Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell: Part I

Whatever I think of Thomas Sowell — I’ve never seen him act like a child. I’ve seen almost nothing but in defense of him.

In your bottomless contempt for correction, you are utterly devoid of desire to understand anything that isn’t self-evident in 60 seconds.

Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency:

Or any virtue of any kind

And those standards you so love of Sowell’s — are nowhere to be found on the fiasco that created much of what you see today.

Hard to Imagine . . .

That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words.

He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy. But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.

Listen, dingdong . . . what decision was his?

Incredibly, it doesn’t register that even if you take his responsibility off the table, the very basis of “Hard to Imagine” — is that he would have something to say about world-altering lies and ineptitude for the ages.

It’s just a fancy quote to float

You stand by Sowell but take no pride in your commitment to the principles you preach — and are seemingly incapable of shame in defending the indefensible.

The ultimate irony is that your blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights your coddling ensures he’ll never go.

I’ve . . . got – a – plan

Believe it or not, my aim is to make Thomas Sowell the catalyst who could turn the tide. But in order to do that, I gotta take him to task for his reprehensible record on Iraq WMD.

It astounds me that even sharing something in hopes of a human connection — that maybe having something in common could pierce your force field of fallacy:

Even that is mocked — and conveniently taken as “weakness” in argument.

So in the face of centrifuge physics . . .

My “disjointed” & “juvenile” website with “irrelevant music & movies” is the best ya got?

I know your Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine so well — that it’s featured in my documentary:

And Now for the Weather

I don’t care if you don’t like my style, but you should be able to recognize what something is and what something isn’t.

And even if you don’t

Doesn’t Sowell’s standards include maintaining some manners?

I haven’t read a single book by Sowell, but I’ll bet they generally follow some baseline construct of consideration that you can apply to any issue.

So that when you come across an image like this, those principles should kick in:

Hmm, “Said so and so” doesn’t strike me as Sowell’s standards. This guy seems to know something about him that I don’t — maybe I should find out what that is.

Or you could do nothing — and just not being a jerk would be something.

One Tweet is all it should take:

Thomas Sowell flagrantly failed to follow the facts on Iraq WMD — opting to peddle party-line talking points that poison political discourse & butcher the debate to this day. Here’s my 7-part documentary that exhaustively details the biggest and most costly lie in modern history

By the standards he espouses, you would consider that information on the merits — in a calm, cool, and collected manner.

Disciples don’t discern

They defend before they consider — and make it nearly impossible to debate what the issue is actually about.

These people do nothing but question your motives and assault your character — then post quotes of Sowell looking stately as he condemns the very thing they’re doing.

Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman would not have been amused had she lived to see that. As Russ Hoyle explains in the following excerpt — her 1984 book The March of Folly offers a blueprint for Bush’s behavior.

Tuchman could have just as easily been describing America as a whole. As a nation — we don’t solve problems, we perpetuate them [by ceaselessly jockeying for the upper hand]. And after all the Democrats’ disdain for Bush’s folly, so many in that same crowd treat Obama with kid gloves.

The roles will be reversed once again when a Republican is at the helm . . . and around and around we go.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act V

Anybody can “follow the facts” when they’re going in the direction you desire.

That doesn’t count

The rolodex of excuses around the religious-like loyalty to this guy is off the charts. There’s a faction for forgiveness — by people who have not an atom of anything of the kind for their enemy.

Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.

That doesn’t cut it when you miserably fail to acknowledge that poor judgment:

Particularly when you make a living pouncing on others about theirs.

On top of all that, they have absolutely no idea of the depths of deception involved here — but have no qualms about issuing instant forgiveness for it.

The “I have a life” and “Hope you find happiness” crowd . . .

Gosh, I just overheard all this. If I didn’t have a life, I might have joined in . . .

I hope you are fortunate to find happiness one day

Good lord

I had a friend and former colleague with such razor-sharp wit that I called him the Atomic Clock of Comedy — for his consistency in making people laugh.

To survey a situation in split-second timing requires an astute level of alertness.

You’d think that some semblance of that awareness would show up when you have all kinds of time on matters of world-altering consequence.

Long story short: Atomic poisoned our exchange the second he asserted that “everything’s just an opinion.” Instead of actually discussing the issue at hand, I had to debunk that utterly ridiculous and increasingly common cop-out.

