I wish a buck was still silver
It was back when the country was strong
Merle’s sorrowful song has an uplifting twist at the end, and without that final 45 seconds — you’d miss the meaning of the message. The underlying meaning in mine:
Your beliefs should be backed by your record. I’m old-fashioned that way.
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.”
This nation has no such notion
“We . . . want it now, and if it makes money now, it’s a good idea. But . . . if the things we’re doing are going to mess up the future, it wasn’t a good idea. Don’t deal on the moment. Take the long-term look at things.”
— The Dust Bowl
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 [does it matter?]
— Glenn Loury, Tucker Carlson Today
When the context suits you, such words are solid gold. What you do when it doesn’t — determines the worth of your word.
Loury was rightly talking about the Black Lives Matter manifesto driving the aftermath of George Floyd. But the Left’s ludicrous ways pale in comparison to conservatives going batshit crazy after 9/11. The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause:
Yet the “party of personal responsibility” set the world ablaze while browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
True folly, Tuchman found, is generally recognized as counterproductive in its own time, and not merely in hindsight. In Tuchman’s template, true folly only ensues when a clear alternative path of action was available and ruled out.
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.
And by the way
Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving — it’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments:
Including those I agree with!
Like Black Lives Matter, you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts. The problems that plague America are interrelated — and anything short of addressing that is going nowhere. But everyone’s wrapped up in their wheelhouse — operating under umbrellas of interests that don’t account for complexities outside of them.
If you think you’re making progress because of ever-increasing attention to your concerns . . .
I suggest you reconsider:
An endless barrage of niche-based argument to beat back bunk — has no chance in today’s trench warfare between armies of unreachables. Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t get it done.
You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board:
Pay no mind to how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward. America is in perennial pursuit of ideologies — warfare waged with:
opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion
— Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom
Speaking of Fashionable Folly
A preview for how I feel about woke:
I don’t see what the problem is
— Typical Tweeter tapping earth-shattering insight
You don’t see — a lot!
Your track record is not what I would call astute — and the Right doesn’t have anything to write home about either. We’re well beyond “disagreement” in America — this is madness (countless millions miserably failing to follow even the most fundamental methods of how understanding works).
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.”
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.
As I said in my doc:
At the heart of why we fail to live up to our potential as a society is because we excel at polluting even the purest form of fact. How can we possibly solve serious problems when we refuse to adhere to some semblance of the fundamentals of making sense?
— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue
You’ve probably heard of yellowcake. How about uranium hexafluoride?
Does calling someone a “Bush hater” strike you as a valid counter to that question? Never mind this story goes straight to the top with who’s in the White House right now — on very specific culpability to boot.
How so? How I’d love to live in a world where you’d ask not out of party-line pursuits — but because it’s on the trail to the truth.
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.
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:
Then There’s This Fashionable Folly
Just what would it take
For you to do what you say you do?
If you only apply the principles you preach when it serves your interests — they’re just empty claims on a cup and a meaningless mantra touted on a T-shirt.
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
In reference to its opening image on that post, I wrote the following:
Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Taking on the entire country is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms. One picture is worth a thousand words. Without passion or prejudice in the way, you would wonder what the image above 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.
Festinger would have a field day with the cult-like following of Thomas Sowell. It’s unlike anything I’ve ever seen. As I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds for decades, that’s saying something.
Sowell’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?
No need . . .
And who needs scruples when you’ve got an army of apologists to absolve you of anything that doesn’t comply with the PKIA Program. What does it say to you that I occasionally use an alias for this Professional Know-It-All — just so his crowd will consider his claims in isolation from his immaculate image?
Just as the Condi 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?
The surgical specificity of this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. To take a story this complex and convoluted and boil its essence down to a few minutes was no small feat.
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.
— 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?
What does it say about Sowell’s followers that: In the face of centrifuge physics for uranium enrichment (an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter): This is emblematic of their “arguments”:
And these are on the mild end of the savagery I’ve seen.
