Seek to Understand Before You Seek to Be Understood

We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Never mind they manufactured a world-altering war that shaped the society you see today.

And the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke and racially rigged incidents — rolled out the red carpet for Trump.

That — was not smart

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

She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.” Wooden-headedness, said Tuchman, was finally — “the refusal to benefit from experience.”

And Around and Around We Go

This nation has no remorse

Not for relatively recent wrongdoing, anyway.

How can you learn or expect others to — when you miserably fail to hold up your end of the bargain? How can you spend your lives expecting others to consider evidence if you won’t?

At the end, I’ll share what I received from the person who inspired this post with a fairly polite reply. I appreciated that, as civility’s about as rare as unobtainium on Pandora these days.

Civility aside: If I took the time to break down his reply — I could change the context to inject elements of the Left’s leaps of logic and it’d line right up.

You all play the same games to contort reality to your liking.

You defend before you consider

Which woudn’t be so bad if you eventually got around to the consider stage.

It’s astounding how the mind can pull off psychological gymnastics that allow us to believe what we say without any sense of accounting for it.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act V

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

It never ceases to amaze me that I can throw down the gauntlet with what undoubtedly ranks with the most detailed documentaries ever done on any subject:

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

Civil Citizen didn’t do that — but he issued the same poppycock nonetheless. These are matters of mathematical certainty — and they’re throwing shit on wall and hoping it sticks. Whether it does or not doesn’t even matter — as throwing it alone is celebrated as victory.

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

Civil Citizen aside — that crowd would go at it all day before they’d watch 60 seconds of my work or address anything I said.

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

God can’t make square circles — [but you think you can]

— Willow Creek pastor, Chicago

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.

How do you convey fair-mindedness in a culture that instantly supports or scorns on lickety–split perception alone?

You can rattle off personalities you perceive as fair-minded, no doubt.

But how many of you have dealt with any of them one-on-one? And of that group, how many have put their principles to the test on matters practically woven into their DNA?

Stick around — and you’ll see how some household names of the fair-minded behaved in the face of irrefutable fact.

So I will ask you once again . . .

How do you expose the whole charade — when bona fide fair-mindedness is not welcome here?

When you figure that out

Lemme know — but in the meantime . . .

Forget the mile — I’ll settle for just putting on the shoes.

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.

That’s what happened

It was obvious to me then — and incredibly, the Left still doesn’t get it now.

And now, even now . . . The cat — TOTALLY out of the BAG!

The second you subscribe to narrative over fact — you have contaminated your judgment.

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

Btw, I made a mistake

In my video montage that captures the essence of my documentary.

Years later, I was looking around and discovered that the picture on the right is a different Trayvon Martin.

At the time, I just grabbed the graphic without giving it much thought . . .

Which is precisely the problem!


Mea culpa

My endless efforts to get it right on everything else — doesn’t excuse my carelessness.

It’s bad enough that it’s the wrong Trayvon, but big, bold letters of “The truth Should Not have an agenda!” is not my style. More importantly, I would never purposely paint anyone in an unfair light.

I made a mistake and I’m embarrassed by it.

None of that goin’ around

That slip-up is nowhere near my standards — which bugs the hell out of me and always will.

But it’s an opportunity to show how this can happen — even to those with the most unwavering commitment to truth.

And that when you make a mistake — you say so.

All that aside — to this day, I doubt that most people know what Trayvon actually looked like.

And that — is by design

I think what’s amazing . . . to give you a sense of the lack of danger here — is that the kid weighs 140 lbs . . .

— Cenk Uygur

Lemme tell you what’s amazing, Cenk — you guys making 2 key factual errors in 33 seconds:

The second the Left painted Trayvon as a child — they contaminated their judgment.

The cops made an honest mistake in calling his watermelon drink “iced tea” (simply because of the brand).

That the media advocates reported it the same way at first is understandable. That they never corrected it is unforgivable.

Is their motive to hide the watermelon because of the stereotype and/or the Lean connection? Likely both, but either way — it’s a watermelon drink and it’s dishonest to say otherwise.

Note: A few years ago, I looked into the stereotype and wrote a bit about it on Way of the Watermelon. I love the process of discovery in the origin of things — as you might have noticed.

People really don’t listen.

People are just either not that interested in what you’re saying, or they are too focused on their own agenda. It’s ridiculous to see two people acting like they can’t really hear each other — by choice.

In “The Significance Principle,” authors Les Carter and Jim Underwood posit that we should listen past where the other person has finished. We should even pause before answering. Let them get their point, their story, their compliment, and even their criticism out. Completely. . . .

The ability to hear is a gift. The willingness to listen is a choice.

— Mike Greene

I’ve never heard Joe Biden speak as president (outside of unavoidable background). And while I voted for him, I didn’t look to see who won. I only found out because a friend told me a week later (knowing I didn’t wanna know).

He told me that something happened on January 6th, but I didn’t know what it was until months later.

