[A] man whose whole life has been about the search for truth and insights into the nature of the human experience.
— Dr. John Dale Dunn: Thomas Sowell, Monument to Intelligent Insight
If you’re gonna write an article elevating someone & and the standards they espouse, shouldn’t your response to being challenged — reflect the principles you’re praising?
I wrote “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” about Dr. Dunn — and everyone like him. It boggles the mind that a man who went to medical school could insult their intelligence with such ease.
But Tolstoy’s truth is what this is all about — and it always has been:
In the context of that opening quote, I’ll put my record against Sowell’s any day. My lifelong history of objective scrutiny & demand for the truth is impeccable. I really do follow the facts no matter where they lead — especially if the trail leads to my own mistakes.
And that’s a Fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
Sowell’s record is riddled with lies and hypocrisy, but you can also find a major moment where he was a “Maverick” — which I’ll share later in this post.
But since I don’t know enough about Sowell’s life, his “insights into the nature of the human experience” may surpass mine. And if so, fine — I have no interest in clinging to any claim that isn’t true.
I like a lot of what he says anyway — and there’s no denying he has some nifty quotes.
But the only reason my sites & documentary exist — is because most of America has no qualms about clinging to claims that aren’t true.
Keep this clip in mind with everything you see on this site:
Wisdom of The Deer Hunter
Stanley, see this? This is this! This ain’t somethin’ else — THIS IS THIS!
Subject: Monument to Intelligent Insight
Dear Dr. Dunn:
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:
Compare that to this
A principle that’s #1 on Sowell’s standards below (note not in email).
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. How do you reconcile that?
If you hail him as a hero, shouldn’t you abide by the principles upon which you put him on a pedestal — even if it knocks him off of it? Wouldn’t the genuine article want you to hold them accountable to their claims?
On a matter involving war in the Middle East in a post 9/11 world — the stakes don’t get much higher. For a “Maverick” who’s worshipped for “following the facts” — wouldn’t he take the trail to where they matter most?
For nearly 20 years, I have been shown nothing but contempt for the truth on this topic (truth that takes both Democrats & Republicans to task). And while this 5-part series centers on how Sowell’s supporters instantly abandon reason to blindly defend him (an egregious breech in the very foundation of which Sowell’s reputation rests) — it’s about much more than that:
Including going after the Left for some of the same things Sowell does.
You think I’m out to bring Sowell down? Quite the contrary — but it’s gonna take some effort and intelligent insight to see it.
Thank you for your time.
Richard W. Memmer
What’s wrong this this picture?
Subject: Re: Monument to Intelligent Insight
Of course I was around during that period of time, Desert Strorm was on the surgeon’s lounge–24/7 CNN, and then 12 years later I volunteered to work back fill for the Army in the emergency department at Fort Hood, started in 2003 and continued until I retired in 2017. I watched the debates fairly closely and read plenty about the WMD debate and war as well as the Sunni resistance after. The Chair of our department was special ops–he was the bald guy examining the bearded Saddam on TV when they pulled him out of the spider hole.
I don’t see that Sowell was unjustified in the arguments he posed on Saddam and WMD. You and I both know that Saddam used chemical agents–and certainly was a cruel tyrant and barbarian when motivated by opposition to his aggressions and ambitions. The actions of the Israelis and the consensus talk that Sowell refers to adds a lot to my belief that the realities have been obscured by the politics. I know Saddam had and used WMDs. Ask the Kurds and the people of southern Iraq. The Baathist party was not shy about persecutions and purges of the opposition or more truculent groups.
I also know and you know that there is quite a bit of evidence that caravans moved a lot of material from Iraq to Syria preceeding the US invasion and war. If Iraq was preparing for war those caravans of trucks were going the wrong way.
I stand by what I said about Sowell, and his life work speaks for itself, and I don’t think he was wrong about the circumstances of the lead up to the war in Iraq. Saddam and his people were a criminal tyranny for sure and aggressively brutal and malevolent so it was reasonable to think they were an international outlaw gang.
Thanks for your note.
What part of “compare that to this” do you not understand?
“Thanks for your note”?
What you wrote is a note. What I wrote is the most detailed documentary ever done on Iraq WMD, backed by irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty. I interviewed the world-renowned nuclear scientist. I asked key questions to the physicist who wrote extensively on the tubes.
And I corresponded with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department.
You don’t even know who these people are.
But right on cue — you write up your ridiculous rationalizations while refusing to even consider the 5-minute excerpt I sent you.
Ya know — the entire premise of the email.
But your kind isn’t too swift when it comes to the premise of anything that requires you to square one’s record with their claims.
Why bother — when “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That”
If this were anything about the Left, you’d be apoplectic about people refusing to consider the key evidence in a case.
And so would I — because I don’t care about your goddamn politics when it comes to ascertaining the truth.
You think because you’re polite in peddling poppycock — that your meaningless crap is superior some Iraq War cheerleading jackass who gets juiced up on ridicule?
When you deny reality, it’s all horseshit — no matter the manner in which you’re shoveling it.
And you’ve had a helluva of practice:
As I wrote in reply (to which he naturally ignored):
Just “follow the facts,” like your beloved Sowell says.
Just do what you want others to do — it’s that simple. Don’t be “cordial” by simply acting polite in your dismissiveness — be cordial by showing courtesy in your consideration.
Think before you speak
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)
Speaking of which
How come Sowell’s not a “National Treasure” for his spot-on assessment of Trump in 2016? If you wanted to value him as a “maverick” — here was your chance to deliver:
As he did
Perfectly crafted common sense . . .