You couldn’t carry Sowell’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
Holy shit…. a video of a circle jerks with a nut in the center talking about RPMS. Yet somehow Thomas Sowell is a liar.
How do you reconcile that with this?
And what happened to all this? . . .
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
Preach responsibility and take none
The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act III
Hide and Seek
The second I scrutinize Sowell, those precious virtues you peddle in the Facts Over Feelings Parade — are rolled right over with your feelings. One of my many messages in a Tweet about this “intellectual giant”:
The blankness it must take to keep congratulating yourselves over beliefs you abandon in the “follow the facts” fantasyland he manufactured for you. Not for any amount of gain would I sell my soul to delight in the cesspool of sycophants you wallow in.
Such hero-worship horseshit has helped take this nation totally off the rails — as with everything else in a country that’s gone out of its mind:
On that note
It astounds me that some of the most brilliant minds in the world seem incapable of correlating how “unrelated” issues impact one another. 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.
Pursuing aims in ways that predictably damage your cause is bad enough. But once the outcome becomes clear, it’s beyond belief that you refuse to reflect on your methods. Even if you’re right and have the best of intentions:
If you’re not smart in making your moves, you can exponentially worsen the problem you’re addressing — along with seemingly unrelated ones.
And already have — again and again:
Like many alternatives, however, it was psychologically impossible. Character is fate, as the Greeks believed. Germans were schooled in winning objectives by force, unschooled in adjustment. They could not bring themselves to forgo aggrandizement even at the risk of defeat.
— Barbara Tuchman
Unschooled in Adjustment
This definitely feels like a bug here . . . this is going to take some much deeper investigation
— WordPress Support Rep
I’m saying the whole system is failing to a nation that refuses to recognize that there’s even a bug. Unless it’s on the other side, of course: They’re infested with ’em — while your side is a cleanroom for computer chips.
Think of this story as a Game of Thrones for America’s ploys for power that have predictably backfired for decades. At 73 episodes over eight seasons — GOT is pretty involved and took a few viewings before I fully understood it. Leaving aside that die-hard fans deride how Games went off the rails: It’s an incredibly intricate and entertaining show.
Whatever its faults — it would be unthinkable for me to blame the writers for everything I didn’t follow the first time or two. In fact, I’m glad I didn’t — as I enjoyed piecing it together during additional viewings.
No one would skip to the last season of a series. But imagine doing that and then ridiculing the writers because you’re confused. No rational person would do that. And yet, you expect me to tell my Games of Thrones story about the decline of America — not just by skipping to the last season:
But to the last episode . . .
And be quick about it to boot — so you can fire off rapid-fire ridicule about being confused (coupled with excuses to keep calcified beliefs that cannot survive scrutiny).
Anything Goes on social media . . .
Or as I coined it
Where you can promote principles in one breath and abandon them the next. And get away with it with ease:
Because you’ve got friends
The individual believer must have social support. It is unlikely that one isolated believer could withstand the kind of disconfirming evidence we have specified. If, however, the believer is a member of a group of convinced persons who can support one another, we would expect the belief to be maintained and the believers to attempt to proselyte or to persuade nonmembers that the belief is correct.
These five conditions specify the circumstances under which increased proselyting would be expected to follow disconfirmation.
— When Prophecy Fails
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it
— M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. It seems we have all the time in the world to talk about problems but no time to solve any.
We could do something about that . . .
But you’re busy
Believing things that have no bearing on reality has become a plague across America — erosion of reason that took decades of denying the undeniable.
Systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as convoluted. And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact.
Speaking of the moon
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning can be found in anything I’ve come across in decades of dealing with the doubt-free on WMD. And of all those I’ve challenged — their knowledge combined could fit into a thimble with space to spare.
I’d suggest heading on back to that backwater school, Purdue, for a little more indoctrination, er, I mean education.
“BACKWATER SCHOOL“
To call the Cradle of Astronauts “backwater” is award-worthy for asinine statements.
