“Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That”

“I stand by that” does not make baseless beliefs magically have merit. But even the most intelligent minds will sling such absurdity to blindly defend their interests:

Doing cosmic disservice to the very thing they’re defending.

Then merrily move along — as they gotta get back to griping about others who behave as they do . . .

Compare this to that

When someone challenges you on that premise, respect your intelligence by responding on point. You’re free to make additional points, but to not address the point — is against the rules. Ya know — the ones you incessantly bitch about when others refuse to listen to reason.

The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president.

In order to maintain such speeds, the material properties of centrifuges are as critical as it gets. You don’t need to interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist to figure that out — but I like to be thorough.

“Compared to what?”

Well whad’ya know — Sowell’s saying what I’m saying in the highlighted lines below.

Somehow he forgot to follow his own rules on the war.

On these issues below, no rational person would deny that THIS does not = THAT. When you won’t conform to fact, you make it impossible to put a pinprick through the envelope of intransigence encasing your brain.

Everything that guy just said is bullshit!

To claim that WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon.

In denying that reality, half the country helped create a culture where denying reality is now the norm. But on this matter of world-altering consequence — your “National Treasure” has diplomatic immunity. Never mind he’s a “Maverick” with glaringly gaping holes in acting like one when it mattered most.

The force field of fallacy shielding the echo chamber around this man is an impenetrable wall of blankness. On evidence involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors — the apostles of Sowell smugly cite his books on economics, race, and whatnot:

Anything to glorify him as they abandon any notion of accountability.

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

  • Repeat slogans: “Everybody believed Iraq had WMD”
  • Question people’s motives: Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Plamegate & plenty more. Adding to the arsenal of childish crap to continue the tradition: Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
  • Bold assertions: Russians said so, British said so, Bill Clinton said so, Leaders of both parties said so . . .

No coherent argument, Repeat slogans, Vent their emotions, Question people’s motives, Bold assertions . . .

Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive. I know their Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:

And Now for the Weather

“The British said so”? Hmm . . .

Water is not wet — and I stand by that

It just doesn’t register with the likes of O’Reilly that what Clinton and Cohen thought is entirely irrelevant to the tubes — but smugly circulating invalid arguments is the way of the world now. 

— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV

And I love how people immersed in politics — conveniently come down with a case of collective amnesia in knowing how it works.

The Right ripped Bill Clinton to shreds and seemingly lives to assail democrats — and yet Sowell cites their word as gospel on WMD.

That is a magician’s maneuver

Well, if they “said so” — it must be true.

So when people you despise ostensibly agree with you — it’s gotta be true, because they’d never do such a thing if it weren’t. That’s it? That’s the extent of your “argument”?

Who cares about mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics when you’ve got the word of people who lie for a living?

It couldn’t possibly be that your enemy has ulterior motives — just as you do?

Here we have a perfect expression of the most self-destructive Democratic disease which they seem unable to cure. More than anything — they fear looking weak. To avoid this, they cave, surrender, capitulate — and stand for nothing.

— Glenn Greenwald’s gold-standard summation of Democrats

Flagrantly failing to factor for motive in Sowell’s “said so and so” in the environment below — is as insulting to your intelligence as it gets.

Never mind it’s all meaningless in the context of the tubes.

Does Sowell’s piece sound compelling to you?

Does it strike you as coming anywhere near the standards you’re used to seeing within his wheelhouse? Just touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done (especially when they’re as empty as what he’s shoveling).

It’s the conclusions you’re drawing that matters most.

And don’t you find it suspicious that someone of Sowell’s caliber is gonna come right out of the gate with something so weak as:

What are the known facts about Saddam Hussein’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons? We know that, at one time or other, he was either developing or producing or using such weapons.

Immediately followed by:

Back in 1981 . . .

1) He is capable of changing his views in light of new evidence. . . . [H]e possesses epistemic humility along with a willingness to use evidence to test any ideological positions that he might have held.

— Dr. Gad Saad: Ten Reasons Why You Should Love Thomas Sowell

If you believe in changing your views in light of new evidence, having humility, and testing your ideological positions:

Here’s your chance to deliver on your word.

Maybe Sowell’s piece sounded compelling to you — but in light of new evidence, now what? And that — is the whole point of comparing this to that. Refusing to do that is prejudice by definition.

And that’s just a 5-minute excerpt: You should see what I did with 160. Not long before this Tweet — this guy was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day.

And then he opened the doc . . .

I stand by what I said about Sowell . . . I don’t think he was wrong about the circumstances of the lead up to the war in Iraq.

And your argument on how a rotor with a 3mm wall could maintain 90,000 RPM to make highly enriched uranium?

Oh, you didn’t look at that — so you could preserve this . . .

