Behold the Legacy of Your Beloved Sowell: Disciples on Duty

There is no measure for how asinine these acolytes are in defending the indefensible — automatons devoid of rational thought & manners. Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency:

Or any virtue of any kind

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 — butchering his bedrock beliefs as they dance in delight behind their force field of fallacy.

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 . . .

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?

As in the marquee evidence used to manufacture this fraud?

I did — Sowell didn’t

Button your lip and don’t let the shield slip
Take a fresh grip on your bulletproof mask
And if they try to break down your disguise with their questions
You can hide hide hide behind Paranoid Eyes

I take both parties to task in my documentary. And guess who’s one of the biggest liars involved: The guy in the White House right now — Joe Biden.

How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits, but because it’s on the trail to the truth. I don’t do politics, I do reality — and I don’t give a damn who gets in the way.

In the Florida election fiasco of 2000, I just wanted the right thing to be done — whether it served my interests or not was irrelevant: And I said so at the time.

That sense of fairness is so foreign I might as well be speaking another language.

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.

“Compared to what?” . .

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?

He’s gonna show you the bricks. He’ll show you they got straight sides. He’ll show you how they got the right shape. He’ll show them to you in a very special way, so that they appear to have everything a brick should have . . .

But there’s one thing he’s not gonna show you.

When you look at the bricks from the right angle, they’re as thin as this playing card. His whole case is an illusion, a magic trick.

As we live in a culture that wallows in the delight of “DESTROY”:

It would never enter your minds that there’s a higher purpose in play here:

The ultimate irony is that your blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights your hero-worship 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 . . .

At a time when Rock & Roll was split into a dozen competing camps, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers came along to put the pieces back together again. From the first note of their first record, they were both grounded in tradition, and completely fresh.

It was as if they had looked at all the possibilities Rock had to offer, and built their music out of only the best parts. Over time each of the Heartbreakers emerged as a songwriter, singer, and record producer.

Each had success outside of the band . . . yet when they came together they put all  their talents behind Petty’s vision. Petty’s idea of Rock & Roll was stubborn and rebellious, but full of idealism. To Petty, Rock held up the chance of living a life of community and creativity, without compromise.

He never backed off that belief.

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers made music like the last of the true believers. They gave back to their audience what they took from Rock & Roll themselves . . . the best of everything.

The best of everything: Imagine

Yeah, yeah, yeah — I know it would never be like “the best” above or anything remotely close.

But come on . . .

We could at least do something in that spirit, couldn’t we? I can see that each side makes more sense on some things — why can’t you?

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

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?

Uranium Enrichment Primer

This isn’t just about WMD and other systematic self-delusion I discuss — it’s about the psychological gymnastics of human nature that’s become a plague across America:

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 — because you’ve got “friends”:

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.

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

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

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 most key evidence presented by Powell)?

That — all by itself, speaks volumes

To anyone who thinks world-altering wars are more important than whining about websites that expose painfully obvious lies, anyway.

The North Star

Trillion Dollar Tube: By the Numbers

In my doc, on this site, and in the link above: I itemize exactly how many times the term “aluminum tubes” was mentioned across the cables clans.

And I had access — to everything . . .

Wisdom of The Deer Hunter

The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes, and yet not one of them was presented by Powell at the U.N. According to HUBRIS, they scrapped the idea of displaying a tube — since Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute.

— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue

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 than 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

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

Shrewd!

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

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

Hide and Seek

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.‘

Lo and Behold

Even in the most unsophisticated years of my youth, I would have never bought something so impossibly simplistic as Sowell’s “said so and so” — and the Right’s ubiquitous belief that “everybody believed Iraq had WMD.”

My mind would never allow me to accept something so easily.

I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment.

To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge — would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.

His acolytes have no interest in such a demanding way of life — as defending the faith is all that matters in the religious-like following around Sowell.

They spread the gospel by mindlessly countering with boilerplate beliefs that have no bearing on the issues in question.


What works with them would never fly with me. If you oversimplify an issue that clearly calls for careful examination, I know you’re hiding something.