The “arguments” of “Expert” By Association — taking cue from his kin on Rolodex of Ridicule:
- “You use words like honor, courage and commitment as punch lines at liberal cocktail parties” — ripping off A Few Good Men and thinking I wouldn’t notice
- The “Get help!” routine
- “Academia”
- “I’ve stood on the wall — have you?” — Jesus, why not toss in “You weep for Santiago” while you’re at it?
What does any of THAT have to do with the price of tea in China — or THIS?
Out of 31 tubes in subsequent testing, only one was successfully spun to 90,000 RPM for 65 minutes — which the C.I.A. seized on as evidence in their favor.
One D.O.E. analyst offered a superb analogy of that contorted conclusion: “Running your car up to 6,500 RPM briefly does not prove that you can run your car at 6,500 RPM cross country. It just doesn’t. Your car’s not going to make it.”
In an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, these guys were playing horseshoes with centrifuge physics.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
That sounds worthy of consideration — don’t ya think?
Not to Sowell’s camp
And their kin who came before them:
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
Anything Goes for apologists trying to preserve what they perceive. I know their Rolodex of Ridicule rabbit-hole routine — all too well:
And Now for the Weather . . .
Or Not . . .
Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
Stirring Defense
About that “mudslinging” . . .
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: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your binary beliefs are gonna fall apart.
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)
Be quite a coincidence if they weren’t . . .
Ya know, connected
So one guy goes into great detail:
And the other guy doesn’t even scratch the surface . . .
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell
Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see.
That his supporters instantly sling such assumptions (coupled with rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full) — flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
I imagine most of the time his opposition probably is out to destroy him (just as you’re out to do the same to them).
That’s your world — not mine.
Discovering the difference is at the core of what abiding by principles is all about: To arrive at conclusions — not jump to them. But thanks to the internet and the cable clans paving the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd — everything is poisoned by perception and hypocrisy now.
And by the way: Clickbait for battles you’ll do all over again tomorrow — doesn’t strike me as destroying anything.
“At what cost?”
Stockton Rush’s name will never be forgotten for his folly that took 5 lives in a contraption doomed to fail. That same wishful thinking in totally unsuitable material — was held by a CIA/WINPAC analyst named Joe Turner:
Who provided a path to war that cost countless lives, unspeakable damage, and $2.2 trillion.
Never heard of him . . .
I imagine not — in a country that can’t even get this straight:
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
On an issue involving an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter: What does it say to you that 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?
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death.
The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope — and take the trail where it leads. To ascertain the truth on any topic: If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction.
But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest. This country does the exact opposite on everything: Lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place:
Not long before this Tweet — this Sowell supporter was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day (and every day).
And then he opened the doc . . .
In response to my appreciation, he replied with a sincere question that’s central to the whole story. Imagine — asking questions in the pursuit of truth & understanding. Not to mention the importance of politeness and the courtesy in following up (as I had missed it the first time):
Glad to help. I don’t know if you saw my other comment — so I’ll post it again here. Why is it you chose to take Sowell to task on the WMD issue? Sowell is more well known for his positions on economics and sociology than he is for foreign policy. I was just curious.
“I was just curious” . . .
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true?’” . . .
Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind.’” . . .
When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?
That’s the exception
Remaining Glued to a Rolodex of Excuses is the Rule:
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”
Never mind all this
A young man sittin’ on the witness stand
The man with the book says “Raise your hand”
“Repeat after me, I solemnly swear”
The man looked down at his long hair
And although the young man solemnly swore
Nobody seemed to hear anymore
And it didn’t really matter if the truth was there
It was the cut of his clothes and the length of his hair
And we asked each other a lot of questions. I asked you questions, you asked me questions
Wouldn’t that be something
It astounds me that even sharing something in hopes of a human connection — that maybe having something in common could connect in a way that undeniable evidence doesn’t:
Even that is mocked — and conveniently taken as “weakness” in argument.