I don’t think he was wrong

That’s convenient

By that standard, truth is entirely in the eye of the beholder. I come from a different place. A different time. A different way of life.

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.

Since dimensions, material, and quantity are central to ascertaining the truth on the marquee evidence used to sell the war — anyone arguing in good faith would factor for that information.

Seems like that would raise eyebrows on anyone after in the truth — especially someone lauded for following the facts.

Thomas Sowell did nothing of the kind — not to mention his habit of headlines oozing in partisan hackery (matching the content within).

In both the documentary and my 5-part series on Sowell, I address the core of his claims in detail — a snapshot of which can be found on Faith-Based Intelligence.

But because they don’t instantly appear to satisfy your attention-span of a child — you sink to the ways of America’s Crap is King culture that your kind helped create.

And about that world-renowned scientist I interviewed:

The U.S. Department of Energy had most of the experts in uranium enrichment . . . and sought the opinion of America’s most prestigious centrifuge expert, Professor Houston G. Wood III. . . .

If anyone cared to get the final word on tubes, rotors, gas centrifuges and uranium enrichment, this was the man to ask.

— Spinning the Tubes

Oak Ridge National Laboratory — where Wood created and ran the Centrifuge Physics department . . .

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

I’m a bit old-fashioned, as I don’t rely on professional know-it-alls — I seek out the most qualified sources to ascertain the truth.

I’m not smart enough to be a nuclear scientist — but I’m smart enough to interview one. When I drove up to the University of Virginia to meet with Dr. Houston Wood — on my iPad I was packin’ pictures and structured inquiry like nothing you’ve ever seen.

I’d never done any journalism, but I was striving for the best of what it’s supposed to be.

My Prime Directive

  1. No leading questions
  2. If this man wants to talk — scrap the script and keep my mouth shut

Because of that — I obtained information that nobody else did.

My grades wouldn’t cut it for the intelligence community — but I could ask key questions to Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).

With a little help, I managed to make it through physics in college — but I couldn’t be a physicist. I could correspond with the one who wrote extensively on the subject matter though.

I could believe what liars claimed on intelligence investigations — or I could read the reports and make up my own mind.

I could do all that & much more

And then be belittled by people who didn’t do anything but gleefully get in the way — torturing the truth without mercy.

And lo and behold, the inspectors found 13,000 complete rockets at Iraq’s Nasser 81mm rocket production facility — all made from the same type of tubes that the administration had been pushing as centrifuges.

Undeterred by the patently obvious, they refused to alter their position even in the slightest.

Lo and Behold

And according to David Albright, “Senior I.A.E.A. officials personally briefed Powell about many of their findings in December 2002. Powell told them that the tubes were giving him a headache.” That’s your conscience talking to you, Mr. Secretary — because your intellect and instincts are way too sharp for you to be so oblivious.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

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 integritycourtesy, curiositycouragedecency:

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.

What specifically does him being wrong (assuming he was) about the WMD/Iraq have to do with the vast majority of his other claims?

How about helping to create the conditions for this — doing colossal damage to his claims that are correct?

The Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ, set the stage for the rise of the Rock Star they spent the next 8 years railing against.

I don’t understand the math in your methods:

You pay untold millions to political strategists — don’t these people do any cost-benefit analysis on the long-term impact of endless lying and ineptitude?

This isn’t just about WMD and Thomas Sowell’s deception — it’s about the psychological gymnastics of human nature:

Believing things that have no bearing on reality . . .

I play an aggressive game. I don’t flop. I’ve never been one of those guys

— Lebron James

There was a time when it would be embarrassing for a ball player to feign being fouled on the level of theatrics in King James’ court.

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.

Never mind Lebron’s built like a Tiger tank.

Tiger Tanks Could Withstand a Dozen Sherman[s]

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.

Ain’t that America

His words are pure fantasy

But it doesn’t matter, because that’s the country we’ve become — where words are empty and utterly baseless claims can be beaten into your brain as bedrock fact.

You can apply a follow-the-facts standard in one breath and 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.

And neither do you

If you opened Sowell’s piece (all 752 words of a 2-minute read) — knowing that I did a 7-part series that’s 2 hours and 40 minutes.

On that alone

What goes through your mind? Moreover, Sowell’s article makes no mention of the evidence on display with the props.

So one guy goes into great detail — and the other guy doesn’t go anywhere in detail.

The famous one — naturally

And while you’re at it — butcher the bedrock beliefs that he’s famous for (just as he did).

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.

If you have a history of hypocrisy and lying — you are a hypocrite and a liar. If you don’t like being called those things, then don’t do those things. But so typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore. “Mudslinging” is just somethin’ to say to escape scrutiny.

And the irony is: I’ve received almost nothing but mudslinging for decades — by people who cry foul with counterfeit claims on what they do for real. And let’s face it: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your beliefs are gonna fall apart.

