Shallow thinkers do not think beyond the immediate and the observable. They usually take information at face value and only look at immediate consequences. They are not capable of looking at all sides of an issue or think deeply about the issue before making decisions or drawing conclusions . . .
They also believe that their opinion is based on deep thinking because they genuinely believe that their opinion is based on truth and facts. Whereas, deep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
When we dig deeper, we understand better. We can compare different outcomes, examine, tear apart, and make cognizant judgments that are derived from different mental models.
Left and Right, I’ve yet to find a single person who digs beyond the depth of their immediate domain of interest. In our entirely transactional times, America endlessly rehashes topics of today — never once considering the totality of events that created them (or even having a notion of the need to).
With the issues I address — you might as well be saying the Civil War wasn’t germane to the assassination of Lincoln.
Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote:
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.
When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone: In what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking? But you broadcast beliefs that say you have such skills, and surround yourself with people who claim the same: And that’s what counts for authenticity anymore. Where I come from it’s still called bullshit — and whether it’s on the Left or Right means nothing to me, I’m calling it what it is.
Whatever I think of the Right — they’re right on the money on this impossibly stupid pampering below. And when it comes to homelessness and race-related issues, they make a helluva lot more sense than the Left.
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. 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:
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.
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.”
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). The second you shun evidence that doesn’t fit the narrative you want — you have contaminated your judgment.
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
And the Charmin-soft standards of today are making matters exponentially worse:
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.
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about take a wild guess, he said:
He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement
The likes of Loury & McWhorter miserably fail to see how they are conditioning people to behave exactly as McWhorter’s quote. And this is coming from someone whose writing Loury once called “brilliant” and was “honored by it” (as well as being “blown away” by my site and “signed up”):
That was then — this is now
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
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. 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.
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.
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 my idea is a framework for debate that boxes you in to do exactly that. You won’t like it — but here’s the deal: Your opposition won’t either.
And who knows, you might learn to love embracing challenge, changing your mind, and the fruits from demanding across-the-board accountability.
This — is not that
This — is Broadcasting Beliefs About That
It’s pure fantasy to think that you can ignore key dimensions of a problem and magically solve it. 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. Conventional methods have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country.
But no one seems to even care about the efficacy of their efforts, as failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days.
A new edition of The Death of Expertise is coming out. When a book with a big following didn’t make a dent in 7 years: On what basis would you believe that an expanded edition will do any better? Does anyone even ask such questions? Traditional means have no chance of breaching the envelope of intransigence around armies of unreachables in the trench warfare of our times.
The rules have changed, as in — there are none. By failing to understand that you cannot adapt to deal with it.
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends.
As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and do catastrophic damage by doing so:
In a culture increasingly comfortable with ease, wrong is increasingly rationalized in the name of right. If only you could see the galactic waste of time, energy, and money on matters that make you think you’re making progress. Never mind the damage you do along the way.
The Yellow Brick Road is the path of America’s pursuits:
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.
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: The outcome of which fashioned a culture of no consequences.
She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.”
Thomas Sowell played along and got off scot-free.
they all did . . .
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 and takes no responsibility for it. A lot of that goin’ around too! And yet Sowell is worshipped as a folk hero for responsibility, accountability, and following the facts where they lead. Never mind he didn’t go anywhere near ’em on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history: Opting to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse to this day.
He touted technicalities as “facts” then made a living selling slogans like these:
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell
Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see.
But lemme put it in terms you’ll understand: If he stepped into a debate with me on this matter, the beating he’d take would be biblical. If you think you can challenge me on that, I invite you to try.
I’ve been inviting you for a really long time . . .
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:
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
Sowell’s “Rock Stars” of Reasoning . . .
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? . . .
8. Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.
— Steven Pinker
How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?
On of top flagrantly ignoring irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty, he has a habit of toeing the party line: All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
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
Adulthood is about spending the time to think before talking . . . Adulthood is about controlling our emotions, learning to take a deep breath and modulating our moments of anger or frustration.
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.
If you make an attempt to debate in good faith — I don’t care if you can spell your arguments, but Jesus, just act your age. In other words, it’s not the quotes at issue — it’s the attitude and willful ignorance behind them.
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.
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”
Ah, the 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.
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.”
Just what would it take — for you to do what you say you do?
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?
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
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.
A new edition of The Death of Expertise is coming out. When a book with a big following didn’t make a dent in 7 years: On what basis would you believe that an expanded edition will do any better? But “on what basis?” has no bearing in a world of wishful thinking — where faith-based belief is all the basis you need. In this universe, you can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about.
V for Victory — How Fitting . . .
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
— Attributed to Mark Twain
Imagine America as an engine and you come along with a cross-section of it to explain why it’s not working. Since your audience shares your concerns, you’d think they’d be interested in understanding the internals of the problem. But they spend all their time talking about parts made by people they don’t like — never considering the defects in their own parts.
And even though you’ve got a rock-solid idea for how to fix the engine (or at least make it run on reason): They’d rather spend the rest of their lives complaining about problems than take responsibility for their part in creating them. The image above is for my 15-part series on factions acting as force fields of fallacy for the Left & Right: Shielding you from the whole truth while you’re pursuing part of it believing you’re after all of it.
To concisely capture the absurdity that’s canon across these echo chambers where childish behavior is celebrated:
Imagine a club for international travel made up entirely of people without a passport. Day after day, they talk about their love of going somewhere — with no interest in anyone who’s been somewhere. There was a time when people were willing to take a journey to understand what doesn’t instantly compute. Those days are long gone.
And this — is the height of your contribution:
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
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.
You want to be taken seriously on race-related concerns when you won’t even concede to what kind of can he was carrying? And 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)
If you understand baseline information on material properties in one context, shouldn’t you be able to grasp the exact same principles in another?
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
As I said in my doc:
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.’ . . . 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
Strikingly similar principles — don’t ya think?
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 trillions of dollars.
Never heard of him . . .
I imagine not — in a country that can’t even get this straight:
On an issue that demands specificity, 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?
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
The more I learn about the sub, the more it sounds like a 50/50 coin flip suicide expedition than exploration.
Lots of intelligent commentary floating around on Titan. It’s refreshing to see all the sound analysis I’ve seen on the sub. And from experts to casual observers — most everyone recognizes reality on Rush.
Who doesn’t?
The same people who always refuse to see something for what it is: Those too close to the situation to objectively evaluate it (invariably with motive in some form — innocent or otherwise). I realize Cameron’s craft was designed to go 3 times deeper than Titanic:
But it’s just a striking contrast on the look of seriousness alone.
And so’s this . . .
Give me a grade-schooler at breakfast and I’ll have this cleared up by lunch: As they haven’t yet learned to look away from the obvious to deny the undeniable. Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that ensure they never will. If you abandon your critical thinking skills the moment you even perceive a threat to your interests — doesn’t that bring those skills into question?
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own interests? These people are not gods. When you treat them as such — you do a cosmic disservice to them, yourselves, the country, and the world as well. Oh my God, somebody’s not who they claim to be — that’s never happened before! With the mountain of childish & spectacularly stupid shit I’ve seen in defense of this man — you’d think his disciples really were born yesterday:
Automatons who act as though they have no understanding of how to process anything that doesn’t instantly compute in their favor.
Something wasn’t right with Stockton Rush and Elizabeth Holmes either (both of ’em dying to be disruptors and one of ’em went all the way). 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.
Speaking of Holmes
Another parallel is how our culture places excessive faith in people based on image, not the totality of their record. Titan’s passengers put their trust in their pilot — because surely if he’s going along, it must OK. I’m hardly comparing the naivete of Titan’s crew to the wildly misguided belief in this media darling.
I’m simply saying we’ve become a country that’s way too easily accepting of those who speak to us.
In a society that’s either gushing with over-the-top praise or seething with over-the-top scorn — whatever happened to something in between? Ya know, balance — which was nowhere to be found in the fallacies that follow:
The Mariana Trench of False Equivalence
But if an experimental approach to discovery is a crime, then we might as well put the Wright brothers, Charles Lindbergh and Apollo’s lunar-bound astronauts on trial.
And while deep exploration of the oceans carries obvious risks, I can’t quite accept the notion that he was cavalier about it all.
Then you’re as delusional as he was:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true
And here’s his motive — in the very next sentence:
I knew Stockton through a mutual friend of ours in our hometown of Seattle, and within those circles of acquaintance he was known as a terrific husband, father, grandfather and friend, with an infectious, fun-loving curiosity that will linger as an influence long beyond his death.
His risks were calculated ones, however flawed the calculations might turn out to be.
Right on cue | Never fails
Stockton took shortcuts that cost him his life and the lives of those who placed misguided faith in him. Elizabeth Holmes took shortcuts that put her in prison and made fools out of a lot of people.
Some were young and 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 craves ease and the quick win.
Speaking of #winning and 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). 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.
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:
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
Revealing the reality of what you don’t want to see — would require you to recognize your role in creating and/or exacerbating many of the very problems you’re fighting against. You’d also discover that people you believe to be bastions of virtue are far from it. If they were what you think they are, this website wouldn’t exist.
If they were the real deal, they’d be pushing you to make a habit of welcoming challenge (not just endlessly pointing out the opposition’s flaws). You would not make any assumptions — you’d simply consider the information and ask questions as needed. Once we established the disconnect between one’s claims and actions, we’d define the scope of the problem behind their behavior and yours (as well as those you’re rightly calling out).
Once we identified the multiple dimensions involved, then we could consider what to do about it.
That is what this is
And on that note . . .
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
There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future. 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. But if you’re game for good old-fashioned conversation (that takes time & effort to think things through): 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.
Thank You!
Various versions of this video have racked up over 70 million views. Since my site was named after the turning point in his SEAL-training story, obviously I’m a fan. What I’m not a fan of is celebrating beliefs then abandoning them the instant they become inconvenient:
Particularly when the whole point is about rising to the occasion.
The mud consumed each man till there was nothing visible but our heads. The instructors told us we could leave the mud if only five men would quit. Only five men, just five men, and we could get out of the oppressive cold. Looking around the mud flat, it was apparent that some students were about to give up.
The idea is to act on the inspiration — not simply spread the word about how inspired you are. The work is in the doing, not the telling. If you’re unwilling to do the former while delighting in the latter:
Just how inspired could you really be?
There was still over eight hours until the sun came up. 8 more hours of bone-chilling cold. The chattering teeth and shivering moans of the trainees were so loud . . . It was hard to hear anything.
And then — one voice began to echo through the night. One voice raised in song. The song was terribly out of tune — but sung with great enthusiasm. One voice became two, and two became three.
Speaking of shivering — swimming in winter is new to me. I found out right away that the worst part was in my mind. Once I get acclimated, in 5 minutes I’m just fine. Thanksgiving took it up a notch though, as my face was freezing and my head felt like it had a helmet of ice on it. But in about 10 minutes, I was just fine.
Needless to say, there are degrees to how far you can go (and Houston is hardly like living in the north). But I still had to overcome cold, and I find that exhilarating — as I’ve always found pushing my limits. The same principle applies to learning new things, overcoming obstacles, and my willingness to change my mind. I have no desire to believe I’m right about anything in which I am not.
Acknowledging error is liberating and leads to enlightenment. And I would know . . . many times over:
“Why, thank you! I had no idea!” Why would people prefer to justify mistaken beliefs, behavior, and practices rather than change them for better ones?
From a lifetime of practice, “Why, thank you! I had no idea!” is protocol for me. I love to be corrected — even if it stings a bit at first. I’d rather feel foolish for 5 minutes than be a fool for a lifetime.
I find changing my mind to be magical — that you can think one thing, take new information into account, and think another:
It’s fantastic
I happily belong to an infinitesimal minority that feels we’re not informed enough to have all the answers to every controversial issue in America. We don’t have a monopoly on virtue — and don’t want one. We’re not only willing to change our minds, we welcome it and appreciate those who correct us.
Speaking of discovery — I had no idea that underwater headphones existed until I went looking for them over the summer. That takes the experience to a whole other level (especially with how music takes your mind off the cold). But with my extremities feeling colder lately, it became clear that I needed to get some gear to go all winter. That opened up another door to thinking about things I never thought I’d be doing. It was fun looking into wetsuits and whatnot, but part of me is gonna miss the acclimation phase after the plunge (and the undeniable benefits from it). What I’m not going to miss is how cold I am for an hour or so afterwards. If you ever try cold-water swimming — don’t take a hot shower till you warm up. However good it feels at first, it comes with a price.
How could I be freezing for an hour inside when I was only freezing for a few minutes in the pool? I had to know and now I do:
Afterdrop is the phenomenon of your body temperature continuing to drop even after you get out of cold water and into a warmer environment – so that you feel colder 10 or 40 minutes after you exit than you did in the water.
A hot shower makes matters far worse. And lo and behold, showing how short-term satisfaction can be counterproductive, dangerous, and even deadly — is central to this entire site. I’m eager to get my gear, but I’m glad I didn’t get it before I pushed the envelope of what’s possible. And whad’ya know, that’s at the core of what I’m out to convey as well:
What we can accomplish as a nation by embracing the uncomfortable.
And before long everyone in the class was singing. The instructors threatened us with more time in the mud if we kept up the singing. But the singing persisted. And somehow the mud seemed a little warmer. And the wind a little tamer. And the dawn not so far away.
If I have learned anything in my time traveling the world, it is the power of hope. The power of one person . . .
— Admiral McRaven
Seeing things as they are is the only thing that’s ever come easy to me, as I learned early on in life that what you want gets in the way of what you see. Long before I ever heard of such ideas illustrated below, I was aware of when life was asking me a question.
And exactly as Erich Fromm explains, choosing the difficult course of action became easier with each challenge (just as acclimating to the cold). Would I have been able to handle that helmet of ice had it not been for the times before? Maybe not, but because I worked my way up to it — now I know what I can take.
They are not aware when life asks them a question . . .
The longer we continue to make the wrong decisions, the more our heart hardens; the more often we make the right decisions, the more our heart softens — or better perhaps, comes alive . . .
Who knew that they’d have the essence of this story on the tag of my wetsuit which just arrived:
Imagine!
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.
Do that and you’ll make them better while they do the same for you in return.
I hardly invented the idea
“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
I started this site with a series called Two Sides of the Same Counterfeit Coin. Imagine if my efforts largely focused on one side while absolving the other.
That would be grossly hypocritical and fly in the face of the very premise upon which it was written. No rational person would deny that, but imagine if you called me on it and I cited the title as evidence to dispute your challenge. That would be absurd and we all know that.
Same goes for anything else that doesn’t address what’s in question.
The body of work doesn’t have to be 50/50 . . .
But it can’t be 90/10 — as that proportion doesn’t sync with a title so damning as that and this:
Dr. Joel Weinberger on being right about Trump’s 2016 win:
How did we get it right and everyone else get it wrong?
By flagrantly failing to ask the right questions years before — his camp created the conditions to “get it right.” And now look where you are — outraged over Roe v. Wade and Trump on the rise once again (oblivious to how you brought it all on yourselves).
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.
And by the way, they’re right on the money on the utterly ridiculous ways of woke:
For more on how I feel about woke:
But by the Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ — they set the stage for the rise of the Rock Star they spent the next 8 years railing against:
Thereby bringing Black Lives matter to life and exponentially exacerbating the endless bullshit that followed.
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.
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.”
She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.”