So in the face of centrifuge physics
Belittling my “disjointed” & “juvenile” website with “irrelevant music & movies” is the best ya got?
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.
If only you’d laid it all out exactly as I like it — then I’d abide by the principles I preach
Is that how it works?
That’s about the size of it. I guess I figured that if you didn’t understand something — you’d try this on for size, but I’m old-fashioned that way:
Funny how there’s always an excuse . . .
Back in the day — there was no website with an array of illustrations to gripe about. I was just sharing Trillion Dollar Tube to all these fine folks flaunting their badge of beliefs so F.A.I.R.
Showing some courtesy for a 5-minute excerpt doesn’t seem like much to ask such bastions of virtue. But without watching one second — self-satisfied scorn was your gold standard for gleefully gutting the truth.
And why mess with tradition?
If you don’t like my illustrations, go read the bone-dry reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list. But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
When you don’t want the pictures and you don’t want the words — what would you have me do?
And once I did it
We both know your next move . . .
If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images.
Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is gain you get in the moment:
And easy is all the rage!
In over 2 years of telling this story on Sowell:
The number of his supporters who replied with anything remotely in the realm of the standards he espouses: Next to zero. I’ve seen everything from polite dismissiveness to sheer savagery (as they share their values with venom).
I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t.
The Tweet below is the only instance of a supporter seeing his hypocrisy plain as day from the get-go. But her assumption that I’m writing off his whole career because of his dishonesty on WMD — is a boilerplate comeback that’s wildly off the mark from what Sowell supposedly represents.
I’ve never even hinted anything of the kind.
Had she done more than skim my site, she’d know that. But who has time to digest what someone’s saying when you’re racing to respond on what you perceive?
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.
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.
As for economics — I’m not qualified on that front. Imagine — there are still people who measure their knowledge in such ways.
Believe it or not, the best way to serve your interests is to first and foremost — hold your own accountable. If you want to make the opposition look bad, try looking good.
If you want to have the moral high ground, try earning it:
The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness.
I’ve seen nothing of the kind by Sowell’s community or any other. He’s a well-mannered guy on the whole and his fanatical followers act like animals to “honor” him.
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. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.
I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment. To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge — would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.
When it comes to ascertaining the truth — I don’t care what your cause is, who’s in the White House, who controls Congress or the courts. I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see. There is no amount of gain you could give me to believe something to be true that is false.
When warranted, I will defend those I despise and call out those I like. I call a spade a spade, period.
I love moments of truth that put my principles to the test. One of my favorites is the Florida election fiasco of 2000. I just wanted the right thing to be done — whether it served my interests or not was irrelevant. That sense of fairness is so foreign I might as well be speaking another language.
“Compared to What?”
You can’t have “Compared to What?” without comparing what’s in question. In the aftermath of 9/11 — manipulating matters of mathematical certainty to sell a war in the Middle East:
Is as critical as comparison gets.
If evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? For a Maverick who’s worshipped for following the facts — wouldn’t he take the trail to where they matter most?
As in the marquee claim that manufactured this fraud?
I did — Sowell didn’t
Which one below looks like he’s on point?
All the sarin gas shells in the world would have no bearing on the aluminum tubes and other intel, but loyalists to logical fallacies are not burdened by the inconvenience of FACT.
They will nitpick over pebbles while refusing to even glance at the mountain of evidence that crushes their “convictions.”
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
For the sake of argument
Let’s say Saddam had full-blown active WMD programs on chemical & biological weapons. The tubes would still be a lie — whether the war would have been justified in that scenario or not.
I’ll go one further: Let’s say he had an enrichment program in operation as well, but that the rotors were carbon fiber — not aluminum.
Once again, the tubes would still be a lie. Getting lucky in finding something you didn’t know about — does not absolve you from a case that was woven out of whole cloth.
Speaking of “Compared to what?”
On Titan, time-honored materials and safety standards of DSVs are taken into account to accurately assess the situation. We listen to experts and respect their input because it makes sense. Had Stockton done the same, he and his crew would still be alive.
