In John Wayne: The Life and Legend, the author relays a story about The Duke growing up as Marion Robert Morrison — and how every day he rode eight miles to elementary school on a horse named Jenny. No matter how much he fed his horse, Jenny was still too thin.
Some ladies in town took notice of what they perceived as malnutrition and reported his family to the Humane Society. After a vet examined the horse it was diagnosed to have a disease and eventually they had to put her down.
On top of losing his beloved horse, Marion was understandably unhappy with how he was treated:
[A] sense of outrage over being falsely accused never left him. “I learned you can’t always judge a person or a situation by the way it appears on the surface,” he remembered. “You have to look deeply into things before you’re in a position to make a proper decision.”
In the book: DUKE, We’re Glad We Knew You: John Wayne’s Friends and Colleagues Remember His Remarkable Life — in the forward is a 1979 article that includes the following:
To him a handshake was a binding contract. When he was in the hospital for the last time and sold his yacht, The Wild Goose, for an amount far below its market value, he learned the engines needed minor repairs. He ordered those engines overhauled at a cost to him of $40,000 because he had told the new owner the boat was in good shape.
— The Unforgettable John Wayne by Ronald Reagan
This 60-second scene from The Searchers squares with the quote above — and it’s at the bedrock of my beliefs.
“I Told Ya, Didn’t I!”
John Wayne was also a jerk on some of his stances. But it’s ludicrous to waste time and effort on purity tests about the past that do nothing but poison the present and cripple the future.
This — is not problem solving:
“It is widely recognized that racist symbols produce lasting physical and psychological stress and trauma particularly to Black communities, people of color and other oppressed groups,” the resolution says, adding that Orange County is more diverse than it was when the airport was christened under Wayne’s name in 1979.
Lemme tell you what else is “widely recognized” — you’re being played.
Whatever gains you get by aimless protests, removing monuments, renaming airports, and other concocted outrage you come up with — those gains will be offset untold times over.
And already have been.
Let’s review . . .
Couldn’t we just have a grandfather clause that covers our questionable past — and get on with the business of solving problems in a serious-minded manner?
By the way, it’s equally absurd to inflate someone’s record — as it is to taint the totality of it for political correctness.
John Wayne was 34 years old when the attack on Pearl Harbor shocked the nation. And when the U.S. declared war, Wayne rushed to sign up for active duty. The patriot John Wayne was overwhelmed with despair when informed that he was both too old to fight, and under contractual obligations to the studio — which would keep him out of combat.
That — is not true
[R]ushed to sign up for active duty . . . overwhelmed with despair . . . too old to fight . . . under contractual obligations
They’re either lying or incredibly sloppy in their research.
Pick one
Either way — if they’re willing to produce such shoddy work on something as uneventful as The John Wayne Story, what do you think passes for accuracy on matters of importance?
And this is precisely how the media molds your perception — by wildly oversimplifying issues and leaving out anything that doesn’t fit.
To tell the truth on Wayne’s reluctance to serve when his career was kicking into gear — complicates the narrative.
Recognizing complicated issues is what this country desperately needs.
Appreciating complexity sharpens the mind and simplifies problem solving — as it cuts through the crap that narrow-minded narratives create.
What do you think I’m saying with these black & white outfits?
Speaking of religion
The psychological gymnastics of human nature has become a plague across America:
Believing things that have no bearing on reality . . .
I play an aggressive game. I don’t flop. I’ve never been one of those guys
— Lebron James
There was a time when it would be embarrassing for a ball player to feign being fouled on the level of theatrics in King James’ court. You’d be laughed off the court for pulling stunts like that in my day.
It’s all the more absurd when you consider that even with the hardest-hitting fouls back in the 80s — nobody flailed about like that on impact.
Never mind Lebron’s built like a Tiger tank.
Tiger Tanks Could Withstand a Dozen Sherman[s]
The only way that so many levels of sham & stupidity could be so easily accepted — is that it was normalized little by little over time.
Ain’t that America
His words are pure fantasy
But it doesn’t matter, because that’s the country we’ve become — where words are empty and you can feign offense to avoid having to answer for anything.
