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 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 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.
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
[Coleman] Hughes says he formerly accepted the premise of Black Lives Matter — that, in his words, “racist cops are killing unarmed black people” — but now believes that this premise does not survive scrutiny once factors other than race are taken into account.
No rational person would deny that “racist cops killing unarmed black people” is not the end all be all of every questionable shooting. An entire industry argues deeper factors on a daily basis, but try sharing facts that fly in the face of their interests — and they change the rules.
Taking other factors into account is what they demand of the opposition — not of themselves.
A lot of that goin’ around
There’s a classic scene in Seinfeld that delightfully illustrates the divide between declarations of virtue and delivering on them:
I don’t think you do. If you did, I’d have a car.
See, you know how to take the reservation, you just don’t know how to *hold* the reservation . . . and that’s really the most important part of the reservation — the *holding*
Anybody can just take ’em!
America was built on hypocrisy — why mess with tradition?
Believe it or not, the best way to serve your interests is to first and foremost — hold your own accountable. If you wanna make the opposition look bad, try looking good.
If you wanna have the moral high ground, try earning it:
The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness.
Early on in COVID, I was ridiculed for refusing to take a position on something I knew nothing about.
I’m old-fashioned that way
A lot of things are old-fashioned on here — and my willingness to admit mistakes is one of ’em. With the right spirit, you can even have fun with it — as I did in Elephant in the Room Award.
Acknowledging error is liberating and leads to enlightenment.
I happily belong to an infinitesimal minority that feels we’re not informed enough to have all the answers to every controversial issue in America. We don’t have a monopoly on virtue — and don’t want one.
We’re not only willing to change our minds, we welcome it — and appreciate those who correct us.
“Why, thank you! I had no idea!” Why would people prefer to justify mistaken beliefs, behavior, and practices rather than change them for better ones?
From a lifetime of practice, “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” is protocol for me. I love to be corrected — even if it stings a bit at first.
I’d rather feel foolish for 5 minutes than be a fool for a lifetime.
I find changing my mind to be magical — that you can think one thing, take new information into account, and think another. It’s fantastic. As I wrote 18 years ago:
There’s nothing more edifying than taking a trip to another point of view
America has no such notion
When I was growing up, it was inconceivable that America would become a country that tap dances around reality on a daily basis: Delighting in your contempt for correction.
A go-to tactic of the dead-certain is to make damn sure the debate never reaches the merits of the matter. I’ve seen highly intelligent people derail discussions by claiming that “everything’s just an opinion.”
Nobody really believes that — it’s just a cop-out.
And if you call ‘em on it, they fall back on Old Faithful — “agree to disagree.” How this hijacked-for-hackery ethic caught on over the years can be charted with the times — where things that once meant something, now mean nothing.
Clearly you think my line of thinking is incorrect and I think yours is wrong also so I would have to say this is one of the spots where agreeing to disagree is appropriate. I know you don’t believe in that but I’m sure it’s safe to say that you aren’t going to change your mind on . . . and neither am I, BUT THAT IS Ok!
The minimum standard for a “line of thinking” — is to do some thinking.
You cannot counter with nothing and say it’s something. AudioEnglish.org does a nice job of defining “line of thinking”:
The process of using your mind to consider something carefully
People love to plug “nobody’s perfect” — and yet so many of ’em proudly refuse to be corrected on anything.
The incorrigible in that camp act like they’re never wrong, never rude, never foolish, never over-the-top, never unreasonable, and never insulting.
In the spirit of “only guilty man in Shawshank” — I’ve been all of those things at one time or another. If you wanna gauge someone’s commitment to doing right by their fellow man — ask ’em how many times they didn’t.
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.
Anyone wanting to know the truth — would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. America wallows in a fantasyland of circular certitude — where denying the obvious has become a duty to defend your tribe.
Hiding behind your force field of fallacy:
You win from the start and even more at the end — reinforced by the fellowship of friends cemented in the same standards. No amount of irrefutable evidence & expertise can convince you of anything in your race for satisfaction and insatiable appetite for glorifying those who give it to you.
We have become a society of spin doctors who manipulate language anytime it suits our needs. It took the toppling of time-honored traditions to fabricate our fact-free liberties.
In days long gone, “agree to disagree” was usually engaged with some degree of sincerity in order to get beyond an impasse with civility.