And if this nation didn’t look at everything through a political lens — a lot of people would still be alive.
And lo and behold: The number of experts who thought carbon fiber was sound for DSVs — matches the number of nuclear scientists who supported Powell’s baseless assertions on the tubes that took us to war:
Exactly Zero
Something’s not right
Just as something wasn’t right with Stockton Rush and Elizabeth Holmes (both of ’em dying to be disruptors (with one of ’em literally doing so). Yeah, Rush got Titan to work for a while, but it was pure folly from the start — just like the hackery behind her claim to fame.
Why would anyone believe that you could conduct 200 blood tests in this little box? Maybe someday someone will — what do I know? I know something’s not right when I see it. To be sure, I’ve been fooled a time or two — but that’s at the core of what this is all about:
To learn from our mistakes.
And lo and behold: Those who bought into her fantasy would have seen who she really was had they simply started with these 3 words and followed their instincts:
Something’s not right . . .
A.K.A.
Stockton took shortcuts that cost him his life and the lives of those who placed misguided faith in their pilot. Elizabeth Holmes took shortcuts that put her in prison and made fools out of a lot of people.
Some were sincere who simply got lost in the dream of doing something special. Others should have known better, but miserably failed to ask tough questions in a culture that increasingly believes in people based on image:
Not the totality of their record.
Speaking of records
Before this guy got cancer — he’s ridden the Tour de France four times. His best place was 36th overall. In a mountain stage, he never finished within 8 minutes of the winner (mostly he was 20 minutes, 25 minutes, 30 minutes behind). So how can you get cancer, come back from cancer, and be completely transformed? And this was a sport that the previous year had been revealed to be a doping circus.
— David Walsh, The Undoing of Tour de France Hero Lance Armstrong
Something’s not right . . .
Walsh asked questions unwelcomed by a world wrapping its arms around a cancer survivor who came back to dominate the sport of cycling. Incredibly, no matter how times the truth comes to light about people claiming to be something they are not:
Even in the face of overwhelming and irrefutable evidence . . .
You still won’t start with those 3 little words of wonder (all the while insisting the other side do what you won’t). Following facts going in the direction you desire doesn’t count:
Anybody can do that
The rolodex of excuses around Sowell is off the charts — which is obscenely out of line for the standards he espouses. 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
Speaking of “Compared to what?”:
The principles in comparison below seem strikingly similar to Titan, don’t ya think? If you understand baseline information on material properties in one context, shouldn’t you be able to grasp the exact same principles in another?
Are you telling me that you’re capable of having this conversation . . .
I’m a retired engineer, electrical not mechanical. You are absolutely correct about technical limits on materials such as this sub design. It’s insane this guy took the sub to its breaking point. It’s sad but a good lesson to future explorers. Don’t push the physical limitations of the materials and design.
— YouTube user
But not this one?
An intelligence analyst who worked at the D.O.E’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory later noted that it was absurd that the D.O.E. experts had been trumped by a C.I.A. analyst. The Energy Department’s nuclear scientists — this analyst said, “are the most boring people. Their whole lives revolve around nuclear technology.
They can talk about gas centrifuges until you want to jump out of a window. And maybe once every ten years or longer there comes along an important question about gas centrifuges. That’s when you really should listen to these guys.
If they say an aluminum tube is not for a gas centrifuge — it’s like a fish talking about water.
Something’s not right
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
According to Coleman Hughes (a member of F.A.I.R’s board of advisors):
[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
Stories and data — works for me!
How do you think Hughes would handle his hero flagrantly ignoring stories and data (of mathematical certainty, no less):
On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history?
A helluva lot better than the savagery I’ve seen — no doubt. But would he abide by F.A.I.R’s Pro-Human Pledge of Fairness, Understanding, and Humanity?
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.
If he didn’t follow through on the principles he pledged to live by — what would that say about him? But I believe he’s one of the few who would be willing to open his eyes — unlike Loury who had no such notion.
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.