If you have a history of hypocrisy and lying — you are a hypocrite and a liar. If you don’t like being called those things, don’t do those things. But so typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore.
Calling criticism “mudslinging” is just somethin’ to say to escape scrutiny. It’s just pathetic.
And the irony is
I’ve received almost nothing but mudslinging for decades — by people who cry foul with counterfeit claims on what they do for real. And let’s face it: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your beliefs are gonna fall apart.
The NBA implemented an anti-flopping rule almost a decade ago, but it’s rarely enforced. That such a rule was needed in the first place is bad enough, but then they created one with fines that are a joke — since they miserably fail to follow through.
So the saga continues — much like America’s ever-increasing acceptance of the asinine & flagrantly false.
A buffoon befitting of this circus music — that is the legacy he’ll leave behind. He doesn’t concern himself with the future and the harm he does in shaping it.
And neither do you
It’s year one (of the [flopping] fine protocol), so you’re not just going to go cold turkey. . . . Guys have been accustomed to doing it for years, and it’s not even a bad thing.
You’re just trying to get the advantage.
Any way you can get the advantage over an opponent to help your team win, then so be it.
This man takes no pride in how he wins . . .
And neither do you
Same goes for this blameless attitude below
Even in my diehard days of watching baseball back in the 70s and early 80s, no amount of loyalty to my beloved Yankees would allow me to look away from this wrongdoing.
That the game is governed by rules is part of its beauty — as in life when governed by conscience.
Even with irrefutable evidence on video — he still threw up in his arms in disbelief.
Matters of world-altering consequence have been decided in such ways: Where it wasn’t about what was right, what was true, and what made sense — as convictions were calculated entirely based on benefit to the team.
If you learned from it — at least that would be something, but America doesn’t roll that way.
How did our country come to abandon principle with such ease? It happened for the same reason the likes of Lebron and A-Rod lost their way . . .
Decades of “working the refs” by people like these:
Once again
The internet and the cable clans paved the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd.
And the decades of conditioning that came before it — set the stage for people to work the refs as they were worked themselves. Now it’s all noise from endless complaining by one grievance industry grinding against another.
Don’t trade in your Tic-Tac box for a ball on the end of the chain
And don’t go spending grandpa’s pennies buying into the game
You gotta keep your heart young
Don’t go growin’ old before your time has come
You can’t take back what you have done
You gotta keep your heart young
Dad took the wheels off of my bike
And he pushed me down the hill
But speed got the best of me and I took my first spill
That was back when alcohol was only used on cuts
Stung like hell so I jerked my leg
And mama said it would give me guts . . .
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:
Mulally didn’t invent the phrase — but his version flows a bit better than Stephen Covey’s from The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. The synopsis for the “seek to understand” tenet is as follows:
Use empathic listening to be genuinely influenced by a person, which compels them to reciprocate the listening and take an open mind to being influenced by you. This creates an atmosphere of caring, and positive problem solving.
Our country could sure use some habits like that.
We’re here to listen, we’re here to learn
This camp has no such notion
Earlier times were mild compared to the blind worship and belligerence I’ve witnessed in the echo chamber around Sowell. Almost makes me miss the good ol’ days of garden-variety Bush apologists — when at least their contempt for the truth was in the theatre of war.
Sowell’s disciples defend him before they even know what the subject matter is. They’re a whole other breed of bullshitters who butcher reality — while incessantly bitching about others doing the same.
Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
Apologists worship the word of professional know-it-alls who avoid detail like Black Death:
And this crowd takes the cake
- 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:
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Thomas Sowell
D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of “rough indication.”
And since the entire point of testing should be to replicate the conditions of centrifuges, one would think that the full-blown testing would be performed before the N.I.E. was completed.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Between Sowell’s words and mine
Which ones strike you as glib?
You walked into the party
Like you were walking onto a yacht
Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
Your scarf it was apricot
You had one eye in the mirror
As you watched yourself gavotte . . .
Well I hear you went up to Saratoga
And your horse naturally won
Then you flew your Lear jet up to Nova Scotia
To see the total eclipse of the sun
Well you’re where you should be all the time . . .
One Tweet is all it should take:
He & his followers preach
Follow the facts . . .