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.

What road have you taken to lose sight of such things deserving of at least a little respect?

Respect is not my concern . . .

But if you showed some, it might be just enough to crack open a conduit to this quaint thing called conversation.

Forget what Sowell said — what’s far more important is what he didn’t say. This mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that article — and not one word about it.

For a guy who’s made his living on “follow the facts” — and you following him:

How do you reconcile that?

I defy you to find a single instance of anyone on the Right even attempting to make an argument on the dimensions, material, and quantity of the tubes.

You’ll be lucky to find them mentioned at all.

You think it’s just a coincidence that all the “arguments” on the Right just happen to follow the same pattern (conveniently leaving out the evidence that matters most)?

That — all by itself, speaks volumes: To anyone who thinks world-altering wars are more important than websites, anyway.

Sowell’s cogent & sober arguments . . .

regurgitated garbage

The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes — and yet not one of them was presented by Powell.

There was even talk of Powell holding up one of the tubes for dramatic effect. But a veteran communications strategist in the room balked. “If you do that, it will be on the front page of every paper the next day,” noted Anna Perez, Condoleezza Rice’s chief of communications.

“Do you really want to do that?” Perez had a feel for these things; she had worked for Walt Disney, Chevron, and a top Hollywood talent agency.

This would, she thought, be an awkward visual. Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute. Everybody would focus on that. The idea was scrapped.

Think about that

You’ve got 60,000 of ’em — but rather that put a single sample of your hard evidence on display for all the world to see . . .

You put it a PowerPoint?

And it makes me laugh that they tossed that tape measure in there for effect. The sheer sloppiness of it all — it’s just pathetic. I’ll put my presentations in COM 101 against this crap any day.

But strictly speaking . . .

Purely on the principles of persuasive speech: Since their goal was to manipulate the masses — she was spot-on by concealing what they displayed.

You should be insulted by the fact that they’re not trying to convince me — they’re trying to convince you . . .

Hide and Seek

The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act III

Mr. Sowell:

Could you tell me why the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) — got an equal say on the aluminum tubes for the NIE vote?

An agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth.

Same for NSA and other agencies that had no expertise in centrifuge physics.

And why wasn’t JAEIC allowed to weigh in? What’s JAEIC?

Allow me: JAEIC for Short

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 things only apply to people you don’t like.

My documentary illustrates evidence to a level of granularity not remotely approached by all other WMD docs combined.

Any one minute is more substantive than everything Sowell ever said on the subject.

On this story, 10 pages of reading trumps 10,000 hours of TV — cable clans & broadcast to boot.

That’s a fact — I did the math:

And I had access — to everything

Who cares about 10 pages when “You Can’t Believe Everything You Read”?

Same standard to snub someone who’s read 10,000 — on world-altering affairs you snicker at.

And I noticed “You can’t believe everything you read” only applies to words you don’t like.

If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture where constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is in the gain you get in the moment:

And easy is all the rage

You think I wanted to chop up my doc into clips to accommodate America’s attention span? I put it all on a silver platter, but 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.

I’ve always thought there’s something wildly out of whack with pursuing values in a manner devoid of virtue. In one form or another, inevitably there are consequences for convictions unguided by conscience.

Look around

You see a culture that looks anything like those habits above? You’ve all been doing it your way for decades — and look at the results. Yet your answer to America’s problems:

More of the same

[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.

In a nation that endlessly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. If we don’t right this ship, we will not see a return to some semblance of recognizing reality in our lifetime.

Mark my words

Your ways will seal that fate . . .

With my ways (timeless truths and Habits of Thought) — it just might be a brave new world.

Just get up off the ground, that’s all I ask!

But it’s gonna take a heap more than ideals to make that happen. We need an idea that’s radically different than anything that’s ever been done.

I have that idea

And of all people, Thomas Sowell is key to it — he just needs to abide by the very principles he preaches. This man needs to be called to account for his misdeeds.

Shouldn’t he be held to the same standards he’s made a living out of demanding from others?

Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts on all-things Iraq — 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.

And 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.

And I’m not done with that smugness under the guise of civility he’s so celebrated for as a statesman.

He has a habit of painting the Left in the worst possible light — while acting as though “hostility and even hatred” are uncharacteristic of conservatives. It’s all about framing the issue in a way that allows him to conveniently ignore the same behavior in other forms.

How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? 

— Thomas Sowell: The Anger Of The Left

I’ve been met with almost nothing but belligerence and belittlement for decades on WMD — but because I wasn’t shouted down in the streets, it doesn’t count?

And this gem

It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate

So you can manipulate the nation into war — make up more lies to rationalize those lies, pit half the nation against the other in a post 9/11 world, and on and on:

But as long as liars don’t raise their voice — there’s no call to be angry about it?