With our mutual friend the Peacemaker involved, it might have been possible to get the debate back on track.

Then Jolly Ol’ Phil showed up to share what a wonderful life he has — and it was over. The absurdity in that story embodies how social media operates when it comes to preserving your beliefs and protecting your own.

Many students resist having their beliefs questioned by invoking the claim that “Everyone is entitled to his own belief” or “All opinions are equal.” The corollary notion is that therefore no justifications for beliefs are necessary. The difficulty with this perspective is that it implies that all disagreements concerning beliefs are personal disagreements or slights.

If there exist reasons for one’s opinions, then a difference of opinions becomes an opportunity for understanding how someone else’s reasoning leads them to a different opinion. If, on the other hand, if there are no reasons for opinions, students are more likely to take differences of opinion as insults or as injuries to their self-esteem.

Rather than assert than all opinions are equal, students in seminar learn to judge opinions on the basis of the reasons given for those opinions.

Nobody ever had to explain that to me. I’m sure you all feel the same — and yet here we are.

Ah, the good ol’ days of the garden-variety Bush apologist — when at least their contempt for the truth was in the theatre of war.

Sowell’s disciples are a whole other breed of bullshitters who butcher reality — while incessantly bitching about others doing the same.

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.

— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt

This crowd . . .

Thomas Sowell is considered our country’s leading living intellectual, with ground-breaking contributions to economics, psychology, history, political science and sociology.

Sample of information available

By the date of Sowell’s article above:

Faction for the hybrid model

  • No big deal
  • No authority
  • Forgiveness

If your strongest criticism of him is that he was wrong on the Iraq war, I’d frankly say “big deal.” Millions of people were wrong about that shit back then. He had no political authority or say on the matter, so I think he could be forgiven for that mistake. (Assuming that you’re right of course, I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence).

He has no idea what the deal is

But is perfectly satisfied in blowing it off as “no big deal.”

Toss in the “I’ll wait” tactic for good measure — when the only thing they’re waiting for is something to feed their next fix.

Another former Facebook executive has spoken out about the harm the social network is doing to civil society around the world. Chamath Palihapitiya, who joined Facebook in 2007 and became its vice president for user growth, said he feels “tremendous guilt” about the company he helped make.

“I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” he told an audience at Stanford Graduate School of Business, before recommending people take a “hard break” from social media.

Palihapitiya’s criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem. “The short-term, dopamine-driven feedback loops we’ve created are destroying how society works,” he said, referring to online interactions driven by “hearts, likes, thumbs-up.” “No civil discourse, no cooperation; misinformation, mistruth

We get rewarded by hearts, likes, thumbs-up — and we conflate that with value, and we conflate it with truth.


I’ll take Sweeping Assumptions for $1000, Alex . . .

Even if he said that stuff, your entire diatribe smacks of the now classic modern progressive tactic of taking a single mistake by anyone whose views they don’t like and using that one error in judgement to try and discredit ALL their work. Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.

Who said I disagreed with his work?

Outside of butchering the debate on Iraq WMD — and his partisan hackery in flagrantly ignoring his own camp’s abominable behavior, record of recklessness, systematic lying, and hypocrisy that knows no bounds . . .

I haven’t come across anything I object to.

At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold him to the standards he’s so celebrated for in the Facts Over Feelings Parade.

It’s not his area of expertise, so unsurprisingly, I’ve never heard him comment about ; war, Iraq, WMDs, or anything of that sort until I read your post.

I imagine it’s just not a line of questioning an interviewer with limited time would typically think to ask Sowell.

The notion that simply because no interviewer asked him about WMD — that this magically absolves him of owning up to his massive mistakes . . .

Is preposterous

Take note of how he just writes it off as “calling that one wrong” — as if there’s nothing more to see. That’s how these people operate — as any acknowledgment of dishonesty would require them to reconsider who Sowell really is.

Why burden yourself with the truth when perception is so much more comforting?

And he conveniently ignores that someone writing a biography — would have plenty of time to ask him about it.

Riley had motive not to: As the brilliant and prescient maverick who preaches responsibility and such — the Godfather of Follow the Facts . . .