Well there they are right at your fingertips. But the Tweet below tells the story of what I almost invariably face in telling the story above:
And that — is an opportunity
How do we make people realize they’ve been lied to? You have to knock down one small pillar that’s easier to reach.
The people who Tweeted those lines I combined from a conversation I came across — had no idea that they perfectly captured the principle of my Clear the Clutter plan.
I’ve got the perfect pillar
As exposing Sowell is my bridge to expose it all
It’s time to start solving problems instead of endlessly talking about them and getting nowhere. And to do that — first we gotta clear the clutter that’s crippled this country.
I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy. The ultimate irony is that your blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights your hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.
So you’re saying that your plan will elevate Thomas Sowell to worldwide recognition — by holding him accountable? That if he comes clean — he could be the catalyst to turn the tide?
That’s exactly what I’m saying
It won’t matter that Sowell blew it on WMD or why — all that matters is having the guts to say:
I was wrong — and I’m trying to make it right
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?
Don’t shake your head. I’m not done yet. Wait till you hear the whole thing so you can . . . understand this now:
They are not aware when life asks them a question
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 aluminum tubes)?
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.
Sowell’s cogent & sober arguments . . .
regurgitated garbage
Everything that guy just said is bullshit!
Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done (especially when they’re as empty as what he’s shoveling).
And 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.
Speaking of assertions
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”?
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 from a 2008 article on Salon.com:
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 account 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
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 to educate me on things you know nothing about.
Meaningless Majority
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 have no expertise in centrifuge physics.
And why wasn’t JAEIC allowed to weigh in? What’s JAEIC?
Allow me
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
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!
At every turn, the faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
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
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 this — is just priceless:
Even if he said that stuff, your entire diatribe smacks of the now classic modern progressive tactic of taking a single mistake by anyone whose views they don’t like and using that one error in judgement to try and discredit ALL their work. Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.
Who said I disagreed with his work?
Outside of butchering the debate on WMD — and his partisan hackery in flagrantly ignoring his own camp’s abominable behavior, record of recklessness, systematic lying, and hypocrisy that knows no bounds:
I haven’t come across anything I object to.
The rolodex of excuses around Sowell is off the charts. There’s a faction for forgiveness — by people who have nothing of the kind for their enemies.
Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.
That doesn’t cut it when you miserably fail to acknowledge that poor judgment: Particularly when you make a living pouncing on others about theirs.
On top of all that
They have no idea of the depths of deception involved here — but have no qualms about issuing instant forgiveness for it.
Faction for the hybrid model
- No big deal
- No authority
- Forgiveness
If your strongest criticism of him is that he was wrong on the Iraq war, I’d frankly say “big deal.” Millions of people were wrong about that shit back then. He had no political authority or say on the matter, so I think he could be forgiven for that mistake. (Assuming that you’re right of course, I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence).
He has no idea what the deal is
But is perfectly satisfied in blowing it off as “no big deal.”
And right on cue:
I’m still waiting for you to supply the evidence
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell
As this story is also
About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem:
You also give completely false descriptions of Sowell’s principles and standards.
There are caveats to his quotes?
So if his “principles” don’t work out in your favor — they don’t apply.
Got it!
[Y]ou repeatedly cite false reasons for the support Sowell has from so many people.
I thought the lead-in for the bit below was just because of the context of that conversation. But you’re saying that these rules only apply to the Left? So he’s hailed as a fair-minded folk hero — but he doesn’t have to be fair-minded by objectively applying his own rules?
Did Sowell follow the facts on WMD — and on what basis would you make that argument?
Just what would it take
To have that conversation?
On what basis? . . .
Isn’t that central to Sowell’s standards and supposedly yours?
So where are those standards?
And why do you treat these people like gods?
Compared to What?
You can’t have “Compared to What?” without comparing what’s in question. In the aftermath of 9/11 — the marquee evidence used to sell a war in the Middle East is as critical as comparison gets.
Percentage of Sowell supporters who abide by “Compared to What?” on Trayvon’s “Iced Tea”:
Same crowd . . .
On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history:
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.
Thomas Sowell’s Politically Incorrect Legacy Is Built On “Following Facts Where They Lead”
Lemme get this straight
Sowell shot his mouth off on WMD without any effort to ascertain the truth — not even bothering to address the marquee evidence that Powell presented.
But because he’s not known for foreign policy — he’s free to flagrantly ignore the facts, peddle partisan hackery, reap the benefits for it:
And be honored for issuing opinions outside his wheelhouse — but not be held accountable to them.
- You’re instantly forgiven for being “wrong” — and you don’t even have to admit it
- An army of believers belittle anyone who questions their beloved Sowell — while they promote principles I followed to find he didn’t
- You only follow the facts going in the direction you desire
- You can flagrantly fail to follow your own standards on matters of world-altering magnitude — then followers who didn’t follow the facts any more than you did, instantly absolve you with membership in the “everybody got it wrong” club
- Then you and your camp can turn on a dime to pounce on people for refusing to examine evidence — while your disciples dutifully copy & paste your fancy quotes to float for good measure
- And as the Discount Deal knows no low: What do we have for the guy who put these manufactured lies on a silver platter?
You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!
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.
[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 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.
ascribing to dishonesty what might simply be the info everyone had . . .
Well, if you’d watch the doc you were kind enough to compliment — you’d know that’s not what happened.
Or we could have had an actual conversation like I did with this guy — who decided that “might simply be” doesn’t cut it.
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
Because he wrote those words — he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals?
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity
— George Orwell
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.
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. And yet this mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that article:
How do you reconcile that?
Fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation . . .
“It’s your title — that’s the problem”:
Not the events that led to this cesspool of certitude America has become.
But that takes time & effort to digest. Why bother when you can just blame the person who takes you to task for the bottomless bullshit you’re willing to believe.
Poisoning the waters of possibility with pride.
As disgusted as I am by it all
I feel sorry for the lives of hermetically sealed minds. You’ll never know how much more the world had to offer you — and how much more you had to offer it.
Some real winners here:
Wow!! You have to be one of the biggest idiots out there. What an unbelievably obsessive diatribe of baseless, unsubstantial vomit! You are literally too stupid to make even a coherent accusation. You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell, and you repeatedly cite false reasons for the support Sowell has from so many people. You also give completely false descriptions of Sowell’s principles and standards.
For someone to be so unhinged as to write such an unbelievably lengthy piece filled with nothing but personal attacks, unexplained claims of lies, unsupported accusations of sinister motives, and just a bunch of incoherent tangents is remarkable indeed.
Careful or you might just drown in your bathtub next time you get in it if you don’t remove that one-ton chip off your shoulder. Seriously, if you want to be taken seriously, write your own views; don’t throw up a flashy, confusing, exceedingly long pictorial of others’ work as a diatribe against people you don’t like. You only make yourself appear jealous of the target(s).
Defending the faith . . .
Is all that matters to Sowell’s echo chamber of affirmation — as 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.
On that note
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.
“The Genius of Thomas Sowell”
Is that this fraud got followers to believe he’s not only a genius, but some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes to boot.
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.
Sowell has a habit of headlines oozing in partisan pettiness.
On two of the biggest events in history — Sowell seems pretty tribal to me:
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.
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.
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.
On that note
It’s preposterous that I have to point out that I’m using an image of his own words to frame a point about his principles. But even after explicitly stating it — it still doesn’t register:
Showing Sowell’s piece that follows Hughes’ has nothing to do with defending the Left
What more do you need?
this — is Conformity 101:
Ice-cold partisan hackery wrapped in the warmth of a “white lab coat”:
Hard to Imagine:
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 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.
What hard evidence do you have?
— Thomas Sowell
Hard enough to drop the hammer on you a hundred times over.
“It’s indefensible! Don’t you know that?”
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.
Whatever I think of Sowell . . .
I’ve never seen him act like a child. I cannot say the same for his fanatical followers:
You couldn’t carry Sowell’s jockstrap!
Thomas Sowell is considered our country’s leading living intellectual, with ground-breaking contributions to economics, psychology, history, political science and sociology.
Seriously? Get a life. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s better than you basically in everything.
