I believe in applying the same rules to everyone . . . I seek to treat everyone equally . . . I am open-minded . . I seek to understand . . . I pursue the objective truth through honest inquiry.
According to Coleman Hughes:
[T]he basic premise of Black Lives Matter — that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it. . . . . My opinion has slowly changed. . . .
Two things changed my mind: stories and data.
— Stories and Data: Reflections on race, riots, and police
I have a story unlike any other. And as for data — how’s irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty (of world-altering consequence, no less)?
With all these influencers on the rise (many of whom are deserving of respect for their commitment to their cause) — I thought maybe they might listen to reason:
Especially since one of ’em once called my writing “brilliant” and was “blown away” by this site and signed up.
He wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task though. Unlike Coleman Hughes, his fellow FAIR advisor didn’t change his mind, he changed the rules:
Right on cue | Never fails
His hero had his own moves in mind . . .
Funny how none of ’em went anywhere near the evidence on this fiasco for the ages — as he opted to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse and butchers debate to this day.
I’m regularly ridiculed by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t.
Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. We’ve created a culture that blows right by “mathematical certainty . . .” to mock my use of as-of-yet unnamed individuals.
Since I’m treated with contempt the second I scrutinize their hero (by adhering to the same standards he’s hailed for): I thought I’d try another approach. What does it say to you that I had to come up with an alias for the figure in question — just so his crowd will consider his claims in isolation from his immaculate image?
Why would people instantly abandon the principles they preach on a daily basis — not to mention that advisor being in gross breach of his Pro-Human Pledge?
“I seek to understand”
Had that advisor abided by his pledge, we might be well on our way to the kind of conversation this country’s never had. Have you ever heard of anyone taking someone to task for the purpose of putting them in a positive light that could change the course of a country?
Admitting where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right.
I’m not just taking his hero to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy. The ultimate irony is that blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights his followers ensure he’ll never go.
So, you’re saying that your plan will elevate him 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 he blew it on this issue 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 people on a pedestal — even if it knocks ’em off of it? Wouldn’t the genuine article want you to hold them accountable to their claims?
In a culture consumed with feeling right — wouldn’t it be refreshing to talk about the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong? Don’t just tell people how to behave:
Lead by example — especially when it comes at a cost!
Elevating him is not my aim, but I can live with it to stem the systematic self-delusion that’s taken this nation totally off the rails:
Right & Left
We’re well beyond “disagreement” in America — this is madness: On a daily basis, countless millions miserably fail to follow even the most fundamental methods of how understanding works.
And in doing so — do cosmic damage to the very things they’re defending.
To conform to fact
We must agree that it was watermelon and consider what it means: Maybe nothing, maybe everything. But you pollute the debate when you won’t even acknowledge the irrefutable.
Worse than that — you poison your purpose:
On that front — and this one
And to claim that Iraq WMD wasn’t a lie should be like saying we didn’t land on the moon. As I wrote and produced the most exhaustive documentary ever done on WMD, I would know.
And David Albright: The physicist who wrote extensively on the aluminum tubes — would know even better:
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 marquee claim on a mushroom cloud)?
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.
In denying reality on WMD, half the country helped create a culture where denying reality is now the norm.
Debunking the WMD delusion & Trayvon tale is a conduit for showing how this nation systematically derails debate.
“Everybody believed Iraq had WMD” is not a valid argument any more than “armed only with Skittles.” By the way — how many of you know what Trayvon actually looked like?
It’s not the kid on People magazine I assure you.
I’m not interested in defending Zimmerman — my aim is to expose the irrational behavior of blindly defending Martin and the damage you did by doing so.
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 problems that plague America are interrelated — and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere.
It astounds me that some of the most brilliant minds in the world seem incapable of correlating how “unrelated” issues impact one another. But everyone’s wrapped up within their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them.
The most harmful pollution on the planet is noise — narrative that drowns out sensible discussion. You could blame those who amplify that deafening noise with delight — or be smart by not doing dumb things that drive the narrative in the first place.
