Work is a journey on which you welcome challenge . . .
Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects.
Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider
Work does not race to conclusions — work arrives at them through careful consideration. Work is willing is rethink what you think you know. Work takes integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, and decency.
Work comes with the willingness to be wrong.
Work is not self-satisfied. Work does not sling snippets of certitude — work crafts argument on the merits. Work is an exchange where each party takes information into account. Work does not issue childish insults — work demands that you act your age.
Work respects your intelligence by using it — and shows respect to others as we work our way to mutual respect. Work won’t be pretty and might even get ugly — but work will do what it takes to work it out.
And if you wanna start solving problems — work is what it’s gonna take.
Speaking of work
I’m looking for fiercely independent thinkers for an idea that could turn the tide. If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well.
Please contact me through the site or DM on Twitter — as I no longer respond to Tweets or superficial fragments of any kind.
When protecting your interests, most of America’s into the newfangled ways of “argument” — where you furiously fire off some fashionable form of “You’re wrong!” and dish it all day long:
Insisting on “affirmation independent of all findings” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
I never got on board.
You’re wrong — and here’s why:
That’s the discipline — to have a work ethic in the way you think. Without “here’s why,” you’re just whistlin’ Dixie.
Funny thing about information
It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account.
I put it all on a silver platter, but you won’t consider 160 seconds, let alone 160 minutes. You think I wanted to chop up my doc into clips to accommodate America’s attention span?
But still that wasn’t enough. I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you. In slinging your insults, you’re insulting your intelligence far more than you’re insulting me.
And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason, you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these.
How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t? Just telling people that you’re right and they’re wrong doesn’t get it done — you gotta lead by example (which I do repeatedly throughout this site).
You want others to listen and learn — you listen and learn.
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true? Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind. I changed my mind.’”
Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.
They just made it up . . .
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.
On that note
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 my documentary and throughout this site, I address the talking points that Sowell’s efforts solely rely on.
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 revolving around the marquee evidence Powell presented at the UN — that was the difference between going to war and not going. That sounds pretty important.
Yeah — so 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 . . .
What Bill Clinton said is entirely irrelevant to the tubes (that Thomas Sowell never bothered to address — or anything else of substance in this saga of endless absurdity).
So there’s that — and this . . .
The Right ripped Bill Clinton to shreds and seemingly lives to assail democrats — and yet Sowell cites their word as solid gold.
That — is a magician’s maneuver . . .
Well, if they “said so” — it must be true.
So when people you despise ostensibly agree with you — it’s gotta be true, because they’d never do such a thing if it weren’t.
That’s it? . . .
Who cares about mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics when you’ve got the word of people who lie for a living?
It couldn’t possibly be that your enemy has ulterior motives themselves?
Nobody nails Democrats better than Glenn Greenwald’s gold-standard:
Here we have a perfect expression of the most self-destructive Democratic disease which they seem unable to cure. More than anything — they fear looking weak. To avoid this, they cave, surrender, capitulate — and stand for nothing.
Flagrantly failing to factor for motive in Sowell’s “said so and so” in the environment below — is as insulting to your intelligence as it gets.
Never mind it’s all meaningless in the context of the tubes.
George W. Bush was one of the last to say so. Yet he alone is accused of lying.
— Thomas Sowell
I don’t play those games, Mr. Sowell . . .
They all lied
Some circles call that evidence — I call it cowardice
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 . . .
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
That you even think that a story so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself.
Remarkable reasoning from this crowd that thinks they’re part of some revolution in reason by ceaselessly Tweeting the tenets of Thomas Sowell.
When you have no idea what the argument is (making no effort or inquiry to understand, no less):
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:
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity
— George Orwell.
Sowell’s side fabricated this fantasyland where they follow the facts wherever they go. Your record is who you are — not what you believe. If you were the genuine article, it would strike you as curious that Sowell offered such fluff in the face of something so monumental.
Sowell’s 2-minute read is 752 words — not one of which addresses the tubes that took us to war. Compare his piece to my 7-part series that’s 2 hours and 40 minutes (with props on display, no less).
You think I spent $200 on that carbon fiber tube just for the helluva it?
This mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that article — and not one word about it.
How do you reconcile that?
You don’t really need to find out what’s goin’ on
You don’t really wanna know just how far it’s gone
Just leave well enough alone
Eat your dirty laundry . . .
We can do “The Innuendo,” we can dance and sing
When it’s said and done, we haven’t told you a thing
We all know that crap is king
If these professional know-it-alls threw 99 items of shit on the wall — while you gleefully ignored the information that matters most: Concrete evidence of mathematical certainty:
The entire story of which puts those 99 in the dustbins of delusion.
You’d forever cry foul for my refusal to wallow in meaningless crap that’s engineered to make damn sure that’s exactly what you do.
I’m not out to “DESTROY”
But to put it in those terms you love — what I could do in a debate on WMD against the likes of Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell (and anyone you want or all of them combined):
The beating would be biblical — an ass-kicking for the ages. And I’d nail Democrats to the wall as well (just like I did in my doc).
In this Grade-A Horseshit he’s shoveling below — there’s not a shred of Sowell’s standards or those that Larry loves to tout to destroy the enemy. I agree with a lot of what Larry says about the Left, but just like Sowell — Elder mainly follow the facts only when they’re going in the direction he desires.
Just like you
And when challenged
He acted like a child — another disciple of Sowell who behaved in ways Sowell would never stoop to.
