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
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?
Taking on the entire country is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. Explaining America’s decline over decades of delight in the Gutter Games of Government — is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms. Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another takes time and effort to digest.
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. America’s in perennial pursuit of ideologies — warfare waged with galactic levels of baggage & bullshit bolstered by . . .
opinions lightly adopted but firmly held . . . forged from a combination of ignorance, dishonesty, and fashion
— Theodore Dalrymple, Life at the Bottom
We could do something about that, but you’re busy . . .
You’re always busy
If I came into this cold — I’d already be able to establish a great deal on what this person told me without telling me. I coined “cable clans” over 10 years ago to capture the media in the same way I bucket both parties into “two sides of the same counterfeit coin.”
There’s no party-line loyalty in that any more than Gutter Games of Government or anything else above and across this site.
You care about politics — I care about problem solving. Believe it or not, you can do both (though the former will forever hinder the latter). But you’ve allowed politics to cripple the possibility of any problem solving at all.
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.
V for Victory — How Fitting . . .
A world where you can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about. How you behave in denying the undeniable daily would be unthinkable for me to do ever.
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.
I fail to understand how you think we can solve anything in a country that can’t even get the self-evident straight:
“Wut?”
In my youth, I could not have imagined a world in which even people with PhDs would act like imbeciles in the face of information they don’t instantly understand. That an entire country could take satisfaction in insulting your own intelligence on a daily basis just astounds me. And there is no measure for how preposterous it is that people who can’t even connect the dots This Does Not = That:
Have the bottomless gall to belittle me on making correlations in 3 dimensions while you wallow in one.
What do you mean by 3 dimensions?
Now that would be a good question — and you’d be amazed at what you’d see if you’d started asking some.
As for what I mean . . .
What do you think this means?
It means that defending the indefensible in the former helped create the conditions for the latter. It means you harmed your own interests by the manner in which you pursued them — like all of America does every goddamn day.
I’ve always thought there’s something wildly out of whack with pursuing values in a manner devoid of virtue. In one form or another, inevitably there are consequences for convictions unguided by conscience.
Look around!
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.
Was that smart move?
It’s a sign of the times that people fail to understand the premise of such a simple question.
What’s more, they make it nearly impossible to explain it to them — as detail has a way of complicating the narrative. Even if drawing attention to a problem produces some positive activity, the concept of unintended consequences entirely escapes those consumed by what they see only in the moment.
A lot of that goin’ around
Speaking of detail and denying the undeniable:
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-81 mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)
It seems we have all the time in the world to promote the false — but not a second to spare for the truth. “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on” — a quote that’s been around in various forms for over 300 years (evidently the original being from 1710):
Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect.
This image is especially fitting for the times — since it’s a myth popularized by Washington Irving and others.
According to The Flat Earth Myth: The real myth is the idea that anyone ever believed in a flat earth:
Essentially no one during the Middle Ages believed the world was flat. Of the many myths about the Middle Ages this one is perhaps the most widespread, and yet at the same time the most roundly and authoritatively debunked.
In fact, the evidence is so overwhelming that refuting this myth is like refuting the idea that the moon is made of cheese.
Same on WMD — and then some!
“Bias” gets all the press
When prejudice is paramount to the problem. If it were just bias, convincing you with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence might still be difficult — but you’d be willing to be convinced.
Prejudice doesn’t roll that way. In fact, it doesn’t roll anywhere — as you don’t budge one bit, and take pride in it, no less.
As a friend comically put it:
It’s not “Pride and Bias”
Fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
Which means most of America is delusional by definition:
- A delusion is a mistaken belief that is held with strong conviction even when presented with superior evidence to the contrary
- Characterized by or holding idiosyncratic beliefs or impressions that are contradicted by reality or rational argument
- Something a person believes and wants to be true, when it is actually not true
And the only way you can pull off the above is with the prejudice below:
Prejudice:
- An attitude that always favors one way of feeling or acting especially without considering any other possibilities
- An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts
- The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions
- A partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
There is no market for what I do. But there wasn’t one for PCs at one time either. We could revolutionize the world too — just by using the tools we were given from the get-go:
That’s that lump that’s three feet above your ass!
Think of what you’re saying
You can get it wrong and still you think that it’s alright
Think of what I’m saying
We can work it out and get it straight, or say goodnight . . .
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
On a matter of world-altering consequence (that shaped everything you see today): Belittling my “disjointed” & “juvenile” website with “irrelevant music & movies” is the best ya got?
When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here, on what basis are you so doubt-free?
And in a world that no longer allows for this quaint thing called conversation — “Think of what you’re saying” could not be more relevant.
So I will ask you once again . . .
Try to see it my way
Only time will tell if I am right or I am wrong
While you see it your way
There’s a chance that we might fall apart before too long . . .
In a culture where even a PhD acts like an imbecile in the face of overtures he doesn’t instantly understand: Conventional methods aren’t gonna make a dent in the envelope of intransigence encasing hermetically sealed minds of our times. “Wut?” — reflects a society tuning in to people you think are geniuses for telling you what you wanna hear and thinking you’re enlightened for it.
The smorgasbord of sub-cultures has created another dimension of delusion in America — hardening minds not broadening them. The commentary in these communities speaks volumes about social media and the state of society: Habitually hailing high praise for purveyors of virtue — virtues that vanish the second they’re called to put them to the test.