I had never even heard of Rittenhouse until right around the verdict.

I can’t offer an informed opinion on the matter, but just from the video alone — I don’t know what the Left is looking at.

And they don’t either

Like the Right, they carry baggage into every issue — so the next outrage is just another vehicle to further their agenda. What I think of these people running around with rifles is precisely to the point of this entire site:

That I can strip away anything extraneous to see a situation for exactly what is:

On the evidence & moments that matter most . . .

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.

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.

As explained on You Got Gold, I cut the connection to our Crap is King culture a few years ago and I’m never goin’ back. But every once in a while, I’ll comment on something and leave a link to my calling card.

I deal in problem solving — I leave the politics to you. But you’re so consumed by your aims, that you don’t understand the predictable problems you create in the pursuit — doing catastrophic damage to your own interests.

Look around

My rule if you respond: You’ve got 60 seconds to show me you’re worth my time. This piece was inspired by someone who passed that test. He was polite, sincere, and put in a little effort.

But he made sweeping assumptions and didn’t ask a single question — the gift that never stops giving to those willing to wonder.

If This Does Not Equal that Above

Doesn’t the same rule apply below?

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.

That guy looks like he’s on point — don’t ya think?

That’s what happened

It was obvious to me then — and incredibly, the Right still doesn’t get it now.

And now, even now . . . The cat — TOTALLY out of the BAG!

I’m not just taking Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — he’s key to my idea on how to right this ship. That his stature would soar worldwide as a result is not my aim, but I can live with it for the higher purpose I have in mind.

But what if I were out to discredit him and nothing more? Would that change the truth?

Shouldn’t you abide by the principles upon which you put him on a pedestal — even if it knocks him off of it? Wouldn’t the genuine article want you to hold them accountable to their claims?

  • 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 . . .

It just astounds me how they worship his rules while simultaneously breaking them.

Most “people” have never heard of him. If you have and you read his books or even just watch a myriad of videos of people interviewing him, then you’ll have an appreciation of his deep level of research and attention to facts and logic.

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 his 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 — it’s not his area of expertise. How could be possibly be expected to do “deep level of research and attention to facts and logic” outside his wheelhouse?

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 . . .

“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.’”

The Right’s record on Iraq didn’t change the truth about Obama when they told it. Speaking of the Rock Star — I despised Rush Limbaugh, but he was spot-on about the media overplaying Obama’s qualifications.

As I wrote in . . .

Geraldine Ferraro and Rush are in opposite camps, and yet she said essentially the same thing as he did:

If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.

Every word of her statement is true, but that didn’t matter to those who bombarded her with “vicious e-mail messages accusing her of racism.”

Utterly Ridiculous

And you on the Right — you have no business bitching about the Left:

You’ve have put on a masterclass of complaining for 30 years — but because the intelligentsia on the Left perennially pumps candy into the piñata: You beat the hell out of them — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of your own behavior.

Sailing away on Scot-Free . . .

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

He 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.

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

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

A lot of that goin’ around

Sowell sold out to sell those books you stand by.

Why not — it’s the American Way, and so’s this:

Rack up attention, rake in rewards, accomplish nothing, make matters worse, and be hailed as a hero — another “brilliant” mind beloved as a “National Treasure.”

It’s all so goddamn cheap anymore . . .

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!

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 that follows Hughes 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.

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.

It’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking . . .

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.

You play ball — I don’t . . .

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 . . .

We’re here to socialize — not talk shop

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

You question my motives — but not his?

I don’t care if you question my motives, but Jesus — spread the scrutiny around.

And by the way, his 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 my documentary and throughout this site, I address the talking points in Sowell’s piece.

And do so with argument

If apologists 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.

The Russians said so.
The British said so.
Bill Clinton said so.
Leaders of both political parties said so.

“The British said so”? Hmm . . .

99% of the time — I’m viciously trashed by people who couldn’t make a sound argument on the subject to save their lives.

In a rare sign of humanity, the inquiry below shows how a little grace can go a long way. Instead of assuming my intent, he simply asked. The guy who inspired this post, didn’t — he just assumes I’m on a mission to discredit Thomas Sowell and that’s the end of it.

He didn’t have time to find out for himself, so he skipped over that and asked me straightaway. That’s fair and fine by me. If you’re not gonna put in the time to understand on your own, don’t start slinging assumptions:

Just ask . . .

And once you see where I’m going, it opens the door to understanding what has to be done to get there.

As you move along in the material, ask yourself:

Did Sowell follow his own standards — and on what basis would you make that argument?

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

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?

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

Trillion Dollar Tube

One picture is worth a thousand words. Without passion or prejudice in the way, you would wonder what the image below is about:

And fill in some of the words for yourself.

You’d have questions

Who are you to criticize this great man? . . .

Would not be one of ’em. The second you deflect from the issue in question — you’re in breach of Thomas Sowell’s tenets.