Not even Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama has accused Bush of “lying.” But Bush haters do?!?
— Larry Elder
First off, decorating your points with special punctuation does not make meaningless crap magically become substantive.
Secondly, anyone who understands politics — knows that these empty assertions do not factor for how politicians operate.
they all know that
And the idea that “bi-partisan” means it’s aboveboard — is equally asinine.
For one thing, Democrats can’t expose the lie without exposing themselves. Secondly, D.C. should stand for Deception Central — as Eric Alterman beautifully brought to light when he referred to our nation’s capital as:
A town where it’s worse to call someone a liar than it is to be one
I’m only providing this clip as an example of how rare it is that a president is explicitly accused of lying (especially in this setting).
So without even getting into the evidence — the notion that you can conclude that “nobody lied” — simply by virtue of politicians not saying so, is so preposterous we need a new word for it.
Compare Silberman’s words below to mine. Which ones strike you as sincere and compelling?
As with investigations — if the headlines tell you what you wanna hear, it’s solid gold. If not, it’s all made up. Either way, you don’t burden yourselves by looking into it on your own.
And deride anyone who did
That they managed to acknowledge that atmosphere and still assert that no politicization took place is a stupefying feat of psychological gymnastics.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
No to mention — this . . .
Co-chairman Chuck Robb and his colleagues have a trick that allows them to deny the obvious with a straight face. They rely heavily on the C.I.A’s definition of politicization: “Alteration of analytical judgments under pressure to reach a particular conclusion.” . . .
In sum, there was no politicization of the intelligence product on Iraq.
— Robb-Silberman Report
That line alone — is incredibly telling.
From my first job in high school to the long line of places ever since — I’ve yet to see a single shop without some degree of politics in the air. Most was just run-of-the-mill foolishness that ya gotta role with, some seriously impeded progress, and others involved crippling stupidity.
All that combined amounts to a molecule in comparison to D.C. — on a decision involving war in the aftermath of 9/11, no less.
And you’re gonna sit there and tell me that “no politicization of the intelligence” took place?
Give me a break!
Then there’s the overwhelming evidence of massive politicization that even Helen Keller could see — so there’s that.
My suspicions were partly based on the totality of the times, and that we seemed to be in a big rush to war without evidence in proportion to the pace to get there.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
When trying to ascertain the truth, how information is framed can be far more telling than what they’re telling you. And the characteristics of the source can be immensely illuminating.
In speaking on Scotter Libby, Tucker Carlson’s astute observation offers one of the best examples I’ve ever seen:
RICHARD W. MEMMER: Scooter Libby was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one of the two counts of making false statements.
THE SITUATION WITH TUCKER CARLSON (October 31st, 2005): It’s understandable forgetting a conversation or two or three — but SEVEN? Scooter Libby — this guy with this famously steel-trap mind? I don’t buy it for a second.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
Whatever virtue is in this book — is nowhere to be found in this article. That’s valuable information — all by itself.
Scooter Libby — this guy with this famously steel-trap mind?
Cheney — a meticulous and aggressive investigator . . .
I saw the post-9/11 blitzkrieg of nationalism in another light — that by virtue of volume you can identify patterns of questionable integrity more easily.
— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue
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.
Nowhere else can you find the sheer volume of surgical specificity I go into on WMD — and you snipe with concern over sources . . .
But instantly accept the likes of these “sources” as solid gold — never mind their uncanny knack for always sounding the same in their . . .
The only way someone can maintain with a straight face that George W. Bush lied into the Iraq war is to immerse himself in ignorance, refuse to listen to clear, obvious facts and/or retain a pathological hatred of George W. Bush because it provides psychological satisfaction.
— Larry Elder
They could immerse themselves in evidence and cite “clear, obvious facts” that these professional know-it-alls flagrantly ignore.
And since my documentary nails Democrats to the wall for their role in the war as well — how do you square that with a “pathological hatred of George W. Bush”?
If the current charge that President George W. Bush deliberately deceived Congress about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq were to be taken seriously, it would be grounds for impeachment, if only as a warning to future presidents.
— Thomas Sowell: Weapons of Political Destruction
Anybody can offer a token nod to accountability. It doesn’t count unless you follow through — as in following the facts and taking the trail no matter where it leads.
This guy is a master at engineering illusion . . .
[I]t would be grounds for impeachment, if only as a warning to future presidents.
In his lofty language, he’s floating the impression that he’s a serious and fair-minded person on the issue. And the icing on the cake is how he framed it within the reference to Vietnam.
Sowell didn’t budge one bit in the interest of truth and accountability on Iraq.
But hey, he’s The Godfather of Follow the Facts, a “great man because of his books,” he’s “brilliant,” he’s got some fancy quotes to float for slinging virtues — and loves to rip on the Left for failing to follow ’em:
That’ll do . . .
For the Nonconformist National Treasure fearlessly following facts in a white lab coat — lighting the way with sense in Maverick’s immaculate pursuit of truth.
Unlike his Weapons of Crass Obstruction piece from July 10, 2004 — only 2 of the sources from that 33-second excerpt from earlier — were available by his 2003 article above. So he could be forgiven for this fair statement at that time:
Intelligence gathering has seldom been an exact science.
— Thomas Sowell
Just one problem
Centrifuge physics is an exact science . . .
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.”
A “great man” would not have his egregious hypocrisy and gross negligence plastered all over my website.
Sowell is not a great man — but he could be: