Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
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. And yet somehow his patently obvious history of hypocrisy has gone unnoticed for decades by people heaping praise upon him.
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
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
Sowell has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness. On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me:
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.
Desperate and Ugly in Florida
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 it’s a daily duty to broadcast his brilliance — while butchering his principles in practice:
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.
And then handing it all down to those who follow in your footsteps:
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?
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 you like 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 buy — a lot
You all do . . .
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
Preach responsibility and take none
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 that piñata: They beat the hell out of you — while unconscionably ignoring the debauchery of their own behavior.
Sailing away on Scot-Free . . .
Then there’s this
America obsessively concerns itself with symbols — fixating over a missing flag pin on a politician’s lapel, for instance.
So — these people can:
- Incessantly lie
- Manipulate the hell out of you
- Start dumb wars and never finish them
- Drag their feet forever
- Obstruct as if not doing your job were a virtue
- Take off all kinds of time after accomplishing nothing
- Waste mountains of money while touting concerns about spending
- Spend enormous amounts of time & energy assailing the opposition while absolving their own at every turn
- Broadcast beliefs that have no bearing on their record or yours
- Rile you up with red meat to savagely scorn the other side — as you sail Scot-Free on an ocean of bottomless lies and hypocrisy . . .
Never in doubt — while you fret over flair:
Conservatives control the narrative about responsibility and think that magically translates to taking responsibility. Republicans pounce on the Left day in and day out — as if the Right’s record vanished off the face of the earth. It’s all about framing the narrative — and the Left institutionalizing weakness is a gimme for the Right to rail on ’em.
That the Left brings it on themselves is another matter . . .
And the icing on the cake
Sincere intellectuals justifiably calling out universities, woke ways, racially rigged incidents and such: Providing endless fodder for the Right to rip people for behavior that pales in comparison to what they’ve done for decades.
I would expect Maverick to have a consistent record of calling a spade a spade, but I’ve seen nothing of the kind. I did find this of note though:
How come Sowell’s not a “National Treasure” for his spot-on assessment of Trump in 2016? If you wanted to honor him as a Maverick in this instance — here was your chance to deliver, as he did:
Well-crafted common sense
Advertised and delivered:
Advertised:
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
You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that.
How noble of you
So the rules of argument you espouse on a daily basis don’t apply to you and your ever-growing audience of dittoheads.
You called my writing “brilliant” in I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road — and you’re “blown away” by my site: As long as I don’t challenge you to live up to the principles you preach when it comes at a price.
Got it!
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. 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?
“It was time to take stock”
“The Civil Rights Movement is over” — in 1984!
That — took guts!
And that — is the Loury I was looking for. You said they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your “National Treasure.” Instead of listening and learning on things you know nothing about — you let pride consume you. Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did, and heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity.
You asked them to take stock — just don’t ask you.
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’m an entertainer . . .
When Rush Limbaugh said that long ago, I didn’t believe him. Now I think it’s the most honest thing he ever said. So when I came across this question below, it really hit home. I had asked a similar question before I found this one.
His was better. Not only was it more direct, but it also shed light on something I hadn’t thought of.
And I love that
I wanted to believe — and it’s easy to get lost along the way. But I never get lost for long, and this question kickstarted my turnaround:
My version . . .
Across those communities
I’ve never seen anything with even a hint of the questions we asked. And what they miserably fail to recognize is that their efforts act like a firewall by unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata.
I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it. Someone really “looking at the deep questions” — would have the courage to consider mine.
By not deviating from your lane — you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it.
It would be extremely difficult to reach the Left no matter what you do. But by feeding that firewall — you’re building in barricades that block you from reaching them in ways you might be able to without the Right sailing Scot-Free.
I obliterated the basis of Maverick . . .
And all of you have a vested interest in denying reality to preserve a belief that is glaringly false. Riley flagrantly ignored the totality of Thomas Sowell’s record to manufacture a “maverick.”
It took me all of 10 minutes to size up Sowell — and on WMD, it took 2.
I’d never done any journalism when I interviewed that nuclear scientist, but I was striving for the best of what it’s supposed to be.
My Prime Directive
- No leading questions
- If this man wants to talk — scrap the script and keep my mouth shut
Because of that — I obtained information that nobody else did. But I wasn’t trying to tell a story that served me — I was trying to tell the story.
The likes of Riley don’t roll that way. I spotted Sowell’s questionable patterns of behavior with ease. Are you gonna tell me that someone of Riley’s experience, position, and connections couldn’t discover the disconnect in Sowell’s record if he really wanted to?
There’s a thing about Sowell that isn’t often mentioned . . . he can step completely outside of the race thing and just express himself about just stuff — which is not the usual.
“Just stuff”
Like flagrantly ignoring evidence so you can peddle partisan hackery on world-altering wars — and stuff. That doesn’t count? And in Sowell’s rock-solid brilliance as a Monument to Intelligent Insight — he’s oblivious to his own camp’s long history of “hostility and even hatred”?
Thomas Sowell’s Politically Incorrect Legacy Is Built On “Following Facts Where They Lead”
Well then — Trayvon was carrying iced tea after all . . .
And I stand by that
To believe he’s a “great man” and “fearless” “maverick” with what you knew of him — is one thing. To continue to believe it in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence:
Is pure fantasy
Anyone worthy of this ridiculous hero-worship — wouldn’t want it, as they’d have a helluva lot higher expectations of their supporters.
It’s plain as day . . .
There’s a market for sucking up to Sowell — and interconnected communities are seemingly in competition for fawning over this fraud. These people think they’re part of some revolution in reason by ceaselessly Tweeting the tenets of Thomas Sowell: Never mind they instantly abandon them the second he’s under scrutiny (even if they don’t even know what the subject matter is).
It’s just pathetic
In the aftermath of 9/11 — did Thomas Sowell have motive to lie in order to support his party in the invasion of Iraq?
I asked that question to the guy running The Genius of Thomas Sowell podcast — and he wouldn’t even acknowledge what could not be more obvious.
For all these geniuses you love to laud — you sure aren’t learning much.
CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.
— Foot soldier in Sowell’s army & owner of opening quote
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 to educate me on things you know nothing about.
Then tell me how he was wrong about one thing that he has no expertise in.
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.
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 in it.
Talk about Thomas Sowell’s vast history of continuously demolishing leftist nonsense
We’re not talking about THAT — we’re talking about THIS (and evading the question is a gross breach in the standards Sowell espouses).
I threw down the gauntlet and you have a choice: To ignore or engage. But I have another old-fashioned rule on that front:
Show up or shut up!
One Voice Became Two 