The smorgasbord of sub-cultures has created another dimension of delusion in America: Hardening minds not broadening them.
In and of itself, the quality of the work might be excellent. But on the whole, it amounts to fodder for a fix (even for the sincere). Ever-growing exposure to never-ending battles becomes an illusion of impact.
I don’t see a single person of prominence doing any analysis on how the problems that plague America are interrelated.
They’re all blunt instruments
Including the ones I agree with. They all operate under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them.
Speaking of the wrong direction
In our culture of instant offense, we ban before we think. However, banning isn’t a sign of strength or resolve, but an admission of defeat, of showing how little we have engaged with whatever the bigger issue that belies the ban.
Instead of asking or addressing the roots of violent racism in the South in 2015 — far too difficult, far too intimidating — we focus on symbols. If we take a flag down, if we remove a TV show from the schedules, it shows we are doing something. It shows our hearts are in the right places.
Elaine’s exasperation x 10 =
How impossibly stupid it is that they banned The Dukes of Hazzard
But the high five is just so stupid!
From as far back as I can remember, I loved the Land O’Lakes Indian. And then they butchered the spirit of it for the sake of sensitivity.
If such measures had any chance of actually making an impact that matters — I’d gladly sacrifice my precious brand of beauty.
For those who would try to educate me by saying I don’t understand the feelings involved in the removal of monuments and wiping Indians off boxes of butter:
No, you don’t understand . . .
Had Obama said these words instead of Kobe — POTUS would have put us on a new path. And wasn’t that the point of his presidency?
I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American.
That is the difficult — Symbolism is easy
The former has limitless potential — the latter solves nothing and makes matters worse while you’re at it. Moreover, it molds your mind to buy into the oversimplified that sells: Feeling like you belong in a movement — never taking notice that you’re going nowhere.
The slog of real work is what renders results — taking a hard look at multi-dimsional problems to find multi-dimensional answers.
But you can’t slap a slogan on that, can ya!
Equality is a noble pursuit, but this over-the-top engineering of sensitivity has gotten totally out of hand. And it confounds me to no end that you can’t see how colossally counterproductive it is.
Excessive sensitivity breeds hypersensitivity.
Some efforts in sensitivity are certainly called for — but taking it to extremes has been disastrous . . .
And even deadly
That’s the great conflict of my position: How to keep Montana growing — without losing that thing that makes it Montana
— Governor Perry: Yellowstone
This nation needs to be asking the same question about the soul of America — and all she’s lost in perennial pursuit of shortsighted gain.
My God — what a show!
There’s a lot to be said for the spirit of something’s true intention:
And things that were just baked into society because they were historically male-oriented.
When I took Business Law in the early 90s, it was the Reasonable Man standard. In and of itself, replacing “man” with “person” is not a big deal — and there are others I’m open to as well.
But like everything else along these lines, where does it end? What problems does it solve?
And at what cost?
[C]onduct is measured against a community-wide standard of reasonableness rather than turn on the subjective mental state of the defendant.
That is what matters. Just as the right to vote and who can go into a manhole is what really counts — not what you call it. Sensitivity is a good thing, but hypersensitivity — is not.
When you water things down to be politically correct, our nation’s ability to discern decreases right along with it.
Creating a culture that’s increasingly more easily offended and radically irrational . . .
Across the board
The hypersensitivity illustrated throughout this site is a microcosm of how America’s gone totally out of its mind. You see your concerns through the prism of politics — while I’m looking at brands of behavior that all share similar traits.
Right and Left: It’s all Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin.
For most GitHub users, this is probably old news — but it was news to me. I came across an article that mentioned it and at first I thought it was a joke.
I should have known better, but really . . . this nation should know better.
But you’re busy . . .
When everything is seen through the lens of the next election, you are blind to what’s beyond — and even what’s right in front of you.
Which is why so few see that the problems that plague America are interrelated. 8 years ago — I set out to say something about that.
I wrote and produced a 7-part documentary on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history.
True folly, Tuchman found, is generally recognized as counterproductive in its own time, and not merely in hindsight. In Tuchman’s template, true folly only ensues when a clear alternative path of action was available and ruled out.
— Russ Hoyle, Going to War
No other Iraq WMD doc comes close to the granularity of mine. But any one of them was plenty to put this lie in its place. It wasn’t their work at fault — it was an audience that worships the word of professional know-it-alls who avoid detail like Black Death.
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.
The disciples of Thomas Sowell have no such notion. His kind fabricated this fantasyland where they follow the facts wherever they go. Your record is who you are — not what you believe.