The intention of the well-meaning motto is that you actually offer something in the realm of sensible argument. Baseless assertions devoid of any effort to ascertain the truth do not qualify.
Naturally, the slope got slippery over time as the egregious abuse of the adage caught on.
Nowadays you can “agree to disagree” about subject matter you know nothing about. Its indiscriminate usage is so off the charts you could deny the existence of gravity and gleefully get away with it.
Being smoothly smug is now considered civil
Never mind the notion of genuine courtesy that comes with the willingness to be wrong. We begin and end our conversations believing we’re right — shunning the discipline it takes to be correct. Anything Goes in our Age of Unenlightenment — where “all opinions are equal” whenever you feel the need to call on that convenience.
There’s nothing sacred in our society — anything that can be butchered, will be.
Somebody brilliantly captured the fallacy of this corrupted catchphrase:
I’ve been writing about this for over 20 years — and whad’ya know, Tom Nichols was tracking the same tactic:
Conversational fire extinguisher
No matter what the subject, the argument always goes down the drain of an enraged ego and ends with minds unchanged, sometimes with professional relationships or even friendships damaged. Instead of arguing, experts today are supposed to accept such disagreements as, at worst, an honest difference of opinion.
We are supposed to “agree to disagree,” a phrase now used indiscriminately as little more than a conversational fire extinguisher. And if we insist that not everything is a matter of opinion, that some things are right and others are wrong . . . well, then we’re just being jerks, apparently.
Oh yeah, I know the routine
All too well . . .
One voice began to echo through the night. One voice raised in song. The song was terribly out of tune — but sung with great enthusiasm.
One voice became two — and two became three.
— Admiral McRaven
Ah, the pooh-poohers of possibility:
Forever on the front lines of lowering the bar while I’m trying to raise it — you’ve been a constant companion almost all my life.
Where would I be without you?
Remember that guitar in a museum in Tennessee
And the nameplate on the glass brought back twenty melodies
And the scratches on the face
Told of all the times he fell
Singin’ every story he could tell . . .
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 . . . 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.
Sounds like a good way to build a country — but that’s me.
The best of everything: Imagine
Yeah, yeah, yeah — I know it would never be like “the best” above or even 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?
Years before the Green Book movie came out — I was working in St. Louis and went to the Route 66 exhibit at the History Museum. What sticks out in my mind the most is The Negro Motorist Green Book.
Like most people, I had a romanticized image of Route 66 — it never hit me how dangerous it was for blacks to travel back then — they needed “special” travel guides for safe places to stop.
So while we’ve had periods of greatness — we’ve rested on our laurels and looked the other way all too often. And with the technology of today, we see no evil with lickety–split satisfaction.
At times, the Right is justifiably infuriated by the Left, and vice versa — and this site illustrates their systematic efforts to derail debate.
Remember this place?
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
It astounds me that even sharing something in hopes of a human connection — that maybe having something in common could connect in a way that undeniable evidence doesn’t:
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? In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter — highlighting a cell stating “2.8mm*” is probably pretty important.
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me. Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on matters of world-altering magnitude?
That — takes work
And you might be surprised just how fruitful and fulfilling work can be.
I’ve never continued to believe anything to be true that was demonstrably false. If I’m wrong — I wanna know and I’ll openly admit it.
I love moments of truth & measurement. One of my favorites is 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 said so at the time
That sense of fairness is so foreign I might as well be speaking another language.
I don’t want another channel for chatter — I want a framework for honest debate (which is what this story’s ultimately about). But if I had a channel . . .
Here’s what my Welcome would look like — on day one:
In this channel
If you’re not willing to be wrong — you don’t belong here. If I do anything that doesn’t rise to the standards we advocate, you will call me out on it — and I’ll do the same for you.
The only payment in this place — is that you put your pride aside to listen and learn from your fellow man (especially when we don’t like it). They may be wrong on the whole but right in part — and we’re gonna honor that truth regardless of the source.
If someone calls your hero to account — you don’t defend before you consider. How many books they’ve written, how famous they are, and how many followers they have — doesn’t mean jack in here.
We weigh information on the merits — period.
We’re on Saint Jerome’s journey
Good, better, best. Never let it rest. ‘Til your good is better and your better is best
This is the prism through which we govern ourselves — how we weigh what we see and measure our response.
I didn’t invent the rules
I just follow ’em . . .
And key to that commitment is my willingness to reflect when I have fallen short. But sometimes we rationalize our ways and need someone to open our eyes to see it.
I’ve been immeasurably fortunate to have people do that for me.
I don’t care how harsh the criticism is — if there’s a kernel of truth to be found, I’ll find it. Sometimes it’s moments later, sometimes years — but the door’s always open with everything in between.
I’ve been on the receiving end of ridicule that was way over-the-top and mean-spirited — but that doesn’t discount the fact that at times their scorn was rooted in some truth. Feelings are overrated — I’m far more interested in value on the other side of offense.
I’m always willing to re-examine any situation. Even if I’m clearly in the right — maybe there’s something more to see.
If you think I wouldn’t challenge Jon Stewart on that same principle — you’re not paying attention.
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.
This image is especially fitting for the times — since it’s a myth popularized by Washington Irving and others.
According to The Flat Earth Myth: The real myth is the idea that anyone ever believed in a flat earth:
Essentially no one during the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the most roundly and authoritatively debunked.
In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that refuting this myth is like refuting the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
“Bias” gets all the press
When prejudice is paramount to the problem. If it were just bias, convincing you with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence would still be difficult — but you’d be willing to be convinced.
Prejudice doesn’t roll that way. In fact, it doesn’t roll anywhere — as you don’t budge one bit, and take pride in it, no less.
As a friend comically put it:
It’s not “Pride and Bias”
truth verifiable from experience or observation
Which means most of America is delusional by definition:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true
And the only way you can pull off the above is with the prejudice below:
As the mere mention of “prejudice” is often associated with race, it’s critical to define what we’re talking about.
- An attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities
- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
- The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions
- A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your judgment. How quickly you come to your conclusions — and what you’re willing to ignore to solidify them:
That is the underlying message of my efforts.
The.Deal.Is.That.We.Connect.These.Dots . . .
There are powerful forces that make damn sure you don’t.
And it shows
On the title and race-related quote, you probably assumed this piece was only about that context (just as you might assume about The Yellow Brick Road below). It’s the path of America’s pursuits — and how systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as convoluted.
And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact.
That the decline of America over the last 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government — doesn’t instantly unfold before your very eyes, is not a flaw in my argument: It’s a flaw in your willingness to listen & learn — and connect the dots on the trail to the truth.
My Cousin Vinny is maybe the most hilariously educational movie ever — and this scene is at the core of our culture’s communication divide:
Don’t shake your head. I’m not done yet. Wait till you hear the whole thing so you can . . . understand this now . . .
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, Why you should first seek to understand — before trying to be understood
What do you mean by that?
What we could accomplish as a country if you asked questions with a genuine desire to know the answers — and welcomed how they lead to more questions.
That journey is priceless in ways most will never know.
When protecting your interests, 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.
I offered you overwhelming and irrefutable evidence in my documentary that exhaustively exposes the biggest and most costly lie in modern history — taking both parties to task for it. You refused to even glance at the doc while deriding my efforts with pleasure.
So with this site I tried another approach: Interweaving clips in conjunction with the behavior of those who slavishly defend the indefensible.
The documentary is structured to the hilt in 7 segments averaging 24 minutes apiece — so it’s much easier to digest.
But circular certitude is quite the convenient cop-out:
Allowing you to blow off the doc, dish your derision on issues you’re wildly unqualified on — then complain how you can’t follow the format of a site that wouldn’t be needed if you simply watched the doc in the first place.
How often have you seen someone illustrate how blind loyalty harms your own interests?
And to show no favoritism, I illustrate how both sides butcher the truth by their own brand of behavior. Now ya don’t know what to do — because if I really am fair-minded, you’ve got a big problem on your hands:
So you gotta find a way out
And Old Faithful of circular certitude comes standard with membership in the Mentality of a Mob:
- Rather than read and digest, people scan and dismiss — frantically seeking any fragment they can frame in their favor
- Sensible arguments are snubbed with meaningless replies that are utterly absent of thought — mercilessly torturing reason with trite talking points
- Even against overwhelming evidence served on a silver platter — they will swat it away in disdain without so much as glancing at the goods
- Any sound bite that can be manipulated to their liking will be repeated in endless cycles of certitude
- Always at the ready — they’ll gleefully “inform” you with 60 seconds of “research” — compiled by copying & pasting material disseminated by the equally uninformed
- They’ll look away from a mountain of evidence against their side — while nitpicking over pebbles to pounce on the other
- Their civility is a charade in their immovable contempt for correction — playing childish games that fit a formula designed to infuriate you (at which point they’ll pull the innocence card and haughtily condemn your tone)
- They want a presence without having to exert any effort to legitimately participate
- They peddle their opinions while shirking any responsibility to validate them
- They launch volleys of vitriol as fireworks for freedom
- They see themselves as conveyors of truth while dripping in duplicity
- They want respect without having to earn it
- Their hypocrisy knows no bounds
You cannot be, I know, nor do I wish to see you an inactive Spectator . . . I greatly fear that the arm of treachery and violence is lifted over us as a Scourge and heavy punishment from heaven for our numerous offences, and for the misimprovement of our great advantages.
If we expect to inherit the blessings of our Fathers, we should return a little more to their primitive Simplicity of Manners, and not sink into inglorious ease.
We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.
— Abigail Adams, 16 October 1774
How many lay-people have ya ever came across who wrote and produced a documentary? In nearly 20 years of challenging people on these issues and others, I’ve never met a single one. What road have you taken to lose sight of such things deserving of at least a little respect?
A modicum of courtesy perhaps? Doing your homework used to count for something. How about we just start with that?
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.
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
There are countless people saying the same things in the same old ways — with channels, sites, and substacks that conform to the formula.
No offense to the fine work that many people provide on those platforms: But I find those environments unimaginative, unfulfilling, and of questionable efficacy.
Not to mention this:
But we’re all here because we share some important things in common: a commitment to reason, curiosity, independence, decency, and a hunger for honest conversation. In our upside-down world, holding fast to these ideals can sometimes feel lonely.
More than ever, we crave the company of people who share our core values.
— Bari Weiss: Welcome to Year Two
It’s a nice gesture for Bari to bond with her audience. But what people crave is the company of those who see themselves as they do — never mind their record doesn’t remotely reflect their claims.
Without “commitment” and “holding fast” — it’s just wishful thinking, and it shows! Decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government has crippled this country.
By being in bondage to baggage and baseless beliefs — painfully obvious lies become calcified as fact. We could do something about that:
But you’re busy
Why have things come so undone? And what can we do to rebuild them?
I have an Idea
She’s not gonna like it — no one will.
That you won’t like it doesn’t mean it won’t work. And we’ve seen the results of your endlessly recycled ways.
This definitely feels like a bug here . . . this is going to take some much deeper investigation — WordPress Support Rep
I’m saying the whole system is failing — to a nation that refuses to recognize that there’s even a bug.
Unless it’s on the other side, of course:
They’re infested with ’em — while your side is a cleanroom for computer chips.
In The Road Less Traveled by M. Scott Peck, he shares an encounter that gave him pause for reflection:
Then one day at the end of my thirty-seventh year, while taking a spring Sunday walk, I happened upon a neighbor in the process of repairing a lawn mower. After greeting him I remarked, “Boy, I sure admire you. I’ve never been able to fix those kind of things or do anything like that.”
My neighbor, without a moment’s hesitation, shot back, “That’s because you don’t take the time.” I resumed my walk, somehow disquieted by the gurulike simplicity, spontaneity and definitiveness of his response.
“You don’t suppose he could be right, do you?” I asked myself.
Somehow it registered, and the next time the opportunity presented itself to make a minor repair I was able to remind myself to take my time. The parking brake was stuck on a patient’s car, and she knew that there was something one could do under the dashboard to release it, but she didn’t know what. I lay down on the floor below the front seat of her car.
Then I took the time to make myself comfortable. Once I was comfortable, I then took the time to look at the situation. . . .
At first all I saw was a confusing jumble of wires and tubes and rods, whose meaning I did not know.
But gradually, in no hurry, I was able to focus my sight . . . I slowly studied this latch until it became clear to me . . . One single motion, one ounce of pressure from a fingertip, and the problem was solved.
Clearing the clutter can be quite revealing
We’ve created a culture that would rather race to an idea you can ridicule — than take the time to digest the different dimensions of the problem:
And perhaps participate by offering suggestions to improve on the idea.
Do you wanna Tweet about problems or talk about solutions?
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends. As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and harm them in doing so.
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. The ever-rising ocean of partisan pettiness is gluttony under the guise of concern.