What should go off in your mind is:

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

Or you could do nothing

And just not being a jerk would be something.

Just not being a jerk is a pretty low bar though. Courtesy is not simply a matter of being polite and offering up some agreement.

At the core of courtesy and respect is the willingness to learn — to take one look at this image and think:

These props look pretty important. Perhaps I should start by listening to what I don’t know — before I start talking about what I think I know

Just because someone does a documentary doesn’t make them right. But to argue in good faith — you have to take information into account, and the courage to admit when you’re wrong.

I promise you — it’s much more enlightening to pursue the truth as a journey of discovery. If you’ve got the goods , you’ll be able to back up your beliefs and be right after all.

But finding out that you’re wrong will be far more valuable — as you can learn from your mistakes.

I’m in good company

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

Since I interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist, and you don’t even know who he is — that’s strike one.

Most people probably know what CIA, DOE, and NSA stand for — but how about INR, NGA, WINPAC, JAEIC, and ORNL?

I also correponded with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR). I did the same with the physicist who wrote extensively on the subject matter.

If the marquee evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb isn’t of paramount importance for consideration:

What is?

Uranium Enrichment Primer

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. 

We’re talkin’ mathematical certainty in an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter.

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

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?

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.

When it comes to invading a Middle Eastern country in the aftermath of 9/11: If you make a claim like the one below, you damn well better know what constitutes “everybody” (or at least be in the ballpark):

Everybody believed Iraq had WMD

Percentage of people slinging that slogan who couldn’t tell me what any of those obscure acronyms mean:

Virtually . . .

right on cue

Apologists always wanna talk about something other than the issue at hand . . .

That Tweet and the bit below is from a prior experience, but dishing these woefully uninformed claims is protocol for these people.

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?

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

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 . . .

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

On that alone

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

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

The famous one, naturally

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

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.

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 . . .

I found a lot to agree with, but I disagree that even IF wrong about this fact or that, there is a huge body of work by Thomas Sowell and others like the late great Walter E Williams, that has moved humankind forward.

“Even IF wrong about this fact or that” . . .

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

Defenders of the indefensible never stop to ask to themselves the basic question of all: Does Sowell have a motive to lie?

And so what if he has a body of work that “moved humankind forward” — when he lied and moved mankind backward.

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.”

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 reconcile — they’re rationalize.

Even in the face of evidence they’ve never seen — they just rattle off ridiculous talking points that have no bearing on reality in this manufactured lie.

The only time they follow their own rules is when it’s in their favor. Following the facts going in the direction you desire — doesn’t count.

Anybody can do that

This is the piece I replied to: Challenging Sowell’s commitment to his own principles, and seeing if Civil Citizen will deliver on his word.

There are LOTS of people who opposed the Gulf War, while many flip flopped like Clintons who were FOR deposing Saddam Hussein after he ignored 17 UN resolutions, but then of course MANY on the Left opposed ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that Bush said even if they previously agreed with it.

What part of that is this?

  1. Compared to what?
  2. At what cost?
  3. What hard evidence do you have?

I LOVE [Sowell’s] 3 questions . . .

This site is chock-full of principles presented in a myriad of ways — including my unyielding consistency in objectively applying them.

So, there’s that — and this

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

And you find countering with 6 short paragraphs peppered with all-caps to be compelling?

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.

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 ultimate irony is that blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights that hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.

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.

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!

Workin’ all day in my daddy’s garage
Drivin’ all night chasing some mirage . . .

You have no idea

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

They are not aware when life asks them a question . . .

Maybe someday someone will visit this site and have the courage to see what so few can — and realize that life is asking them a question.

Perhaps the one inspired this post, but if not — he has given me a gift even if he refuses to accept mine.

However wildly off-base his reply — it has hints of willingness within it, so I was able to write to that audience instead of this one:

If he doesn’t budge beyond bit — maybe someone else will.

Just Roll It Around Is All I Ask!

Not long before this Tweet — this guy was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day.

And then he opened the doc . . .

I think of conversation as a journey — where even the tiniest kernel of truth can alter your course. No matter how much I disagree with another’s view, I’ll look for anything that’s true and work backwards from there. 

What I find might not change anything or might change everything, but it’s a worthy endeavor regardless.

Ford: Rebuilding an American Icon tells of the company’s comeback after its largest-ever loss of $12.7 billion in 2006. At the helm of its turnaround was Alan Mulally — who faced quality concerns by embracing criticism from Consumer Reports.

When he says the following, it’s not some fancy quote to float — it’s a mindset that makes all the difference in the world:

We’re gonna seek to understand before we seek to be understood.

This 2:20 scene shows what serious-minded leaders look like (and not just Mulally). Ya gotta hand it to the great-grandson of Henry Ford for having the humility to see what was best for the company by putting the right person in place:

We’re gonna seek to understand before we seek to be understood . . .

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

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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