Why take on Thomas Sowell when there are far more prominent figures who manufacted this fraud? I already did that — and apologists issued nothing but insults & excuses for that too.
I’ve been practically spit on for 20 years on this topic. 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.
“Following Facts Where They Lead“ . . .
“Said so and so” — that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense . . .
America has gone totally off the rails in its worship of the wildly undeserving — and that includes the so-called Rock Star running the show right now.
— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue
Those times were tame compared to the blind worship I have witnessed in the echo chamber around Sowell. It almost makes me miss the good ol’ days of garden-variety Bush apologists — when at least their contempt for the truth was in the theatre of war.
Sowell’s acolytes 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.
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
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.
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.
Don’t shake your head. I’m not done yet. Wait till you hear the whole thing so you can . . . understand this now . . .
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:
Belittling my “disjointed” & “juvenile” website with “irrelevant music & movies” is the best ya got?
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
This man is a liar and a hypocrite — and that’s a fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
But he’s treated like Jesus and his every word seen as solid gold — whether it has any merit or not.
This crowd . . .
They defend him before they even know what the subject matter is — and once they do, they instantly issue their “where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton. 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.
His army of apologists are gutless in the face of facts they don’t like — disguised by their goose-stepping glory in the Facts Over Feelings Parade.
He’s the Grand Marshal of this lockstep lovefest — and the Admiral of the Scot-Free fleet.
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 . . .
I wouldn’t care if Sowell 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.”
Help me expose this fraud and it’ll spread like wildfire.
We’re talkin’ undeniable evidence of mathematical certainty — and all I need is one person of influence in his circle to open their eyes.
Even the most reasonable of the bunch will look away at first, but one or two will eventually come around . . .
And that’ll do
You use their own standards against them — and on this issue, they’ve got nowhere to go. You’ve let the Right control the narrative for decades. It’s time to stick it to them for once — and they’ve got it comin’.
I didn’t write Mariana Trench of Mendacity out of thin air.
Do this . . .
And you’ll open the door to debate in ways your methods never will — by clearing the clutter that cripples this country. If they could realize how wrong they are about someone they worship, it might open their minds on other fronts.
But here’s the deal — that door’s gotta swing both ways. You’ve gotta be willing to listen and learn from them too.
Einstein borrowed from the one below:
The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
I already did all the work for you in my documentary, 5-part series Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell, and other posts before that.
The incurious see something like the imagery below and mock what doesn’t instantly materialize in meaning. I see it and want to take the journey.
The wonderless see “disjointed” media & writing — while I see patterns that clearly have a design. That it demands something of my mind is what interests me all the more.
I love having to work things out and connect the dots.
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Thomas Sowell
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.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Between Sowell’s words and mine
Which ones strike you as glib?
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.
Everything that guy just said is bullshit!
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 . . .
“Stanley, see this — this is this, this ain’t somethin’ else, this is this!”
That 5- second scene is essence of arguing on the merits — which means to stay true to the topic at hand.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
Wisdom of The Deer Hunter
“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.’”
Look at the journey this guy took with just a little wonder . . .
For the record
Sowell’s articles on the subject are assertions, not argument.
It’s high time we appreciate the difference — perfectly defined on a blog I stumbled across years ago called Duane’s Mind: A Christian’s Perspective:
An assertion is just a point of view, an opinion. An argument goes further. An argument is a point of view supported by reasons that demonstrate the view is a good one.
In my documentary, series on Sowell and other posts: I do address his piece littered with talking points.
And do so with argument . . .
If they were doing the same, they’d take one look at this imagery and think:
So, you did a documentary on the most definitive intelligence by far — that was the difference between going to war and not going. That sounds pretty important.
Perhaps you should listen to people who addressed the evidence instead of being so quick to defend those who pretend to.
Central to my examination is that I will illustrate the shallowness in Colin Powell’s U.N. speech in February 2003. The media typically rushes over everything and explains NOTHING.
I am taking the opposite approach with my isolated look at the aluminum tubes — and insight into that intelligence scheme is a roadmap to the rest. But the only way to truly understand the story is to juxtapose the relationships of the relevant players involved.
That includes the Intelligence Community, Congress, the Bush Administration, the media, the intelligence investigations — and even our role in fostering it all.
— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue
Seduced by the Secretary
And about that “mudslinging“
By definition, that’s not what I do — as it’s demonstrably provable that Thomas Sowell is a liar and a hypocrite. Moreover, if he comes clean per my plan, his reputation will soar worldwide.