If you constantly complain about the other side and defend your own at every turn — you’re not playing by the rules you rail on others for failing to follow.

Occasional criticism of your own party doesn’t qualify as having a history faithful to objective scrutiny.

By the way: How come Sowell’s not a “National Treasure” for his spot-on assessment of Trump in 2016? If you wanted to justifiably honor him as a Maverick — here was your chance to deliver:

As he did

Perfectly crafted common sense . . .

Advertised and delivered . . .

Heroes in Error

Which option below would you choose if you wanted to understand a fairly complex concept? For me, it’s whatever it takes to get me where I wanna go.

I wish I were smart enough to read the JavaScript language spec and pick it up all on my own. Then again, I love the demands of difficulty and overcoming obstacles in a journey.

But I can’t do it alone

I need the help of amazing minds from my multitude of sources that increasingly grows the more I learn and advance my skills.

When I returned to this topic last weekend, I almost got it in the first video. In the face of such phenomenal work (or any sincere effort, for that matter): It would be unthinkable for me to blame the source because I have to work a little harder.

I was equally impressed by the 2nd video. He furthered my grasp on my question — and enhanced my overall understanding to boot. And the icing on the cake: He taught with this magical tool I had never heard of before.

This — is pure gold

3rd and 4th tries

Found that amazing graphic and a guy that ranks with the best I’ve ever seen in any discipline.

My gap paved the way to pay dirt — but only because I kept digging. Now I’m totally tapped into the internals, and I’ve got new tools to advance my knowledge on that front and many more.

The answer was there all along — I just needed to train my mind to see it.

Works the same way here . . .

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.

— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing

Are you telling me that you can’t comprehend Call Sign “Maverick” but I can comprehend the Call Stack? There are coders who could blow me out of the water with knowledge I’ll never know: With the Call Stack being child’s play to them.

And yet, Sowell’s misdeeds would escape some of them too. How could that be?

And why not . . .

Try this on for size

How could that be?

And why wouldn’t you burden yourself by asking even a single question? Because you don’t wanna know the truth. Anyone who wanted to see — would not behave in ways that make sure damn sure they never will.

And this is one of the ways you pull it off with ease . . .

An unarmed teen in Florida was shot and killed today — he was black and the guy with the gun wasn’t

At that moment — that’s all I know

Race relations, gun control, stand-your-ground laws, black, white, whatever — none of that even enters my mind.

It instantly enters yours — because you got into the habit of letting people put it there.

You’d think that a party that prides itself on intellectualism would examine the efficacy of their efforts. Perhaps even try some predictive analysis:


We’ve got the first black president in the White House and we’re marching to Black Lives Matter.

That might be overplaying our hand and have unintended consequences.

When it comes to ascertaining the truth, I don’t care what your cause is, who’s in the White House, who controls Congress or the courts.

I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see:

We must agree that it was watermelon and consider what it means: Maybe nothing, maybe everything. But you pollute the debate when you won’t even acknowledge the irrefutable.

Worse than that — you poison your purpose . . .

On that front — and this one

America is so poisoned by politics that you can’t even see when someone’s not political. And what’s worse — you don’t want to.

Every response is predicated on perception and presevering it at all costs. There’s not even a notion of given & take to allow for fluid discussion that would require you to reconsider what you see.

That doesn’t necessarily mean you have to change your mind entirely — but maybe there’s some middle ground that could prove fertile for your cause.

But you cling to your baggage-based beliefs for dear life, because if they’re not true — you’ll open a window to realities you’ve spent much of your life denying.

Incredibly, I’m even assailed on things we agree on — because you instantly assume that any criticism of your beliefs, is an attack on all of ’em.

That’s at the core of “baggage claims” — empty assertions applied on perception alone. The baggage might be based in some truth with justifiable concerns. But to indiscriminately conclude guilty or innocent by association:

Is not smart, not just, and counterproductive to your cause.

That baggage you carry is weighing you down — along with all of America and the world at large. And I assure you — there are powerful forces in play that have no interest in ever lightening your load.

Who do ya think Roger Ailes was targeting below?