It’s like committing unforced errors in tennis then blaming your opponent for capitalizing on them. You could cry foul — or realize how you shouldn’t have made the mistake from the start.
Learning
Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t get it done. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across the board.
And this
Is where my Clear the Clutter framework comes in:
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 some of the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their aims — however justified they may be.
Fighting the problems of today with conventional tactics is colossally counterproductive, dangerous, and even deadly. But almost everyone is operating on faith-based belief that their efforts will prevail:
Bolstered by the fact that they’ve achieved some fashion of success.
I suggest you reconsider . . .
Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country. Why would you believe next time will be any different? But integrate those same tools into an unconventional framework for honest debate — and it will be different.
You should not need an incentive to objectively apply your principles, but the incentives are off the charts for the astute that can see the bigger picture. Changing the dynamic of debate and demanding better from your audience — will undoubtedly drive some out.
But that loss will be a drop in the bucket compared to what you’ll gain by broadening your audience and making measurable impact. As these communities are interconnected — once one of ’em raises the bar of debate and gains subscribers:
Along with worldwide attention for exposing lies on a level that changes the trajectory of America . . .
Others will follow suit.
My opinion has slowly changed . . .
Get this story in Coleman Hughes’ hands — and I’ll bet he’ll change his mind a lot faster than that. But if I were you at FAIR, I’d use this as an exercise across-the-board.
Just do what you say you do — and you just might turn the tide.
Anyone wanting to know the truth — would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. FAIR was nowhere to be found when that “voice of reason” outright rejected it to keep calcified convictions baked into his belief system.
The same behavior both sides are battling over in today’s trench warfare between armies of unreachables. That he was more dignified in his dismissal does not change the fact that it was prejudice by definition.
“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.
I know the feeling, all too well
The rotor speed required to separate uranium isotopes doesn’t care who’s president, and when it comes to ascertaining the truth, neither do I.
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.
For telling undeniable truth for decades
I’ve been shown none
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
What does it say to you: that on evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb — the “debate” was hijacked by 10-second sound bites?
Shouldn’t any debate establish what the debate is actually about? What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much on a matter of this magnitude?
To ascertain the truth on any topic
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter — these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics. Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on issues that have eroded reason beyond recognition?
For nearly 20 years
I’ve been practically spit on for following principles those same people promote on a daily basis. I did the doc to address such behavior, but in the last 18 months — I’ve seen savagery beyond anything that inspired it.
I’m even assailed on things we agree on, because they assume I’m out to discredit their hero on everything. That alone is an egregious breach in the standands he espouses.
These lies live on because people protecting their interests contained the “conversation” by refusing to even have it. I thought I’d seen it all until I came across a cult-like following that defends the indefensible before they even know what the subject matter is.
In many cases, they’re not even defending the WMD deception — they’re defending the faith for a man who’s not what he claims to be:
And I can demonstrably prove it — by applying the very principles upon which he’s put on pedestable.
“Demonstrably” — that word used to be mean something. But many things that once meant something, now mean nothing.
The surgical specificity of this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone.
Trillion Dollar Tube
Imagine what I did with 160
“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)
Wouldn’t it be absurd to share that quote if my clip contained nothing but trite talking points? Some circles are not burdened by squaring their walk with their talk.
They seem to think that advertising virtue equates to embodying it.
Case in point
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Professional Know-It-All (PKIA for short)
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 PKIA’s words and mine
Which ones strike you as glib?
Just as this cartoon captures what words cannot — so too does the implication behind the alias. What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?
In addition to interviewing world-renowned nuclear scientist, Dr. Houston Wood, I also corresponded with David Albright and Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research.
Greg Thielmann said the following in 2013:
It will be up to Iraqis to debate whether their country now has a brighter future than it otherwise would have had without foreign invasion and occupation in the first decade of the new century. But it is uniquely incumbent on Americans to understand who and what were responsible for an enterprise that proved so costly in terms of U.S. lives lost, money spent, international reputation tarnished, and a campaign against al Qaeda diverted.
America just casually moved on
I didn’t — as I knew then what few know now:
The immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong, understanding why, and looking to learn from it. And that not doing so — increasingly compounds the consequences of no accountability.
PKIA’s second article on the subject is a 2-minute read at 752 words — not one of which addresses the tubes that took us to war. And yet this mountain of information below was publicly available before he wrote that article:
How do you reconcile that?
You can’t believe everything you read!
Stirring defense
Speaking of INR
Powell’s very own intelligence bureau — that he conveniently ignored. INR stuck to its old-fashioned ways by agreeing with DOE (ya know, the actual experts).
Take note of the trite & trendy language that follows: Strikingly in sync with PKIA’s, don’t ya think?
CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.
— Tweeter tapping the typical
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.
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t PKIA
As this story is also
About the behavior of the echo chamber around PKIA — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem.
And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.
I’m showing you the legacy he’s leaving behind — and there’s no way this is what he wanted. I don’t know much about him — but I’m betting he’d be embarrassed by what’s happening in his name.
He’s a well-manned guy on the whole — and these people are acting like animals to honor him.
And these are on the mild end
You couldn’t carry PKIA‘s jockstrap!
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 PKIA
PKIA is worshipped as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes — never mind his history of flagrantly ignorning facts to toe the party line.
All of which flies in the face of the PKIA Program.
In the Crap is King culture we’ve created:
Infantile insults are celebrated
The doubt-free who don’t do their homework are the experts. Those who belittle and outright reject correction — are the righteous and wise. The ones with courage to admit when they’re wrong — are the weak. Tireless dedication is mercilessly mocked — while intellectual laziness is esteemed.
Original thinking and uniqueness are bashed — while conforming to the trite is trumpeted. Depth is discarded with disdain — while shallowness is embraced with love.
The honest & sincere are shunned — while manipulators & liars are welcomed with open arms.
This is my story — and if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction:
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:
“Seems”
Fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
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.
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: They need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — their beliefs are gonna fall apart.
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
The Right wants the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace:
Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on.
While the Right won’t even look at the material properties of a tube. What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?
Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)
That sounds worthy of consideration — don’t ya think?
Not to PKIA’s camp
It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the “we are right” view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack.
There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no “what ifs?” or “maybes.”
— Laura Knight-Jadczyk
Preach responsibility and take none
When your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell: Desperate and Ugly in Florida
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
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.
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.
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
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” . . .
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.
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.
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!
“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.
A person who shows independence of thought and action, especially by refusing to adhere to the policies of a group to which he or she belongs.
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.
Consider yourself lucky that concrete evidence of mathematical certainty doesn’t qualify with your flock when it comes to protecting you and their shortsighted interests.
Nor does any notion of responsibility and accountability: Those things only apply to people you don’t like.
“It’s indefensible! Don’t you know that?”
Chuck Lane: This wasn’t an isolated incident, Caitlin. He cooked a dozen of them, maybe more . . .
Caitlin Avey: No, the only one was Hack Heaven. He told me that himself
Chuck Lane: If he were a stranger to you, if he was a guy you were doing a piece about, pretend that guy told you he’d only did it once. Would you take his word for it? Of course not! You’d dig and you’d bury him! And you’d be offended if anybody told you not to.
On that note
Given the world-altering consequences of manufacturing a lie to invade a Middle Eastern country in the aftermath of 9/11:
The chances of Sowell being a repeat offender on lying and/or manipulating matters in a manner outside the parameters of a “Maverick” . . .
But no need to fuss over predictions . . .
As I’ve already got the goods to prove that Sowell’s hypocrisy doesn’t end on WMD.
And besides, his utterly ridiculous claim that “hostility and even hatred” is limited to the Left as a “way of life” — makes that abundantly clear.
