you — and take pleasure in belittling even the most knowledgeable people on the subject
- They dared to asked questions you still can’t find the courage to
- I put a mountain of evidence on a silver platter — and you swat it away in disdain
- Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome . . . and the tradition continues
“Never Forget” — sloganeering by people with a convenient case of collective amnesia on their abysmal record on responsibility, accountability, and character.
You take no responsibility for your role in world-altering destruction and the poisonous politics that plague America.
You not only refuse to hold anyone in your camp accountable — you happily obstruct anyone who tries to. You’ve spent decades razing reason by systematically derailing debate with bullshit.
You excused one fiasco after another from incompetence for the ages.
You want the Left to be responsible and follow the facts.
While you maintain the Mentality of a Mob so you can ignore why 2mm kills the crap that comforts you.
America is sinking in an ocean of baggage. That it’s always somebody else’s fault is at the root of why you’re Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin:
You don’t want your Rolodex of Excuses to run out.
For the Right: Until you take responsibility for the damage you’ve done to this nation and the world, you have no business bitching about anybody else.
If you’re not gonna abide by the rules, why should they?
Once again, that feeds right into the firewall that blocks Glenn & the Gang from reaching the Left in ways they might be able to without the Right sailing Scot-Free.
Of course it would still be incredibly difficult — but imagine making your arguments without all the noise and hypocrisy in the atmosphere.
JSOC changes the game — and shuts that shit down . . .
At least from the standpoint of how you’re lumped into that envelope.
The Right would still do what it does — but JSOC would be seen as the one entity that’s above it all.
The only outfit with unimpeachable integrity in the entire country.
Nobody wants to hear that machine guns just rip guts out — that’s the only thing they care about guts, and it doesn’t work to have bayonet charges and ridiculous offenses.
Glenn & the Gang — I’m not trying to be disrespectful to your great work, but “bayonet charges and ridiculous offenses” is how I see trench warfare on Twitter and everywhere else.
We should be looking at the deep questions
— Glenn Loury
I couldn’t agree more . . .
“Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it”
Many of the militaries of the world are organized like Napoleonic times. They don’t want to hear that that is a completely wrong way to be organized. . . .
The officers are gonna go to war in white gloves. They’re gonna have swords.
They’re gonna stand up and troops are gonna march into combat — in like billiard ball formations or bowling pin formations, drill formations from the battlefield.
In today’s trench warfare — “White gloves” depict the presentation of tactical arguments that don’t account for larger complexities in play.
“Swords” are posts that puncture with a pinprick at best:
YouTube talks, Tweets, podcasts, debates, speeches, books, blogs, articles . . .
The black community didn’t take stock 37 years ago when you threw down the gauntlet — what makes you think they will in a world where no one does?
And the “billiard ball formations” are the endless barrage of repeatedly addressing the same old problems in the same old ways.
“Now — let’s analyze what’s been working for us”
I don’t see anyone of prominence saying that. I don’t see anyone asking the deep questions that cut the bone of the poisonous relationship between the parties and how it got that way.
How can you solve problems if you don’t fully understand them?
None of the people who consider this to be an integral part of military culture want to learn that the rules have changed.
JSOC sets new rules
Your niche channels would no longer be seen as one thing.
And the sycophants who seize on your scrutiny of the Left — they’re screwed when you’re comin’ for them too.
No more sailing Scot-Free.
“Armed only with Skittles” and “everybody believed Iraq had WMD” — this bullshit needs to put it in its place once and for all.
Once the WMD delusion is exposed in full — spreading the lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon.
Birds of a Feather
Where do you think childish crap like “TDS” came from, Mr. McWhorter?
I was stunned when I saw this “lately” bit in John’s piece below. I was being polite in my response in Part 11.
How could a linguist fail to connect the dots with how events have shaped the nation with abominable behavior and juvenile insults over the last 30 years?
He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement
How can you come up with a line like that — and not investigate the history behind how it became so acceptable?
The people themselves had to become that way too — and that took time.
But not long — with the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd.
Which was just a warmup for what was to come with Facebook and Twitter:
By not deviating from your lane, you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it.
And not only is there a firewall from the Right’s history of bottomless hypocrisy in an ocean of lies — by not understanding it, you’re helping to feed it.
Requiring you to work a helluva lot harder than you should have to in addressing the issues in your lane.
And if you worked a hundred times harder — you still wouldn’t make a dent.
This would — and then some
I was wildly in the wrong on Iraq WMD — as I miserably failed to follow my own standards. For all the wrongs on their side, we have done more than our share on ours — and taken no responsibility for them.
We cannot continue to pummel the Left on things we are unwilling to do ourselves.
While it wasn’t readily apparent before and should have been — it’s abundantly clear to me now: No wonder the Left is so angry — we’ve repeatedly screwed ’em. We delight in deriding their weakness as we pretend to be strong.
I will no longer be part of the poison I helped spread. From now on, I follow the facts no matter where they lead. We cannot show the way by losing ours.
— Thomas Sowell
That — is the making of a great man, glenn
If you come clean, Mr. Sowell — JSOC would be well-served with you on it.
We would be welcoming of all those who went astray and want to find their way back.
Sowell joins JSOC (he doesn’t even have to do anything — just his seal of approval is enough). Then we go after this guy — boxing him in by his own “facts over feelings” standard.
With Sowell’s backing, how does Shapiro escape his own words about what a “terrific thinker” and “ethical guide” Thomas Sowell is?
Thomas Sowell is of course one of the foremost economists in America. He’s a terrific thinker — and more importantly, Thomas Sowell is I think a real ethical guide for a lot of folks because he thinks about issues rationally.
Whatever I think of Sowell, I can’t imagine him treating me like Larry Elder did.
Who’s arguing with feelings and who’s arguing with facts?
Up against JSOC (with Sowell and hopefully Shapiro on board): Larry’s days are done with dishing but not taking.
And if he stops behaving like a child when challenged — and consistently delivers on “facts over feelings,” JSOC would welcome him right in.
JSOC drops the hammer — and this is the short list:
And Around and Around We Go
This nation has no remorse
Not for relatively recent wrongdoing, anyway.
How can you learn or expect others to — when you consistently and miserably fail to hold up your end of he bargain?
If Mr. Sowell is the great man you believe him to be — wouldn’t he want to know the truth?
If a great man got it wildly wrong on the most world-altering topic of our time, wouldn’t he want the opportunity to make amends?
You guys went outside your lane just enough to sanction Sowell’s surgical objectivity in following the facts — examining evidence in a “white lab coat” free from tribalist impurities.
And now you know better
Or do you?
You made sweeping assumptions outside your lane in order to praise him — would you step back out to correct him?
If you choose to protect his reputation over the good of the nation — what makes you any different from those you’ve spent your life calling out?
They protect their interests — you protect yours.
You guys are in the myth-busting business — but by perpetuating the myth that Sowell is some kind of master of sound consideration in anything he touches, you help perpetuate the most dangerous, destructive, and costly myth in America.
Not to mention the world
While the WMD delusion derails everything you’re trying to do.
As you bring comfort to countless millions who march to mantra over merit — singing out to Sowell as the Godfather of Facts Over Feelings.
Never mind his record — and never mind theirs.
Call it fair — or don’t call it
You can’t have it both ways.
Then again, that’s the old-fashioned way . . .
In today’s America– you can
And if that’s the case, Glenn — then tell this guy that it’s just for “entertainment purposes.”
I don’t wanna believe that, but if you guys aren’t seriously trying to solve these problems, then don’t let people believe that you are.
That guy asked an important question — and your audience deserves an answer.
I was inspired by a great man — and you always will be, but I was hoping for the kind of greatness that would not fall into the typical traps of our times.
That you did is one thing — staying there is something else entirely.
If you are sincere about solving problems — then you need to rethink how you’re going about it.
I want you guys to succeed — but this is how certain I am that you won’t.
And my track record is exceptional for seeing the lay of the land.
My Professor friend from Purdue didn’t learn a damn thing from me when it mattered most.
I wonder, will you?
You’ve got the goods to talk to people in a way that few can — and this nation desperately needs someone to cut through the crap in a congenial manner.
I didn’t beat up on your buddy for fun — I need Sowell to come clean.
He’s the perfect ambassador for JSOC — the Godfather of the Facts Over Feelings Parade — who realizes he was wrong and openly admits it.
That could be the catalyst for turning the tide — and talk about legend, his would be forever sealed.
And so would yours
As for all of you — you spend your lives telling people you’re right . . .
It’s time to show them what it looks like to be wrong.
And if you don’t — you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
Lara walked along the tracks following a path worn by pilgrims and then turned into the fields. Here she stopped and, closing her eyes, took a deep breath of the flower-scented air of the broad expanse around her. It was dearer to her than her kin, better than a lover, wiser than a book. For a moment she rediscovered the purpose of her life.
She was here on earth to grasp the meaning of its wild enchantment and to call each thing by its right name, or, if this were not within her power, to give birth out of love for life to successors who would do it in her place.
― Doctor Zhivago (referenced in Into the Wild)
As I said from the start
My aim is to clear the clutter for honest debate
Abigail’s quote is fitting for the times
All your iniquitous schemes in your daily derision of demanding from others what you refuse to do yourselves.
After decades of doing so — this clusterf#$% of a country is the legacy you’ll leave behind.
This is the JSOC way
Where we go after the truth regardless of whom it hurts or helps — as our eyes are trained on the bigger picture of what’s right.
JSOC is not just about exposing lies like WMD and the Left’s shameless manipulation of racially-charged incidents:
It’s about consistently demonstrating what sound argument looks like on multiple fronts.
And by serving JSOC’s cause, you bolter the credibility of your own.
Glenn said that his colleagues entirely ignored his [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States . . .
As you’d no longer be boxed by the sensitivities around race — JSOC would make it increasingly difficult to be ignored.
The Socratic seminar is a formal discussion, based on a text, in which the leader asks open-ended questions. Within the context of the discussion, students listen closely to the comments of others, thinking critically for themselves, and articulate their own thoughts and their responses to the thoughts of others. They learn to work cooperatively and to question intelligently and civilly.
Habit of Thought is a very valuable book — but it’s missing one key component:
It doesn’t factor for how people abandon their critical thinking skills the moment motives take over — which really brings those skills into question, don’t ya think?
But the idea behind the book is spot-on.
It just needs a way to stress test those principles in a setting where you’ve got somethin’ to lose.
My documentary is ready-made for this mission — as it provides a forum to force participants to make an argument, and have it scrutinized for the quality of it and what they might be missing.
The intention is not to make people look bad — it’s for them to learn so they can stop looking bad.
This is just one tool to kick-start the program. As to what format this would take — here’s a few options that came to mind:
As I mentioned earlier: Start with people like Sowell, Shapiro, and Elder. Challenge them to answer for the evidence I offer — and why they never addressed any of it.
Box them in by their own standards.
They’d blow me off — but how long could they get away with ignoring guys like Loury, McWhorter, Hughes, and hopefully McRaven?
As uplifting as Admiral McRaven’s speech is — mine comes with a twist:
If you want to change the world — clear the air on who f*$%!@ it up in the first place
With Zoom and all, there are all kinds of possibilities for discussion.
How about getting college debate teams involved? What about regular people writing in to earn the the opportunity to participate?
My documentary was never intended to explore what happened with Trayvon in any detail, as my main interest was the turbocharged emotion in the aftermath of the verdict.
So it was just the hook into the program — to put up a mirror to mankind’s perpetual hypocrisy.
On all-things Iraq, conservatives were in lockstep — just like liberals for Trayvon Martin.
By intersecting those topics, I show no favoritism in illustrating how emotion runs roughshod over reason.
People far more knowledgeable on that case and other racially-charged incidents — could explore ways of framing discussions that put people on the spot to explain how they came to their conclusions.
And how quickly they got there
JSOC is a jerk-free zone — you make your arguments like an adult or you’re gone.
Civility in JSOC has its own rules though. No childish insults or tap dancing to talking points allowed. We don’t do the cable clans program — showing opposing sides to engineer the appearance of fairness . . .
Where debate is for drama — not ascertaining the truth.
You don’t get to skip past compelling argument to say what you wanna say — pretending to listen with token pleasantries.
You will answer for it first — then you’ll get your chance to make yours.
But if things get a bit heated here and there, so be it — because part of the experience is learning how to “cowboy the f@*% up” and get past that.
While NASA’s etiquette of allowing for screaming matches is not what I’m after, JSOC offers the freedom to speak your mind — in the spirit of professionals hashing it out and still being able to work together.
Come with the willingness to be wrong — or don’t come.
It was explained to me that, outside the Mission Control room, it could get downright heated . . . that it was allowed . . . that the NASA etiquette, allowed for screaming matches when it was about the work, when it was about solving the problem . . .
I’m sure we could figure it out. It could even be fun — once people remember what it was like to learn and grow.
All I know is that your way is not working and some fashion of JSOC’s will. On top of being far more fruitful, it would make things a helluva lot more interesting.
No society in history has had it better on the whole — and yet this is what you’ve done with gifts we’ve been given.
“It’s not a miracle — we just decided to go”
If you’ve come this far, maybe you’re willing to come a little further. I could use a good man to help me get my project on wheels . . .
As my videographer perfectly put it
We finally figured out what we were doing by the end
If we don’t change course as a country — we won’t.
What Is Truth
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Still remains . . .
Hello darkness, my old friend
I’ve come to talk with you again
Because a vision softly creeping
Left its seeds while I was sleeping
And the vision that was planted in my brain
Within the sound of silence . . .
And in the naked light I saw
Ten thousand people, maybe more
People talking without speaking
People hearing without listening
People writing songs that voices never share
And no one dared
Disturb the sound of silence
Fools, said I, you do not know
Silence like a cancer grows
Hear my words that I might teach you
Take my arms that I might reach you
But my words, like silent raindrops fell
And echoed in the wells of silence
The American Way
Thank you for reading!