People don’t want to be informed, they want to feel informed

— The Loudest Voice

Did he really say those exact words? That quote is the irrefutable record of what happened on Fox — so it doesn’t matter.

To be sure, the Left has gone off the rails in following suit to feel informed. And all the while, the Right celebrates freedom by slinging snippets of certitude in a ceaseless cadence of crap.

I didn’t write Mariana Trench of Mendacity from my imagination.

There’s a classic scene in Seinfeld that delightfully illustrates the divide between declarations of virtue and delivering on them

America was built on hypocrisy — why bother messing with tradition?

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.

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

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

And that’s a fact — I did the math:

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.

It’s as apples & oranges as it gets to compare my efforts against the accepted standard of social media norms. However difficult your task, you’re not taking on the entire nation.

As I wrote on Without Passion or Prejudice in reference to the opening image:

Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.

By just recognizing that the challenges I face are different than the standard fare in America — you might find some appreciation of what I’m up against.

When taking on all of America — you can’t just lay it all out in a linear fashion. I faced this same problem in structuring my documentary and even in the naming of it . . .

What’s with the different names of your doc?

What’s with your mindset that necessitates massaging it with harmonious headlines? How do you convey fair-mindedness in a culture that instantly supports or scorns on lickety–split perception alone?

Alas, I have to factor for this “having said that” culture we’ve created — where you’ve gotta pamper your audience to pave the way for what you really wanna say.

Utterly ridiculous

And after you’ve soothed their minds with some degree of shared scrutiny — that goodwill goes right out the window the moment you mention anything that challenges their calcified convictions.

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.

The notion that it’s my fault you can’t find your way to the truth through my maze of a website — is preposterous, particularly because you have a choice:

The documentary is structured to the hilt — so it’s much easier to digest.

Why would I repeat that approach — when I’m dealing with your obstinate refusal to watch it in the first place?

  • In a culture that considers a long paragraph to be a burden
  • Where battling it out 280 characters at a time is seen as meaningful debate
  • Where habitually slinging self-congratulations and high praise for people who’d repeatedly rehash the same topics till the end of time before they’d question the efficacy of their efforts

You’re gonna find fault no matter what I do.

With just a little inquiry and an ounce of decency — you could gain some insight into why my material is arranged in ways you’ve never seen. And when you’re seeing it for the first time — you’re unaware of the endless efforts to reach your kin who came before you:

It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the “we are right” view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack.

There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no “what ifs?” or “maybes.”

— Laura Knight-Jadczyk

So spare me your cries that my site is at fault for your failure to find the truth. I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all — as your kind always has an excuse laced with self-satisfied scorn.

There’s a mutual responsibility in communication — and that “deal” is to hold up your end of the bargain (and it’s in your interests to do so). After all, you want others to consider your concerns — shouldn’t you do the same?

Wouldn’t some good ol’ give-and-take be refreshing for a change?

But now information is so funneled in a fashion to your liking — you don’t even know what to do with anything that isn’t. It astounds me that wading through unfamiliar territory on this site is somehow seen as complicated as quantum physics.

I assure you . . .

What it took to acquire this information was infinitely more demanding than anything you face here — let alone the complexities in exposing systematic deception at the core of our country’s ills.

I wrote my documentary as a tool for discussion — to illustrate argument in the face of folly . . .

opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion

— Life at the Bottom

That’s not the real Thomas Sowell (I’m not even sure he’s on Twitter). Undoubtedly, he would have that many and more. But it just amazes me that you can worship someone while behaving in ways that make a mockery out of the very principles you exalt on a daily basis.

Ridicule just rolls right off me anymore:

I’m not dealing with individuals — I’m dealing with a collective machine that’s been programmed to put me down.

My job is to jam up the gears — and get these gears going again:

I like the cut of your jib, sir

And then there are those memorable moments when someone surprises you with the simplicity and elegance of a line like that.

In a sea of insults, one kind comment is like wind in your sails.

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 — all too well

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.

It seems we have all the time in the world to promote the false — but not a second to spare for the truth. “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” — a quote that’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710):

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.