But to give credit where credit is due, Sowell was spot-on in his assessment of Trump in 2016. How come Sowell’s not a “National Treasure” for that? 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:
In the film, Larry Elder describes Sowell as the “greatest contemporary living philosopher and notes that he causes people to “rethink their assumptions.” Rethinking and questioning our assumptions has long been en vogue in the academy, and if you really listen to what he has to say, few scholars will make you rethink your assumptions like Sowell will. If you’re looking for a one-hour introduction to one of the great minds of the last century, Common Sense in a Senseless World is exactly that.
— Art Carden
Next to zero . . .
Number of Sowell’s followers willing to “rethink their assumptions” — about the “greatest contemporary living philosopher” who “causes people to ‘rethink their assumptions.’”
Opening line to my doc:
The great enemy of clear language is insincerity
The rest of Orwell’s quote goes as follows:
When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.
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.
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
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:
Speaking of clearing the clutter
It was Loury who partly inspired the idea in the first place:
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to find high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber . . .
Twice!
That was then
This is now . . .
second part aside
McWhorter’s right on the money on this — as I wrote in I Don’t Do Slogans below:
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument.
Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
A.K.A. Wishful Thinking
She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.” Wooden-headedness, said Tuchman, was finally — “the refusal to benefit from experience.”
— Russ Hoyle, Going to War
The refusal to benefit from experience . . .
Wars Have Started That Way
On that note
McWhorter & Loury-like communities are operating on narrative, not principle. It’s a sign of the times that entire communities can celebrate “follow the facts” and refuse to go anywhere near ’em.
Not to mention mocking the one person who put ’em all on a silver platter.
I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m gonna weigh your impact partly as a reflection of your community: How people behave — not what they believe.
If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere. Not in the right direction, anyway.
about that narrative
We’re a university. We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason. Instead, it was like a kind of emotional rush — in which . . . the president and provost and the top leadership of my university — wanted to jump on a bandwagon. They wanted to wave a banner.
And I thought to myself, what have we come to at the university — that the first reaction to grave matters — and the rioting in the street after George Floyd died is a grave matter.
That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of Black Lives Matter
— Glenn Loury
Remove the references around George Floyd — and that behavior rings a bell.
Now I Remember . . .
As the patriots “Never Forget“
The aftermath of this
That the reaction is not to think it through, not to question, not to assemble facts, not to make arguments — but instead to wave banners and spout slogans such that you could hardly distinguish what they were doing from a manifesto that would come out of . . .
Tuchman alighted on a root cause of folly that she called “wooden-headedness” — defined in part as “assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting contrary information.”
— Russ Hoyle, Going to War
If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done and dishonesty baked into your beliefs — why should the Left?
Why should anyone?
Ripping on woke is all the rage. And outrage industries of dish it but can’t take it — would talk about race and responsibility till the end of time. But heaven forbid we have a single conversation about war and responsibility.
“That’s so 2004”
Except we never had that conversation in 2004 — or ever.
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.
So if you count your kind of conversation — there’s never been a shortage of that.
We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.
Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go, Glenn?
As a typical Tweeter tapping earth-shattering insight once said:
The solution to this problem is more truth, not less
No, it’s not
You cannot forever beat something into the ground and think that will magically make a dent someday. And even if by some miracle it does, wouldn’t you want to know if you could have cut out years or even decades had you been smarter about it?
If you lose elections and laws — then fight to win back the former so you can reinstate the latter: Wouldn’t you want to know how you could have avoided it all in the first place?
Imagine if you had listened to the person telling you all along.
The.Deal.Is.That.We.Connect.These.Dots . . .
You see
Imagine!
This nation has no such notion:
At the core of why my efforts don’t compute — is that my mission is not driven by changing your values, but rather the manner in which you pursue them.
You think the end justifies the means — I say your means make damn sure it will never end. I took a look-see for what others have said along those lines.
Mine’s minor league compared to this:
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.
And that’s just the beginning.
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
Note:
There are strategic steps as to how JSOC would be established (which can be found elsewhere on this site).
Right now, I’m just floating the concept — and other ideas this nation so desperately needs:
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
One Voice Became Two 