Was a partisan hack on the biggest deception and debacle of our time.

Doesn’t quite fit the premise of the book, does it!

I wouldn’t care if this guy cured cancer: You don’t get a pass for basking in baseless beliefs that cripple the country — and have the bottomless nerve to talk about responsibility & accountability to boot.

That is a cancer of its own

The poison he pumped into the atmosphere helped destroy the internal organs of America. So we have very different standards as to what qualifies as a “National Treasure.”

180 — how fitting

Sail on silver [Sowell]
Sail on by . . .

You guys are in the myth-busting business — but by propagating the myth that Sowell is some kind of Sherlock Holmes 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.

I’m complicated — but only because human nature goes out of its way to obfuscate the obvious. I’m gonna do what I set out to do last summer:

Clear the clutter

I want to thank you for giving these two in-depth responses – ones of immense quality and refinement. It must be draining to know that 99% of the time, people won’t read something so long – so well thought out – so in-depth. Thank you for doing it anyways. Just as writing these helps you refine your viewpoints, reading and responding to this helps me refine mine.

Who cares about what some “nobody” on the internet thinks?

How about Glenn Loury? . . .

Glenn and the other guy partly inspired this site — which I talk a bit about on You Got Gold. But You Got Gold isn’t just about the inspiration of a few people — it’s about what everybody has to bring to the table.

And you’ve got gold you don’t even know you’ve got.

Dad took the wheels off of my bike
And he pushed me down the hill
But speed got the best of me and I took my first spill
That was back when alcohol was only used on cuts
Stung like hell so I jerked my leg
And mama said it would give me guts

Years before the Green Book movie came out, when I was working in St. Louis, I went to the Route 66 exhibit at the History Museum. 

What sticks out in my mind the most is The Negro Motorist Green Book

Like most people, I had a romanticized image of Route 66 — it never hit me how dangerous it was for blacks to travel back then — they needed “special” travel guides for safe places to stop.

So while we’ve had periods of greatness, we’ve rested on our laurels and looked the other way all too often. And with the technology of today, we see no evil with lickety–split satisfaction.

At times, the Right is justifiably infuriated by the Left, and vice versa. This site shows these parties as Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin . . .

And their systematic efforts to derail debate.

This Land Is Your Land

This Land Is My Land

Rain drippin’ off the brim of my hat
Sure is cold today
Here I am walkin’ down 66
Wish she hadn’t done me that way

I am an American singing American music, not a black man singing country music

— Charley Pride

Believe it or not, you can be a Republican or Democrat and abide by everything I advocate. And I’m not trying to steer you away from Thomas Sowell — I’m showing you how you can make him better.

And how he can return the favor

Still waiting on your argument for how a rotor with a 3mm wall could maintain 90,000 RPM to make highly enriched uranium.

— Richard W. Memmer

That’s pretty damn specific, don’t ya think?

Speaking of specificity . . .

D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.” And since the entire point of testing should be to replicate the conditions of centrifuges, one would think that the full-blown testing would be performed before the N.I.E. was completed.

Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.

One D.O.E. analyst offered a superb analogy of that contorted conclusion:  “Running your car up to 6,500 RPM briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 RPM cross country. It just doesn’t. Your car’s not going to make it.”

In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics — which is illustrated in the following animation:

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

Priceless . . .

The plausibility of these tubes being used as centrifuges was so far-fetched that one D.O.E. analyst said: “If Iraq was really trying to make them into centrifuge rotors — we should just give them the tubes.”

— Richard W. Memmer: Mount Everest of the Obvious — Prologue

Uranium Enrichment Primer

It never ceases to amaze me how intelligent people can show such disdain for correction. It’s astounding how the mind can pull off psychological gymnastics that allow us to believe what we say without any sense of accounting for it.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act V

7 years ago, I tried to share a link to my 7-part documentary that exhaustively uncovers the biggest and most costly lie in modern history.

thought it might matter that my scrutiny spares no side . . .

So that by going after the Left for being in lockstep on Trayvon — not to mention nailing the Democratic Party to the wall for their role in that world-altering lie as well:

Seems that would earn some credibility — or at least a modicum of consideration.

You have no such notion

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

I did the doc and you wouldn’t spend 160 seconds to consider anything — let alone 160 minutes.