To claim that war 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.

Ripping on woke is all the rage. And outrage industries of dish it but can’t take it — would talk about race and responsibility till the end of time. But heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility.

Speaking of the moon

I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.

BACKWATER SCHOOL

To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award-worthy for nonsensical statements. Nobody behaves like that without ulterior motives.

In the Crap is King culture we’ve created:

Infantile insults are celebrated. The doubt-free who don’t do their homework are the experts. Those who belittle and/or outright reject correction — are the righteous and wise.

The ones with courage to admit when they’re wrong — are the weak. Tireless dedication is mercilessly mocked — while intellectual laziness is esteemed.

Original thinking and uniqueness are bashed — while conforming to the trite is trumpeted. Depth is discarded with disdain — while shallowness is embraced with love.

The honest & sincere are shunned — while manipulators & liars are welcomed with open arms.

This is my story — and if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction.

Or Not . . .

Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party

Stirring Defense

Instead of genuinely listening to each other with our fine collection of communication tools — slinging snippets of certitude has become America’s pastime.

We have created a knee-jerk nation where discernment is derided and negligence is in vogue.

What was beyond the pale in the past is now perfectly acceptable. There was a time when adults acted their age, but those days are long gone — as the internet and the cable clans paved the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd. 

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 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:

This — is regurgitated garbage:

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 . . .

Trillion Dollar Tube

If you refuse to look at the evidence — how can I convince you of anything?

I put it all on a silver platter

But you wouldn’t consider 160 seconds, let alone 160 minutues. I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you?


Since when did making a case with multimedia become classifed as “memes”? And does this strike you as a place of platitudes?

Like the “mudslinging” charge your crowd delights in dishing.

So typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore. “Mudslinging” is just somethin’ to say to escape scrutiny.

By definition, that’s not what I do — as it’s demonstrably provable that Thomas Sowell is a liar and a hypocrite. But you have a convenient tactic to deny the obvious:

You cry foul for “mudslinging” on any criticism you don’t like, flagrantly ignore the evidence, then gleefully sling mud on matters you know nothing about — as you proudly refuse to listen and learn.

And let’s face it: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your beliefs are gonna fall apart.

Another “meme” . . .

As I have this crazy idea to illustate the complexity involved in uranium enrichment — since we started a war over it and all. In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, the material properties of centrifuge rotors are kind of a big deal.

Seems like having some baseline understanding of an issue is a sound approach to ascertaining the truth.

I’m old-fashioned that way.


Which images below look related to nuclear weapons?


Contrast his loose language of “various nations‘ intelligence agencies” (and anything he said on the subject) — with the specificity of mine . . .

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

DAVID ALBRIGHT (RWM): An alternative method to resolve this conflict would have been for the DCI to ask for the judgment of the Joint Atomic Energy Intelligence Committee (JAEIC for short)  which is officially part of the [National Intelligence Estimate] process.

JAEIC has been a standing DCI technical intelligence committee for several decades.

WASHINGTON POST (April 1st, 2005): The CIA refused to convene the government’s authoritative forum for resolving technical disputes about nuclear weapons. JAEIC proposed twice — in the spring and summer of 2002 — to assess all the evidence.

The CIA’s front office replied that the CIA was not ready to discuss its position.

RICHARD W. MEMMER: For a year and a half the C.I.A. was ready enough to shovel its certitude to the White House. Turner was ready enough to arrogantly dismiss the conclusions of all the world’s top centrifuge scientists.

And yet somehow the C.I.A. was never ready enough to openly debate the issue.

DAVID ALBRIGHT (RWM): This polarized debate was formalized, but not resolved, in October 2002 with the NIE. In this process, roughly ten intelligence agencies each had one vote, which pitted one agency against the other in a drive for a majority, vote.

RICHARD W. MEMMER: Only DOE and INR dissented. The CIA won a majority vote with agencies that had no business being involved in the discussion — which is where Colin Powell’s empty assertion of “most U.S. experts” came from. What does satellite surveillance and phone tapping have to do with centrifuge science?