If we don’t right this ship, we will not see a return to some semblance of recognizing reality in our lifetime.
Mark my words
Your ways will seal that fate.
Just for kicks
Couldn’t we try somethin’ new for a change?
And it’s about time we ditch the desire for the so damn easy.
Courage means, first off, the unqualified rejection of lies. Do not speak untruths, either about yourself or anyone else, no matter the comfort offered by the mob. And do not genially accept the lies told to you. If possible, be vocal in rejecting claims you know to be false. Courage can be contagious, and your example may serve as a means of transmission.
We are living through an epidemic of cowardice. The antidote is courage.
I’ve seen no such courage in her community or any other. Following facts going in the direction you desire doesn’t count:
Anybody can do that
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.
For two decades, I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis.
But the contempt for the truth back then was tame compared to now. In the last 18 months, I’ve seen savagery beyond anything that drove me to do the doc. And 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.
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:
To claim that Iraq WMD 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.
As I said in my documentary
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
If evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is?
“Stanley, see this:
THIS is THIS — this ain’t somethin’ else, THIS IS THIS!”
That 5- second scene is the essence of arguing on the merits — which means to stay true to the topic at hand.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
Wisdom of The Deer Hunter
Funny thing about information
It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account.
The surgical specificity of the excerpt below puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. Imagine what I did with 160. But why bother when you can counter with “there’s no there there” — without even going there.
Trillion Dollar Tube
“There is no skimming over the surface of a subject with [Hamilton]. He must sink to the bottom to see what foundation it rests on.”
— Major William Pierce (Ron Chernow, Alexander Hamilton)
If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is gain you get in the moment:
And easy is all the rage!
Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.
They just made it up
That you even think that a story so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself.
And without even the most basic insight into anything on this story: That camp has a habit of glossing over global issues of catastrophic consequences with:
The Zippe unclassified report discusses several centrifuge rotor designs but does not explicitly state the wall thickness of any of the rotors.
Based on the limited documentation, we can infer that Zippe used rotors with wall thicknesses that range from I mm to approximately 2.8 mm.
“Based on the limited documentation”?
Why not just pick up the phone and find out from the “father of the modern uranium centrifuge” himself?
we can infer that Zippe used rotors with wall thicknesses that range from I mm to approximately 2.8 mm.
Why would anyone infer a 2.8mm wall for Zippe rotors that were never more than 1mm?
Speaking of sleight of hand
The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes — and yet not one of them was presented by Powell.
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 that put a single sample of your hard evidence on display for all the world to see . . .
You put it a PowerPoint?
And it just 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.
Hide and Seek
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
A passionate observer shares his way of preserving one of our most cherished freedoms — to pursue the truth, no matter how tough the issue, through honest, open, and unflinching discussion.”
“Parade” — how fitting!
[The O’Reilly Factor is] a one-hour program that runs 5 days a week — and yet in its entire history, O’Reilly has never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes.”
It just doesn’t register with the likes of O’Reilly that what Clinton and Cohen thought is entirely irrelevant to the tubes — but smugly circulating invalid arguments is the way of the world now.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
How do I know the numbers on O’Reilly and the rest?
I had access — to everything
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.
This isn’t guesswork, shooting from the hip, or hyperbole: I know, for an absolute fact — that O’Reilly never even uttered the words “aluminum tubes” on his show.
In another lifetime, we could acknowledge those things — and operate somewhere in the realm of sanity.
Or at least agree on math — and I know the numbers . . .
These professional know-it-alls breathlessly bitch about issues on a daily basis: And yet somehow on a matter of war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — they just forgot to mention the marquee evidence Powell presented to sell it?
And the second a guest brought up the tubes, O’Reilly instantly shut down the discussion (never to be brought up again) . . .
Red Light District
Citing outdated and generic claims from Democrats is an emotional response to outright reject opposing arguments in a wholesale manner.
THAT . . . is the epitome of spin — to engineer an illusion — to make you believe that something meaningless has substance.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act IV
Just what would it take
For “O’Reilly never even uttered the words ‘aluminum tubes‘” — to register as something worthy of consideration?
Speaking of the moon
I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.
To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award-worthy for asinine statements.
The “arguments” of “Expert” By Association — taking cue from his kin on Rolodex of Ridicule:
- “You use words like honor, courage and commitment as punch lines at liberal cocktail parties” — ripping off A Few Good Men and thinking I wouldn’t notice
- The “Get help!” routine
- “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?” — Jesus, why not toss in “You weep for Santiago” while you’re at it?