You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin
Your reply shows me you have no such experience and knowledge. You played yourself, and you lost. Sorry, read some Thomas Sowell
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.
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, gross negligence and lies plastered all over my website.
Sowell is not a great man — but he could be:
Are you telling me . . .
That I can comprehend the Call Stack — but you can’t comprehend Call Sign “Maverick”?
And now, even now
The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!
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.
When I did the doc I was going up against institutions. Now it’s about getting to one man — and by exposing him, I can expose all the rest.
Coleman Hughes is a good candidate for someone who might be willing to open his eyes on Sowell — and the cesspool of sycophants these communities have created. Hughes has shown he’s willing to change his mind, and he’s young enough not to have Sowell baked into his entire being.
McWhorter might surprise me though — it’s hard to say after Loury’s knee-jerk reaction.
All I need is one
The others will fold in the face of the irrefutable being accepted by someone of influence in this community.
All ya gotta do is follow through on your own claims.
I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .
Glenn got away with that because it was an isolated exchange that could be contained. But if just one of these people has the integrity to look at the truth about Thomas Sowell and the legacy of self-delusion he’s leaving behind:
The jig is up
If this gets out, Sowell’s religious-like following will go out of their minds defending the indefensible. It’ll spread like wildfire.
And it’ll be up to the Houyhnhnms to rein ’em in. I don’t believe Loury’s a dishonest man — but he damn sure was intellectually dishonest, and it’s time these people start living up to how they see themselves.
Leading by example will far more powerful than all their combined efforts to date. By compelling him to come clean — you’d be doing yourselves and Sowell a great service (not to mention the country and even the world).
You’d be opening the door to the kind of conversation this country’s never had.
I don’t think Sowell wants his legacy to be Disciples on Duty — do you?
Blind loyalty would bore the hell out of me. I promise you: Objectivity scrutiny & accountability across the board is far more fruitful & fulfilling.
I’m of the Dave Doctrine
See, there are certain things you should expect from a President. I ought to care more about you than I do about me. I ought to care more about what’s right than I do about what’s popular. I ought to be willing to give this whole thing up for something I believe in.
How about you, Bari?
Here’s your chance to live up to your word:
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.
Looks good on paper
But in today’s world — we need a mechanism to make it happen.
Courage can be contagious, and your example may serve as a means of transmission.
People in your community and all those like it — have practically spit on me for trying to tell this story: Your courageous band of believers who take comfort in contempt.
Courage can be contagious — but not through blunt force of an endless barrage of niche-based arguments.
Why have things come so undone? And what can we do to rebuild them?
What I have in mind is something of a JSOC — to join forces for a greater good that’s the gold standard of unimpeachable integrity.
Institute for Honesty? Institute for Integrity?
Something along those lines. Let’s just stick with JSOC for now — since it sounds cool and it’s got a nifty badge and all. Whatever the name:
JSOC’s scrutiny spares no one
These are just the first voices that came to mind to float the idea.
I’m really aiming for a Team of Rivals — but I’d need some help in finding people who could put their politics aside when acting on the behalf of JSOC.
When I couldn’t think of anyone else, I looked around and came across Transparency International:
To end corruption we must first understand it. That’s why we look at what causes corruption and what works against it. . . . We advocate for power to be held accountable. Everywhere.
Now we’re talkin’
Cognitive dissonance happens when one’s beliefs are no longer in alignment with reality
— The 2020s: A Decade of Cognitive Dissonance (blurb excerpt)
Since the psychological gymnastics of human nature is at the root of our culture’s decline, exploring that would be central to JSOC’s mission. The doc was designed as a tool for honest debate — now I’m out to make it one tool among many in the Clear the Clutter framework.
As I relay in The Seekers: Their Story of Cognitive Dissonance and Mine, an off-the-cuff comment from a friend responding to a story of discovery I shared — prompted my interest in cognitive dissonance.
I could not have imagined it would become a key component in my documentary years later.
Elliot Aronson was chosen by his peers as one of the 100 most eminent psychologists of the twentieth century
— Amazon’s About the Author
The forward he wrote in When Prophecy Fails was super helpful in framing my message in the doc. And he was helpful again when he put me onto his friend and fellow renowned psychologist, Dr. Phil Zimbardo — “a very smart guy with incredible energy,” he added.