Even the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency got an equal say on the aluminum tubes — an agency that does imagery analysis of the Earth.

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 . . .

— Richard W. Memmer: Act II

CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.

There’s another reason why they wouldn’t know everything: Nuclear scientists don’t work there — they work at the Department of Energy.

And that — is what this is all about

You’d know that had you watched Trillion Dollar Tube instead of trying educate me on things you know nothing about.

Note: I modified the Intelligence Community image below by overlaying CIA on top of Director of National Intelligence — to show how the IC effectively operated pre-9/11 and before DCI took center stage.

And that — is how the CIA rigged the NIE with the majority-rules vote I exlained above.

INR (Powell’s own intel agency) — backed DOE (the only real experts on this issue). They were outvoted by totally unqualified agencies (under pressure from CIA). If that doesn’t raise any eyebrows, what would?

The A-Team

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

And you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — thinking you can inform me.

At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards. Expert, amateur, or anything in between: If you’re 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 . . .

Dr. Wood and the late Dr. Zippe talking tubes:

Engineering the NIE vote paints the picture all the more, but Trillion Dollar Tube is plenty to put this lie in its place . . .

In all of 5 minutes

5 minutes of your life to open your eyes to lies you’ve spent decades spreading. You want the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace:

Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on . . .

While you won’t even look at the material properties of a tube. What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?

Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)

Be quite a coincidence if they weren’t . . .

Ya know, connected

If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done, why should the Left?

Why should anyone?

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?

Disciples don’t bother . . .

They’re bullshitters by definition:

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

And every time you pull that stunt — you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these.

Return to Sender

And about that “Leftest nonsense”

Since my documentary takes the Left to task for being in lockstep on Trayvon (mindlessly following the Democratic Party playbook on race — right on cue):

And since my site rips woke to shreds: Don’t even think about pulling that “whataboutism” bullshit with me . . .

Talk about Thomas Sowell’s vast history of continuously demolishing leftist nonsense.

We’re not talking about THAT — we’re talking about THIS . . .

I dropped the challenge and you have a choice: To ignore or engage. But I have another old-fashioned rule on that front . . .

Show up or shut up!

Since blind loyalty would bore the hell out of me, I don’t get the attraction. If you want me to spoon-feed like a child — I’ll do it.

But you can’t grow when you keep spitting it out and crying about how hungry you are.

You’ll never know how much more the world had to offer you — and how much more you had to offer it.

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.

180 — how fitting . . .

And wrong — in every respect

Rather than reflect on where his words go in Graham’s Hierarchy of Argument below, he doubled down with an insult:

Incorrectly classifying it to boot.

These people have no understanding of the subject matter — and make no attempt to learn or show any civility in refusal to do so. They begin and end by contorting anything they can twist to their liking in a sycophantic effort to absolve Sowell.

An Ad hominem attack is a negation of reason and an appeal to emotion and is irrelevant to any debate. It is a non-debate, or an avoidance of debate because the person resorting to this strategy has no substance to what they are saying or does not know how to properly respond to the argument being presented. . . .

“To be more specific, a fallacy is an ‘argument’ in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support.”

Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.

Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim).

Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of “argument” has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.

2. Person B makes an attack on person A.

3. Therefore A’s claim is false. 

The reason why an ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

— On Ad Hominem Attacks / 42 Fallacies

Birds of a Feather


When you have no idea what the argument is (without a molecule of effort or inquiry to find out):

Wrapping quotes around “argument” is as ridiculous as using air quotes incorrectly.

And without even the most basic insight into anything on this story: His camp has a habit of glossing over global issues of catastrophic consequences with:

“Seems”

If he’d paid any attention at all:

He’d know that the baseline argument is about Sowell’s abysmal failure to address the evidence that Powell presented.

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

Even at a glance

You should know that Sowell’s piece is not the stuff of substance (all 752 words of a 2-minute read).

By Sowell’s status and by his own ethics — he had a huge responsibility.

By himself, he could not have shaped the decisions in those dead set on going to war. But he could have been the catalyst for the kind of debate that such decisions should demand.

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.

So on top of having no idea what you’re talking about — you don’t even understand the most basic tenets of the person you put on a pedestal for those principles.

They’re just fancy quotes to float

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.”


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.

Then tell me how he was wrong about one thing that he has no expertise in.

So lemme get this straight

A layperson with limited resources and no connections:

  • Can do countless hours of research & writing
  • Interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist
  • Correspond with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence — along with a key physicist
  • Spend $15,000 of my own money to write & produce the most detailed documentary ever done on WMD (taking both parties to task for it)

Qualifying me to exhaustively explain how half the country could not be more wrong on this issue of world-altering consequence.

And in response: I’m practically spit on for abiding by the very priciples you peddle: By people who couldn’t craft a sound argument on the subject to save their lives.

But it’s all good that Sowell cranked out this crap that any Iraq War cheerleading jackass could issue in chain-letter lies — topped off with smug sloganeering.

After all — he doesn’t have any expertise on it.

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

Some circles call that evidence — I call it cowardice


Since Glenn Loury once called my writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by my site and signed up, I’d like to think that would earn me some credibility.

Not with these people. Nothing registers:

No matter what you say and how much evidence you’ve got to back it up: If you don’t march to the company line.

You are the enemy!

In their collective state, the Borg are utterly without mercy; driven by one will alone: the will to conquer. They are beyond redemption, beyond reason.

— Jean-Luc Picard

The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984!

That — took guts!

And that — is the Loury I was looking for, not this guy . . .

You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask you.

Got it!

Sowell has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness. On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me.

Desperate and Ugly in Florida

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.

Weapons of Crass Obstruction

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.

Weapons of Political Destruction

It’s not seasoned with any of that — he’s just trying to have a white lab coat on and look at the facts.

— John McWhorter

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.

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

“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 . . .

Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by — and I wrote “Water is Not Wet — And I Stand by That” with the likes of Loury in mind:

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”? . . .

Or are those reserved for what’s popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go?

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 . . .

And now, even now . . .

The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!

What else? . . .

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.

This guy took a look in light of that line — and believe it or not, he’s the same one who sent the Tweet above:

And by the way: 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 both the documentary and throughout this site, I do address Sowell’s 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.

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

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.

But The Right is not always wrong

And the smart move is to agree with them when they’re making sense.

It’s also the right thing to do.

Pursuing aims in ways that predictably damage your cause is bad enough. But once the outcome becomes clear, it’s beyond belief that you refuse to reflect on your methods.

Even if you’re right and have the best of intentions, if you’re not smart in making your moves, you can exponentially worsen the problem you’re addressing — along with seemingly unrelated ones.

And already have — again and again . . .

Like many alternatives, however, it was psychologically impossible. Character is fate, as the Greeks believed. Germans were schooled in winning objectives by force, unschooled in adjustment. They could not bring themselves to forgo aggrandizement even at the risk of defeat.

— Barbara Tuchman

Unschooled in Adjustment

The right thing tends to be the demanding thing — the difficult that can’t be captured in slogans, kneeling, and knocking down monuments.

The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. You weaken the very people you’re trying to strengthen — branding weakness to boot. And right on cue, the Right is ready to pounce.

I don’t blame ’em — except for the part about them being weak while branding strength.

Conservatives have put on a masterclass of complaining for 30 years — but because the intelligentsia on the Left perennially pumps candy into the piñata: They beat the hell out of you — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.

Sailing away on Scot-Free . . .

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

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.

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.

And how do you reconcile that? . . .

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 article he so proudly replied with — doesn’t even imply what he thinks it says. And as someone who’s read 10,000 pages on the topic, it was not news.

He was screwed the second I started explaining uranium hexafluoride.

Take note of how he smugly cites the source as a way to bolster his baseless beliefs: A go-to tactic of people who unconscionably ignore clear-cut connections to merrily make up their own.

You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte . . .

So instead of respecting my knowledge and expanding on the discussion — this is where it went . . .

Immediately!

Well I hear you went up to Saratoga
And your horse naturally won
Then you flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia
To see the total eclipse of the sun
Well you’re where you should be all the time . . .

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 . . .

The Presentation

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 . . .

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.

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.

If you don’t like my illustrations — go read the reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list.

But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.

One picture is worth a thousand words

When you don’t want the pictures — and you don’t want the words:

What would you have me do? And once I did it — we both know your next move.

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.

That there’s a correlation between the above & below in accuracy, craftsmanship, commitment, detail, and design:

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.

You might mock my tireless dedication to the truth, but maybe you’ve got woodworking experience — or any kind of background in creating things. Perhaps you have an eye for unconventional problem solving.

Or maybe an appreciation of the arts alone would be enough to connect on a human level. Let’s start with that . . .

wouldn’t that be something!

In one glance at this picture below — I’d think, “This guy’s not f#@%*!` around”

I’d know he’s up to something I’ve never seen before — and I’d have to find out what that is.

That observation isn’t just about me — it’s about how you observe anything of depth that takes time and effort to digest.

I was bored to death by the professor in that World History class at Purdue — so I started flipping through the pages.

It was a life-altering moment the second I saw that sculpture.

You don’t have to care about art or be uplifted by it — but isn’t there anything that goes off in your mind to wonder . . .

Hmm, I’ve never seen anything like that before. He’s saying something of significance with it.

Props mounted on lamps. A motorized turntable (serving a practical and symbolic purpose). Surrounded by black & white outfits with silver masks.

There’s depth in the design alone — and not only would I instantly know that, I’d be fascinated by it. I wouldn’t care what I thought I knew. I’d just know that this guy knows something I don’t. And you know things I don’t . . .

Or dulls for disciples

That got ’em – that took the fight out of ’em.

Look at ’em quit! . . .

If only you had the guts to know when you’ve been beaten — as decisively as anyone has ever been.

Then you could get up off the ground

And we could get to work

I already did all the groundwork 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 that 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.

Unlike most efforts, I don’t need to change policies, institutions, or laws — I just need to get to one man, and a domino effect will take care of the rest.

Coleman Hughes might be the only one willing to open his eyes to the truth about Sowell. Hughes has shown he’s willing to change his mind, and he’s young enough not to have Sowell baked into his entire being.

McWhorter might surprise me though — it’s hard to say after Loury’s knee-jerk reaction . . .

All I need is one

The others will fold in the face of the irrefutable being accepted by someone of influence in their community.

Thomas Sowell is not a National Treasure — but he could be . . .

There is no market for what I do

But there wasn’t one for PCs at one time either.

We could revolutionize the world too — just by using the tools we were given from the get-go:

That’s that lump that’s three feet above your ass!

Of all the great principles that foster fruitful communication, this one is paramount:

You Improvise, You Overcome, You Adapt

I adapt to you and you adapt to me . . .

And somewhere in the middle or on the way to it, maybe we come to a meeting of the minds.

There’s no finer example of that than these classic scenes from the all-time “everyman” master. Tom Hanks’ character is coming from a different place — and his attitude from the start was:

I don’t have ballplayers, I’ve got girls!

But little by little, he came around — and once he saw them as ballplayers, he treated them as such. And that’s what that first scene above is all about.

In the second scene, as much as he’d like to treat them the same as any player, he adapts to find some way of communicating his concerns without being too harsh.

You’re still missing the cutoff man. Now that’s . . . . that’s something I’d like you to work on . . . before next season.

And whad’ya know, she responds in kind!

She recognizes that he’s trying really hard to get something important through to her, and that he’s adjusting his approach from last time — and she appreciates that.

Now that’s something I’d like you to work on . . .

Imagine!

There are powerful forces that make damn sure you don’t.

As my videographer perfectly put it

We finally figured out what we were doing by the end

If we don’t change course as a country — we won’t.

It was a picture-perfect wedding
We had the whole world at our feet
Everyone thought we were
Heading down a lovers easy street

We’d have a house out in the country
A picket fence, the whole nine yards
They said our love would last forever
It was written in the stars

Wrong
I should have known it all along
When the future looks too bright
Can’t be anything but right
Wrong . . .

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 )

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