That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.

Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.

“What is surprising, however” . . .

Is that your crowd treating me with nothing but contempt for the truth for nearly 20 years — slinging baseless beliefs with “hostility and even hatred” . . .

Doesn’t constitute a “way of life” to you, Mr. Sowell.

It’s painfully obvious what this guy’s up to: He’s engineering an illusion — and you bought it.

For the record: My poem’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking . . .

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 preach 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.”

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

Blind Men Touching an Elephant

Glenn Loury once called my writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by my site.

But he wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task.

When you see a sentence like “Not a trace of Thomas Sowell’s ‘follow the facts’ claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time.”

I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .

Is not the mark of an intellectual giant (or an intellectual on any level).

Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening.

— Glenn Loury

Oh, I see — you wanna confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you, and ignore anything that doesn’t. So the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you . . .

A lot of that goin’ around

Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by.

I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .

What part of “WMD,” “biggest and most costly lie in modern history,” and “most world-altering topic of our time” — do you not understand?

Perhaps an inquiry or two for clarification was in order?

What happened to “looking at the deep questions”? . . .

We’re a university. We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason. Instead, it was like a kind of emotional rush — in which . . . the president and provost and the top leadership of my university — wanted to jump on a bandwagon. They wanted to wave a banner.

And I thought to myself, what have we come to at the university — that the first reaction to grave matters — and the rioting in the street after George Floyd died is a grave matter.

That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of Black Lives Matter

— Glenn Loury

Remove the references around George Floyd — and that behavior rings a bell.

Now I Remember . . .

As the patriots Never Forget

The aftermath of this

That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of . . .

Hard to Imagine

And Damn Disappointing to Boot

We can talk about race and responsibility till the end of time — but heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility.

The rolodex of excuses around Sowell is off the charts. There’s a faction for forgiveness — by people who have nothing 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.

So you found one small crack in Sowell’s character where he defended Iraq having WMD, does that hurt his credibility?

This man muddied the waters of debate to serve himself — on a little matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11.

Factoring for his history of hypocrisy and lying on that — along with ripping the Left while shamelessly ignoring the debauchery on the Right:

That “one small crack” is a wide-open window into his character and credibility.

This 2:22 scene from Shattered Glass shows how a reporter allows her friendship to severely cloud her judgment. What’s especially educational is the turnaround time to see what would be obvious to anyone without a personal stake in it.

She repeatedly digs in to find a way to absolve her friend, but she can’t escape the envelope of arguments that cut off every avenue of evasion.

It’s indefensible! Don’t you know that?

A young man sittin’ on the witness stand
The man with the book says “Raise your hand”
“Repeat after me, I solemnly swear”
The man looked down at his long hair
And although the young man solemnly swore
Nobody seemed to hear anymore
And it didn’t really matter if the truth was there
It was the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair

What is Truth

Not the tiniest trace of reasoning can be found in anything I’ve come across in 20 years on this topic when dealing with the doubt-free. In all that time and to this day — I’ve received nothing but contempt for the truth.

practically spit on for it

And of all those in that crowd that I’ve challenged on WMD — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.

The United States is now a country obsessed with the worship of its own ignorance. . . . [W]e’re proud of not knowing things. Americans have reached a point where ignorance, especially of anything related to public policy, is an actual virtue. To reject the advice of experts is to assert autonomy, a way for Americans to insulate their increasingly fragile egos from ever being told they’re wrong about anything.

It is a new Declaration of Independence: no longer do we hold these truths to be self-evident, we hold all truths to be self-evident, even the ones that aren’t true. All things are knowable and every opinion on any subject is as good as any other.

We no longer have those principled and informed arguments. The foundational knowledge of the average American is now so low that it has crashed through the floor of “uninformed,” passed “misinformed” on the way down, and is now plummeting to “aggressively wrong.” People don’t just believe dumb things; they actively resist further learning rather than let go of those beliefs.

I was not alive in the Middle Ages, so I cannot say it is unprecedented, but within my living memory I’ve never seen anything like it.

I know the feeling!

There’s no willingness to say, “I’m wrong.” I mean, you have to take a 2×4 to these people, basically — to get ’em to, sorta, knock ’em down and admit they were wrong.

That physicist is talking about the people pushing the aluminum tubes fantasy that took us to war . . .

And I’m talkin’ about you

“Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” — was inspired by the person who wrote an article called Thomas Sowell, Monument to Intelligent Insight. Our exchange is in the post of the same name above.

When it comes politics

This country is an embarrassment to the entire history of human achievement.

But as disgusted as I am by it all — I feel sorry for the lives of hermetically sealed minds. You’ll never know how much more the world had to offer you, and how much more you had to offer it.

What a waste

We could have done so much more — but it’s never too late to turn the tide:

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s