Since Dr. Zimbardo is 89 years old — that’s saying something. For medical reasons, he’s unable to get involved, but in response to an email on the essence of my idea, he wrote:
Very Interesting and original
That should carry some weight
My plan calls for fiercely independent thinkers (to be fully realized), but right now — one will do.
Clear the Clutter has incremental stages — but to get off the ground, I just someone to help me get the word out to a very specific audience. Dr. Aronson, who suggested his friend, was a huge help — opening the door to the dynamite of Dr. Zimbardo’s feedback.
How seemingly small things can be huge — is at the heart of what this is all about:
One voice became two — and two became three
Sowell joins JSOC
I know he’s gettin’ up there in age, so I’m not looking for major involvement. His seal of approval would do plenty — and some occasional involvement would be nice.
Then we go after this guy — boxing him in by his own “facts over feelings” standard.
With Sowell’s backing, how does Shapiro escape his own words about what a “terrific thinker” and “ethical guide” Thomas Sowell is?
Thomas Sowell is of course one of the foremost economists in America. He’s a terrific thinker — and more importantly, Thomas Sowell is I think a real ethical guide for a lot of folks because he thinks about issues rationally.
To be clear
Outside of overall views like Why war in Iraq is right for America, I haven’t seen anything Shapiro’s said on WMD (which I find curious). In any case, I want to make it clear that I’m not implying anything about his record on WMD — as I simply don’t have any information on that.
“Go after this guy” — is about bolstering what Thomas Sowell says if he comes clean. Shapiro’s word carries a ton of weight — and his following dwarfs Sowell’s.
Which means Shapiro could blow this thing wide open all by himself.
That aside
As opinionated as Shapiro is — you have to wonder why there’s no clear trail of his thoughts on WMD. He weighed in on the war but not how we got there?
That strikes me as a calculated move by someone being very careful.
Up against JSOC . . .
With Sowell and hopefully Shapiro on board: Larry’s days of dishing but not taking are done.
And if he stops behaving like a child when challenged — and consistently delivers on “facts over feelings,” JSOC would welcome him right in.
JSOC drops the hammer
On the whole show — and this is the short list:
There is no market for what I do
But there wasn’t one for PCs at one time either.
We could revolutionize the world too — just by using the tools we were given from the get-go:
That’s that lump that’s three feet above your ass!
Of all the great principles that foster fruitful communication — this one is paramount:
You Improvise, You Overcome, You Adapt
I adapt to you and you adapt to me
And somewhere in the middle or on the way to it — maybe we come to a meeting of the minds.
There’s no finer example of that than these classic scenes from the all-time “everyman” master. Tom Hanks’ character is coming from a different place — and his attitude from the start was:
I don’t have ballplayers, I’ve got girls!
But little by little, he came around — and once he saw them as ballplayers, he treated them as such. And that’s what that first scene above is all about.
In the second scene, as much as he’d like to treat them the same as any player, he adapts to find some way of communicating his concerns without being too harsh.
You’re still missing the cutoff man. Now that’s . . . . that’s something I’d like you to work on . . . before next season.
And whad’ya know — she responds in kind!
She recognizes that he’s trying really hard to get something important through to her, and that he’s adjusting his approach from last time — and she appreciates that.
Now that’s something I’d like you to work on . . .
Imagine!
Shown here is a somewhat dehumanized, life-size bronze figure of a human being of no particular sex, age, race, culture, or environment. Compressed between the two wheels, it seems to present humanity as the victim of its own complicated inventions.
The wheels also symbolize the blind ups and downs of fortune. The date 1965 is inscribed on the base, and the whole sad assemblage seems to say that human history and civilization have not exactly turned out as was once more hopefully expected.
Remember what it was like to be uplifted by the genuine spirit of America? Maybe it wasn’t as real as I imagined it to be — but that authenticity is worlds away from where we are now.
Thank you for reading!
When you open your eyes to what’s underneath — it intrinsically trains your mind to see with increasing clarity
— Richard W. Memmer . . .
One Voice Became Two 