Which one looks like he’s on point:
Sowell is lauded for calling out problems he helped create (and takes no responsibility for it). A lot of that goin’ around too! And yet Sowell is worshipped as a folk hero for responsibility, accountability, and following the facts where they lead. Never mind he didn’t go anywhere near ’em on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history.
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.
— 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?
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 . . .
Speaking of motive
Sowell is possibly the most fascinating and productive scholar in the world.
I say that not as a junior colleague of Sowell (I am a mere 69), but as someone who has studied his work for 44 years. His scholarship covers a wide range of issues: income inequality, ethnic differences in economic performance, economic geography, poverty and economic growth, the destructive effects of the welfare state, the effects of affirmative action, the role of knowledge and information in decisions, incentives within the political system and within academia, and, more recently, the performance of charter schools.
What can we establish about the bit above?
First off, he’s heavily invested in seeing Sowell in the light that those 44 years have shown him. Secondly, “the role of knowledge and information in decisions” is on the table. Seems like evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb (to manufacture a war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11) — qualifies for consideration.
Don’t ya think?
A couple of 2-minute reads
My 7-part series that’s the most exhaustively detailed doc ever done on WMD — totally 2 hours and 40 minutes. One guy goes into great detail and the other guy doesn’t go anywhere in detail. One guy puts props on display to help visualize the marquee evidence Powell presented — while the other guy makes no mention of it.
Which one strikes you as “digging through the data in order to understand the complex reality underneath”?
Sowell’s bedrock beliefs below are literally built into the design of the doc imagery and all that’s behind it (and I’d never even heard of him back then). I’ve just been committed to following the facts & common sense all my life.
And yet I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t.
As I said in my doc:
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
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!
The one constant on display through all these topics is an irrepressible mind digging through the data in order to understand the complex reality underneath. His intellectual process, plus his ability to write quickly, have resulted in dozens of books and hundreds upon hundreds of newspaper columns that have helped many of us learn.
And what can we establish on that? Professor Henderson likes to learn — so shedding light on Sowell with new information should be welcomed by someone touting “the role of knowledge and information in decisions.” His findings for 44 years shaped his solidified perception of Sowell — but what if he only went looking for what he wanted to find?
A lot of that goin’ around as well!
Secondly, “the one constant” does not strike me as a claim that comes with caveats. Does this book cover imply he’s a Maverick only on the pages within? Of course not, it’s suggesting a way of life and no rational person would argue otherwise.
Just as no rational person would contort the definition of “constant” by restricting it to the domain that isolates Sowell’s history to what serves you:
I focused on the issues where he really did dig through the data.
By that standard, I can isolate O.J. Simpson’s character to the football field and ignore that little matter of murder. So, we’ve gone from “irrepressible mind digging through the data” to “I just meant where he really did.”
A.K.A. Changing the Rules:
Rather than hold him accountable to his claims, the rolodex of excuses around Sowell is off the charts — which is obscenely out of line for the standards he espouses.
Two themes emerge from [Professor Henderson’s] writing: (1) that the unintended consequences of government regulation and spending are usually worse than the problems they are supposed to solve.
— Hoover Institution
But spending and unintended consequences didn’t cross your mind on this multi-trillion dollar fiasco for the ages? And with all the wisdom in Sowell’s fancy quotes to float — this “intellectual giant” couldn’t see that coming either?
Preach responsibility and take none
Birds of a feather flock together
“Hear From Condoleezza Rice”:
I’d love to — and I’d ask her to explain this and a great deal more:
Associated Press, October 3rd, 2004: Rice said she learned of objections by the Energy Department only after making her 2002 comments.
Richard W. Memmer: Are we to believe that the National Security Advisor of the United States was unaware of an intelligence dispute of this magnitude that had been going on for well over a year?
One Congressional investigator went so far as to call it a holy war. And doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that she didn’t bother consulting the D.OE. before serving up images of a nuclear detonation?
— Act II
One Voice Became Two 