But just quietly moving along in your lack of interest would never enter your mind — you gotta be dutiful and deliver your derision in the Gutter Games of Government.

And in each instance, you further calcify habits that are at the other end of the spectrum from these.

Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts — he brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own party to politely pounce on the other.

Showing Sowell’s piece below has nothing to do with defending the Left. This is about his record being wildly out of sync with reality on the Right.

I didn’t write Mentality of a Mob from my imagination — just like I didn’t write this poem from it either.

I wrote it 3 years before Sowell’s piece — and for decades, this behavior is all I’ve seen from republicans on Iraq and a helluva lot more.

How do you reconcile that? . . .

And I’m just getting warmed up.

For nearly 20 years, I’ve received nothing but contempt for the truth on this topic. Of all those in that crowd that I’ve challenged on WMD — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.

Wisdom of The Deer Hunter

On top of having no manners — every Sowell supporter butchers his bedrock beliefs in defense of him:

One glance at this imagery alone

By Sowell’s own standards — or anyone with an inkling of objectivity, one would know that something’s not right with his record.

Sowell’s words are egregiously vague — and mine are as specific as it gets.

Had you watched the doc, you would have found that I address his “arguments” you find so precious.

Let’s see what happens when you find that I address them later in this post.

My Prediction . . .

The story behind that clock is at the crux of how America’s gone totally off the rails.

And this captures it all . . .

I’ve written various versions of this post about Sowell — all of which point you to the case . . .

So it’s ludicrous that you cry foul with your “where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton — when you could have it all with one click.

If you don’t wanna watch my documentary that’s chock-full of facts on this fiasco for the ages, that’s your prerogative.

But don’t bitch about what you don’t see when you refuse to look.

Even without the doc — any one of these posts is plenty to prompt any rational person to wonder. Just scrolling through the imagery alone is enough to know that something’s off on Sowell’s claims.

“Disjointed” or not — you’ve been bombarded with detail that could only be known with real research — and a helluva lot of it.

For anyone who wanted the truth on this matter of world-altering magnitude — no way in hell you’d ignore that.

You can’t even fathom how absurd it is that you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — and think you can inform me. It’s possible (and I would welcome anything I might have missed).

But it’s your attitude at issue

Someone points you to a 7-part, 2 hours and 40 minutes documentary — that distills a story that demanded a massive amount of effort, thought, research, and writing:

And you sling snippets of certitude coated in rapid-fire ridicule.

That you even think that something so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself.

Only hours before this Tweet — this guy was condemning my efforts like all the rest.

And then he opened the doc . . .

To honor his integrity and grace in that turnaround (which is as rare as unobtainium on Pandora) — I talk a bit about our exchange later on.

He asked a key question . . .


I don’t understand the satisfaction in taking endless delight in embracing slogans and simpleminded narratives — designed to make damn sure you don’t look beyond the surface . . .

While mocking my “juvenile” visuals for illustrating timeless truths and anything that might make a hairline crack in your hermetically sealed minds.

It is hard to fill a cup which is already full

We could have avoided all this years ago — all you had to do was show some interest in the truth or do nothing and merrily move along.

Ya didn’t do either

I’ve spent my life respecting intelligence, embracing criticism, welcoming correction, and being inspired by the abilities of others.

I made the case — and you insulted your intelligence by mocking it without so much as considering a single second.

It’s not that you have a “mediocre mind” — it’s that you have chosen to use your mind in a mediocre manner.

I’ve been on the receiving end of ridicule that was way over the top and mean-spirited — but that doesn’t discount the fact that at times their scorn was rooted in some truth.

I love to be corrected — even if its stings a bit at first. I’d rather feel like a fool for 5 minutes than remain one for a lifetime.

I’m far more interested in value on the other side of offense. I don’t need a slogan to say who I am: I’ve lived my entire life with facts trumping my feelings.

In the right hands, the power of influence is magical — that you can think one thing, take new information into account, and think another.

It’s fantastic

As I wrote 16 years ago:

There’s nothing more edifying than taking a trip to another point of view

By definition, the title below is not “mudslinging” — as it’s demonstrably provable that Thomas Sowell is a liar and a hypocrite. Moreover, my aim is the truth — and that if he comes clean, his reputation will soar worldwide.