But anyone of influence across these interconnected echo chambers will do.
All I need is one
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.
If only Loury had lived up to his:
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to find high praise from a man his caliber:
Twice!
He called I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road “brilliant” and was “honored” by my commentary:
Thank you, Rick Memmer, for your brilliant commentary. I am honored by it.
He partly inspired this site and was “blown away” by it and signed up:
As he’s also a member of F.A.I.R’s board of advisors, I had hoped stories and data would be considered about the side of Sowell his followers refuse to see.
Alas, Loury wasn’t about to look at undeniable evidence warranting that he change his mind.
So he changed the rules . . .
Right on cue | Never fails
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t care that you signed a pledge. More on Loury in Part II, but I assure you:
F.A.I.R was nowhere to be found.
Such high praise from Loury is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their audience thinks they are. I don’t roll that way. While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided:
If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out.
And that’s
Had Loury listened . . .
With the idea I have in mind: We could have changed the rules by putting a mechanism in place that boxes everybody in to abide by them. Ya know, the rules you rail on others for failing to follow — then instantly abandon when they don’t work in your favor.
A lot of that goin’ around
To see the character of the government and the country so sported with, exposed to so indelible a blot, puts my heart to the torture. . . . Or what is it that thus torments me at a circumstance so calmly viewed by almost everybody else? Am I a fool, a romantic Quixote, or is there a constitutional defect in the American mind?
Were it not for yourself and a few others, I . . . would say . . . there is something in our climate which belittles every animal, human or brute. . . . I disclose to you without reserve the state of my mind. It is discontented and gloomy in the extreme.
I consider the cause of good government as having been put to an issue and the verdict against it.
A Conflict of Visions — and then some! . . .
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 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″
Take note of the trite & trendy language that follows: Strikingly in sync with Sowell’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.
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.
Note:
I modified the Intelligence Community image above by overlaying CIA on top of Director of National Intelligence — to show how the IC effectively operated pre-9/11 and before DCI took center stage.
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 had no expertise in centrifuge physics. And why wasn’t JAEIC allowed to weigh in?
What’s JAEIC? Allow me.
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
Once again with “seems” . . .
And 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.
“What hard evidence do you have?”
This chart is misleading in several respects . . . Beams centrifuge never actually worked . . . We can infer . . .
Sounds pretty sloppy to me . . .
Perhaps we should have a conversation to clear up what all this means on issues that have eroded reason beyond recognition?
Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate and there never was.
They just made it up
Then there’s this . . .
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.
I didn’t write Mentality of a Mob from my imagination — and I didn’t write this poem from it either. I wrote it 3 years before Sowell’s piece behind that post — and for decades, this behavior is all I’ve seen from Republicans on Iraq and almost everything else.
It’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking
Your pursuit of truth and accountability seems awfully one-sided, Mr. Sowell.
And that’s a fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
Just as my lifelong record of unwavering commitment to the truth and objective scrutiny to find it:
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
On the title alone . . .
If I came across this and hadn’t done my homework — my first thought would be:
I must be missing something pretty big . . .
you have other ideas:
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
Talk about Thomas Sowell’s vast history of continuously demolishing leftist nonsense
We’re not talking about THAT — we’re talking about THIS (and evading the question is in gross breach of the standards Sowell espouses). I threw down the gauntlet and you have a choice: To ignore or engage. But you opt to go for the gold in the Gutter Games:
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.
“It’s indefensible!
Don’t you know that?”
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.
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.
On top of unconscionably ignoring irrefutable evidence of world-altering consequence, he has a habit of toeing the party line. 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.
In light of his history being wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims: That “one small crack” is a wide-open window into his character and credibility.
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.
Consequences matter or should matter more than some attractive or fashionable theory.
— Thomas Sowell
I couldn’t agree more . . .
Except there were no consequences on the fiasco for the ages driven by this manifesto:
She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.”
The outcome of which fashioned a culture of no consequences.
And along came — this
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?
Wooden-headedness, said Tuchman, was finally — “the refusal to benefit from experience.”
— Russ Hoyle
The Refusal to Benefit from Experience
Sowell is lauded for calling out problems he helped create. A lot of that goin’ around! The Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ — set the stage for the rise of the Rock Star they spent the next 8 years railing against.
That doesn’t strike me as sound strategy.
Dumb, dishonest, and delusional wars doesn’t either — not to mention, this:
Past is Prologue
Nobody nailed Obama better than Matt Damon:
A one-term president with some balls . . . [would have been] much better
When one of your most ardent supporters is questioning your manhood, it’s time to take a long, hard look in the mirror. But past is prologue — which is why I knew Obama wouldn’t be the candidate he claimed. Someone without a record of risk is not a catalyst for change.
Nevertheless, I gave him a shot in 2008. He blew it — and I don’t reward people for poor performance and dishonesty. I’m old-fashioned that way too.
The moment Obama caved on the Democratic Party playbook on race — he put Trump on the path to the presidency. It’s quite possible that Comey’s cover-his-ass actions in the 11th hour tipped the scales. Given the possibility that a single event like that could alter the atmosphere of an election — what do you think pouring fuel on the fire for years did?
If the indiscriminate approach of BLM pisses me off: What do you think it did for people gunning to bring Obama down?
You overplayed your hand
He had golden opportunities to take the country forward, but instead of leading the way — he followed his base and went backwards. Given the tight margins — there’s not a doubt in my mind that their ploys put Trump in the White House.
Exponentially exacerbating the very problems you’re fighting against — is not smart. Just what would it take to have that conversation?
And there’s no better way to begin that conversation than through this one:
There is no measure for how asinine these acolytes are in defending the indefensible — automatons devoid of rational thought & manners. Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency, effort:
Or any virtue of any kind
On evidence involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors — the apostles of Sowell smugly cite his books on economics, race, and whatnot: Anything to glorify him as they abandon any notion of accountability:
Butchering his bedrock beliefs as they dance in delight behind their force field of fallacy.
These people do nothing but question my motives, mock my site, and assault my character — then proudly post quotes of Sowell looking stately as he condemns the very thing they’re doing.
- 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 . . .
I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy for what I have in mind to right this ship. The ultimate irony is that 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 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 he 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.” In a culture consumed with being 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! Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right. There are far worse culprits on all-things Iraq, but I’ve been down that road for decades. Discovering Sowell and the underworld of absurdity that shields him — makes him ideal to put these lies in their place once and for all:
And change the dynamic of debate to boot.
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:
Left & Right
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 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.
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):
Marching to Black Lives Matter with the first black president sitting in the White House — was that a smart move? The answer should be abundantly clear and yet the question is not even considered.
I’ve been blocked on Twitter for just politely suggesting that BLM is a counterproductive cause.
Instead of considering how you could fight for justice more intelligently — you act like I’m saying you shouldn’t fight for it at all. You want to be taken seriously about having conversations on race when you won’t even agree to what kind of can he was carrying?
Was that a smart move?
Instantly firing back with boilerplate beliefs is not a indicator of understanding the premise of that question (or even caring to, for that matter). Such inquiry requires reflection and the willingness to examine the efficacy of your efforts:
And what role you play in harming your own interests by the manner in which you pursue them. The Right is not always wrong — and the smart move is to agree with them when they’re making sense.
It’s also the right thing to do.
The right thing tends to be the demanding thing — the difficult that can’t be captured in slogans, kneeling, and knocking down monuments. I don’t care if Kaepernick kneels — I care that you can’t solve multidimensional problems with one-dimensional gestures.
I ask a different question . . .
I do that a lot
What if Kaepernick kneeled and acknowledged that they need to do their part while asking the police to do theirs? And right on cue:
Hold the phone — you want us to share some responsibility?
Kneel, but couple your message with Kobe’s below — and you change the dynamic of the debate. Had Obama said these words instead, POTUS would have put us on a new path.
And wasn’t that the point of his presidency?
I won’t react to something just because I’m supposed to, because I’m an African-American. That argument doesn’t make any sense to me. So we want to advance as a society and a culture, but, say, if something happens to an African-American, we immediately come to his defense? Yet you want to talk about how far we’ve progressed as a society? Well, then don’t jump to somebody’s defense just because they’re African-American.
The Right would still fuss over the kneeling and whatnot — but they might cut ya some slack if you’re kneeling with a shared purpose. Protesting in a wholesale manner shows you’re not serious about recognizing the realities of a problem.
It says you want to see it only from your perspective.
That — will never work
And lo and behold — neither will this:
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview with Brian Williams. In talking about take a wild guess, he said . . .
He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement
A lot of that goin’ around too!
The likes of Loury & McWhorter miserably fail to see how they are unwittingly conditioning people to act exactly as McWhorter’s quote above. 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.
What’s more, you’re making matters worse and being rewarded for it. I’m going to show you how to fix the problem you don’t even know you have. And I assure you — the gains you get now pale in comparison to what awaits you.
All ya gotta do — is do what you say you do.
And that — is not this
And they already belonged to one before that:
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
To believe in God is not delusional, but denying what’s right in front of your eyes — is delusional by definition:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true
Wars have started that way . . .
Arrival is a movie that makes you think — and that’s a gift that keeps on giving.
Their efforts to develop a conduit of communication is in striking contrast to how we talk to each other today. With the word “HUMAN” written on a whiteboard, they were able to build on that by seeing patterns in indecipherable symbols.
We have the most sophisticated communication tools in history — and we can’t even talk to each other in the same language.
Instead of listening and learning — slinging snippets of certitude has become America’s pastime. We’ve created a knee-jerk nation where discernment is derided and negligence is in vogue. What was beyond the pale in the past is now perfectly acceptable.
There was a time when adults acted their age. Those days are long gone — as the internet and the cable clans paved the way for the onslaught of the utterly absurd. The Yellow Brick Road is the path of America’s pursuits — and how systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as convoluted.
And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact. From decades of being increasingly accommodating of liars aligned with your interests:
You kept lowering the bar
And Now There is No Bar
I don’t do politics, I do reality.
I don’t even want to be part of the debate — I just want honest debate. And from decades of dealing with hermetically sealed minds — I came up with an idea for how to do that. My mission is not driven by changing your values, but rather the manner in which you pursue them.
There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future:
A.K.A. learning
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. To do that, you don’t go after everything, you go after one thing that ties to everything — and you do it by holding one man to his own standards.
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.”
There are some great minds out there, but they got lost along the way — just as this nation lost its way long ago. But I have to wonder: Just how great they could be and not recognize the futility of forever beating issues into the ground in this manner?
I’ve always hated Twitter and when I’m done doing what I gotta do — I’m never goin’ back. Until then, I’m sending out a certain set of messages looking for intelligent life (fiercely independent thinkers who want to solve problems — not endlessly talk about them).
Think of my signals as a poor man’s SETI:
I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth
It’s as out-of-the-box as it gets but rooted in timeless truths America made outdated. I’ve already done all the work: I just need a little help in having it land in the right hands. I have a very specific target audience to get this in gear, so it wouldn’t take much.
One email could set off a chain of events that could open the door to the kind of conversation this nation’s never had.
Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country.
Going by the galaxies filled with rock stars of reasoning across the social media universe — I should have no shortage of people eager to examine my idea and discuss how we could improve on it and proceed.
You tell me where those people are and I’ll gladly send out my signals to them.
If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well. I’d just ask that you block me and politely move along. Is that really too much to ask? But if you’re game for good old-fashioned conversation — please contact me through the site, Anchor.Press.gg@gmail.com, or DM (Direct Message) on Twitter:
As I no longer respond to Tweets or superficial fragments of any kind.
I’ve split this story into 3 parts and I’m still working on finalizing the next two.
One Voice Became Two 