What does any of THAT have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?
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
Once you quit hearing ‘sir’ and ‘ma’am’ — the rest is soon to foller
The article that “Expert” By Association so proudly replied with below — 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.
And 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.
Mr. [“Expert” By Association], as you must know, yellowcake is worthless until it’s turned into uranium hexafluoride (the process gas for enriching uranium).
As for that 550 metric tons of yellowcake in that article — that had been under IAEA seal since the 90s and was no secret to anyone in the intelligence community with any knowledge on Iraqi nuclear matters.
Moreover, the bogus Niger-yellowcake story (the “16 words” deal) has nothing to do with the yellowcake in that article.
In short, it’s meaningless — particularly because Iraq has never had UF6 conversion facilities, nor a production centrifuge cascade. They had plans for both in 1989, but the Gulf War and inspections throughout the 90s terminated the program.
The “Get help!” routine
You obviously need to change therapists because the one you’re using isn’t helping you at all
The “I have a life” — “Hope you find happiness” crowd
Gosh, I just overheard all this. If I didn’t have a life, I might have joined in. I hope you are fortunate to find happiness one day
The “Promotional” Program
And ah yes, “Expert” By Association’s “promote your little video” ploy:
Every single thing we share on social media is promoting something (even if it’s cupcakes you just baked). Nothing wrong with promoting a little goodness — whether it’s right out of the oven or white-hot truth:
And steel is strong because it knew the hammer and white heat
About those NAVY Core Values the “expert” holds so dear:
Or Not . . .
Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
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
This unquenchable thirst to think you’re right about everything under the sun is what has become of America.
You see it yourselves — but never in yourselves.
And that’s what this story is really all about: How far people will go to protect their interests and cement how they see themselves.
Never mind the damage they do in the pursuit — even to those interests they so desperately defend.
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
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!
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.
I’ll swim across a river of insults to get to a meeting of the minds on the other side. But we’d get there a helluva lot faster if you’d just show a little grace in the give-and-take of information.
As I said in my doc
Undeniably, the exponential increase in self-righteous certitude is tied to technology. Instead of becoming more worldly with our exceptional tools — our conveniences are eroding our ability to think things through.
In our brave new world, we seem to thrive on being dismissive, distracted, distant, and shortsighted.
After all — who has time to be thoughtful anymore?
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
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
Which image below would you choose if you wanted to understand a fairly complex coding concept? For me, it’s whatever it takes to get me where I wanna go.
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 awhile back, 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 gotta 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’d never seen before.
This — is pure gold
3rd and 4th tries
Found that amazing graphic and a guy who 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 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.
Are you telling me . . .
That I can grasp this — but you can’t grasp that?
This nation does nothing in the spirit of exchange, give & take, and arguing in good faith. Talk about being “triggered” (since that’s the lingo you love): Instantly firing off “Where’s your facts?” — in the face of maybe the most detailed documentary ever done on any subject:
is raw emotion
It would be unthinkable for me to refuse to look at someone’s work — and fire back with your “Where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton because they don’t instantaneously appear.
Let’s get real: That’s a stunt (like smugly slinging “I’ll wait”) — not a genuine inquiry in the interest of truth.
And the only thing you’re “waiting” for is fodder to fuel your next fix.
If you operated anywhere in the same galaxy of these claims below — the mountain of material I’ve written over decades wouldn’t exist.
It’s all marketing
If he were the genuine article — those books would not be so one-sided.
The notion that feelings over facts is limited to the Left is ludicrous. If you were trying to solve a problem instead of sell books and boost your popularity — you’d be fair-minded by addressing how this behavior applies across the board.
If it were truly about following the facts, you wouldn’t need slogans — and wouldn’t want ’em.
Your record would speak for itself.
Do these people really wanna solve problems anyway? Do you?
Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness.
— Life at the Bottom
But even if you look at it from a purely political viewpoint:
Had you held Trump to higher standards, he might still be in office. Same goes for the other side — had they not wallowed in woke and played their tried and untrue games on race, Trump would not have won the White House in the first place.
But keep the faith
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
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.’” . . .
When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?
Not long before this Tweet — this guy was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day.
And then he opened the doc . . .
Do You Want to Solve Problems or Protest About Them? — Part 2