Doesn’t quite fit, does it . . .

And that’s the lie of it all — you need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not, your beliefs are gonna fall apart.

Seeing these people for who they really are is a mighty healthy thing — and by holding their feet to the fire, you’d be doing them a favor.

And everyone else as well

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.’”

Sowell’s “Said so and so” — and all their ridiculous diversionary tactics to deny the obvious on WMD . . .

Cannot survive scrutiny once other factors are taken into account.

neither can the premise of this book

More on that later.

And His Acolytes Couldn’t Care Less . . .

That’s all I’ve seen out of Sowell’s army of apologists.

You read his books and embed yourself within an echo chamber of affirmation — quoting Sowell like he’s a saint and lamenting:

If only this National Treasure could live 150 years

And along comes somebody who says, “Wait a minute — there’s something you need to see.”

That’s your moment to put Sowell’s standards to the test.

But you refuse to see

As your mind is hermetically sealed in service of myth over merit. You’ll dig in to defend his books and “breaking contributions to economics, psychology, history, political science and sociology.”

Never mind that’s got nothing to do with the horseshit he sold on WMD.

And now, even now . . .

You want it all boiled down to a few Tweets for fodder to fuel your fix — whatever it takes to entertain yourself with the least amount of effort.

And now, even now” — you’ll pull the same stunt in your disdain for any truth that doesn’t serve your shortsighted interests.

“The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!”


truth verifiable from experience or observation

Which means most of America is delusional by definition:

  • A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
  • Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
  • Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true

And the only way you can pull off the above is with the prejudice below:

As the mere mention of “prejudice” is almost invariably associated with race, it’s critical to define what we’re talking about.


  • An attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities
  • An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
  • The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions
  • An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason
  • A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

FYI: I politely shared this definition with the last person who proudly tried to “correct” me on this matter . . .

But all of the above wouldn’t be enough to beat back the truth without a helluva lot of help from Festinger’s 5 Conditions . . .

Particularly #5:

The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.

These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.

When your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:


The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your perception.

“Everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not a valid argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.”

Preach responsibility and take none

  • The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet they 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
  • 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.

Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.

They just made it up.

Making it Up as You Go

Why would anyone infer a 2.8mm wall for Zippe rotors that were never more than 1mm?

The rotor wall thickness for the Beams centrifuge has also been specified as 6.35 mm

Notice how WINPAC/Turner tossed that into the NIE (referenced in Senate Intelligence Report).

Never mind THIS

The Zippe unclassified report discusses several centrifuge rotor designs but does not explicitly state the wall thickness of any of the rotors.

Based on the limited documentation, we can infer that Zippe used rotors with wall thicknesses that range from I mm to approximately 2.8 mm.

Based on the limited documentation”? . . .

Why not just pick up the phone and find out from the father of the modern uranium centrifuge himself?

The report below is from the consulting that Zippe did during the late 50s at the University of Virginia — which science historian Alex Wellerstein addresses in his excellent article on Zippe and the evolution of centrifuge technology.

Dr. Wood and the late Dr. Zippe talking tubes. If you were following the facts — seems like you’d take the trail to the most obvious place it would go:

To see what two of the foremost experts on the planet had to say:

At the Energy Department, those examining the tubes included scientists who had spent decades designing and working on centrifuges, and intelligence officers steeped in the tricky business of tracking the nuclear ambitions of America’s enemies. On questions about nuclear centrifuges, this was unambiguously the A-Team of the intelligence community. . . .

The A-Team

What hard evidence do you have?

— Thomas Sowell

Hard enough to drop the hammer on you a hundred times over.

Consider yourself lucky that concrete evidence of mathematical certainty doesn’t qualify with your flock when it comes to protecting you and their interests.

Nor does any notion of responsibility and accountability.

Those virtues only apply to people you don’t like.

That imagery is central to the whole story

We’ll get to all that — and my solution for how Sowell could turn the tide.

Now we might have been better off
Or owned a bigger house
If Daddy had done more givin’ in
Or a little more backing down
But we always had plenty
Just living his advice
Whatever you do today
You’ll have to sleep with tonight
He’d say you’ve got to stand for something
Or you’ll fall for anything

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s