Doesn’t quite fit, does it . . .
the use of insults and accusations, especially unjust ones
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, 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.
Even at a glance, you should know that Sowell’s piece is not the stuff of substance. If you opened it (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?
And what does it say to you that he makes no mention of the evidence on display with the props?
Since it’s the marquee material that took us to war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — how do you reconcile that?
For Colin Powell’s claims to have any merit, they would have to violate the laws of physics. This nation went to war on pure fantasy — poisoning everything in its path to this day. America moved on, I didn’t.
I knew then what few know now: The immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong, understanding why, and looking to learn from it. And that not doing so — increasingly compounds the consequences of no accountability.
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?
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: Prologue
To argue in good faith, you must consider the evidence presented by Powell.
This — is arguing on the merits:
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. . . .
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.
By the way, the Senate Report on Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq was released on July 9, 2004 — one day before Sowell’s Weapons of Crass Obstruction.
That report didn’t appear out of nowhere — it was known to be coming.
Even if the timing was a coincidence: What does it say to you that he never addressed the evidence presented by Powell and ignored every substantive argument on the matter?
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 this — is Conformity 101:
Ice-cold partisan hackery wrapped in the warmth of a “white lab coat” . . .
I didn’t write this poem from my imagination 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.
And how do you reconcile that? . . .
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.
Say, we can go where we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind . . .
We can go when we want to
The night is young and so am I
And we can dress real neat from our hats to our feet
And surprise ’em with the victory cry
Say, we can act if we want to
If we don’t, nobody will
And you can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile . . .
The self-importance of people like Sowell just kills me — how they sit there acting like they’re Senators from Krypton.
That’s not knocking appearance just for kicks — as the look and the language is all part of . . .
Sowell’s celebrated as a statesman for smugness under the guise of civility.
He has a habit of painting the Left in the worst possible light — while acting as though “hostility and even hatred” are completely 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 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 . . .
When your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.
— Thomas Sowell: Weapons of Crass Obstruction
I don’t play those games, Mr. Sowell . . .
They all lied
Some circles call that evidence — I call it cowardice
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell: Desperate and Ugly in Florida
And he has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness. On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me.
And I find it interesting that with Sowell — one reason some people today would find it hard to go with him is that 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.
If his Crap is King claims on WMD isn’t “seasoned” to you, Mr. McWhorter — what is?
Hard to Imagine
And Damn Disappointing to Boot . . .
It’s bad enough I gotta deal with unyielding yahoos who yearn to praise Sowell as if he’s some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes. But to see people I respected fall into the same trap — enabling their “National Treasure” and the echo chamber around him: Good grief!
The crude, dirty “brutes” of the land of the Houyhnhnms in Gulliver’s Travels, by Jonathan Swift. The Yahoos are irrational people and represent the worst side of humanity. By contrast, the wise and gentle Houyhnhnms, their masters, are rational horses and represent humanity at its best.
The likes of Loury & McWhorter see themselves as Houyhnhnms — as if they’re immune to irrational behavior in defense of their interests.
If someone of Loury’s caliber called your writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by your site and signed up — you’d probably find it as uplifting as I did. But would you challenge that person on something practically baked into their DNA — knowing you’d likely to lose ’em?
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
Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by.
I wrote that post with the likes of Loury in mind. You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that. How noble of you.
Same stunt that Riley pulled in writing Maverick . . .
Jason Riley has rendered an enormous service by providing a compelling . . . biography
— Glenn Loury
It’s not compelling at all when you look at the whole story.
It’s just preposterous to write a biography and blatantly ignore a huge hole in its premise. This over-the-top praise from purveyors of virtue was all I could take. It took me of all two minutes to see who Sowell really is.
To believe he’s a “great man” and “fearless” “maverick” with what you knew of him — is one thing: To continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence — is pure fantasy.
Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did, and heaven forbid you hold him to same standards pushing your popularity.
You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask you.
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?
You said that they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your “National Treasure.”
But right on cue with our country that’s goin’ to hell in a handbasket:
Little did I know that something so comical would become so acceptable:
Sir, I have got conclusive evidence: Notarized depositions, tire prints, blood samples. I’ve got eyewitness accounts, murder weapons, fingerprints, recordings . . .
Hold it. Hold it, kid. It’s flimsy. It’s not enough. It’ll never hold up, not in a court of law. Let’s put this aside . . .