As I said in my documentary:
It’s astounding how the mind can pull off psychological gymnastics that allow us to believe what we say without any sense of accounting for it.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act V
Left & Right . . .
Whatever your aims — you’ve got a crowd to comfort you:
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to find high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber:
Twice!
He called I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road “brilliant” and was “honored” by my commentary. He partly inspired this site and was “blown away” by it and signed up.
Somewhere along the way . . .
Things changed. Not just in how I see the likes of Loury & McWhorter, but the world they inhabit as well. And that’s the idea — to observe, reflect, evaluate, and adjust accordingly.
This nation has no such notion . . .
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
Speaking of believing
Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.”
It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101.
That you don’t understand how you’re all being played is bad enough, but that you make it nearly impossible to explain it to you reflects how new media has hardened you even more than legacy did. None of these boxes of beliefs are entirely wrong, but bonding within them makes you think you’re entirely right (on everything).
In this world — the rush is everything:
- The rush to respond
- The rush you get from responding
- The rush to roll out the next issue of concern
- Repeat and never reflect
You’d rather do a million things that won’t matter than one that would. You’d read 10,000 Tweets before you’d read 10 pages (never mind that the substance of those pages could solve some of the problems prompting that never-ending stream of concern). And no matter how much you flood the internet, it’ll never be enough:
As you bask in that collective feeling of going somewhere — never pausing for even a moment to notice you’re going nowhere.
At the helm of these interconnected echo chambers — are influencers who peddle repeatedly rehashed insight their followers praise like they split the atom. To be sure, some of it is insightful. But these “geniuses” are so full of wisdom that they’re oblivious to how they’re feeding the very problems they’re ostensibly trying to solve.
Purveyors of virtue are put on a pedestal for telling you what you wanna hear every goddamn day. They haven’t accomplished anything with their aimless arguments. But who cares about the efficacy of your efforts when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days.
If you think you’re making progress because of ever-increasing attention to your concerns, I suggest you reconsider.
In your world, having some fairly famous personality praise your work would be celebrated like you won a Nobel Prize. In mine: You soak up the moment, give yourself a little pat on the back, and build on that inspiration by getting right back to work on pursuing your purpose.
Thinking like that — prevents you from letting compliments cloud your judgment.
That was then– this is now
And they already belonged to one before that. Back to that in a moment. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market.
Never mind the clownish imagery for clickbait:
Not to mention this . . .
The Left’s ludicrous ways of woke & rigging race-related incidents:
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.
And guess who helped shovel that shit and got away scot-free:
They all did — As they always do:
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.
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.
even 20 years later
Half the country still can’t get this straight:
By Design
America Remains Mired in the Murky
What does it say to you: That on evidence claimed as components to build a nuclear bomb — the “debate” was hijacked by 10-second sound bites? Shouldn’t any debate establish what the debate is actually about? What does it say about a country that can’t even establish that much on a matter of this magnitude? As I said in my doc:
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 a uranium 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.
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?
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:
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?
Behold my “hatred” of Thomas Sowell:
Never mind this . . .
Not to mention this
Speaking of sleight of hand . . .
The administration had its hands on 60,000 tubes, and yet not one of them was presented by Powell at the U.N. According to HUBRIS, they scrapped the idea of displaying a tube — since Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute.
— Richard W. Memmer: Prologue
There was even talk of Powell holding up one of the tubes for dramatic effect. But a veteran communications strategist in the room balked. “If you do that, it will be on the front page of every paper the next day,” noted Anna Perez, Condoleezza Rice’s chief of communications.
“Do you really want to do that?” Perez had a feel for these things; she had worked for Walt Disney, Chevron, and a top Hollywood talent agency.
This would, she thought, be an awkward visual. Powell would be holding up the one piece of evidence that was most in dispute. Everybody would focus on that. The idea was scrapped.
Think about that
You’ve got 60,000 of ’em:
But rather than put a single sample of your hard evidence on display for all the world to see . . .
You put it a PowerPoint?
And it just makes me laugh that they tossed that tape measure in there for effect (particularly because it’s the wall thickness that’s of paramount importance). The sheer sloppiness of it all — it’s just pathetic. I’ll put my presentations in COM 101 against this crap any day. But strictly speaking — purely on the principles of persuasive speech:
Since their goal was to manipulate the masses — she was spot-on by concealing what they displayed.
What is uranium enrichment?
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 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
Buy hey . . .
Why sharpen your mind with that when you can wallow in this:
Jesus, just open your eyes . . .
To how all these kiss-ass communities have turned people into animals in how they honor you and your beloved Sowell.
It’s just pathetic!
I’m not to “DESTROY” Sowell
Quite the contrary — stick around, you’ll see! That his supporters instantly assume bad motives is in gross breach of the standards Sowell espouses. Ya know, like this gem . . .
By the way: Clickbait for battles you’ll do all over again tomorrow — doesn’t strike me as destroying anything. Not to mention that this “DESTROY” business is all so childish & stupid.
And the likes of Loury & McWhorter:
Are unwittingly feeding those cesspools of certitude . . .
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
I don’t do slogans, so to me, “Black Lives Matter” is just as empty as its comeback cousin. Blunt instruments for change are just too ham-handed for my taste.
— I Don’t Do Slogans on The Yellow Brick Road
All these channels are blunt instruments:
Including those I agree with!
Then there’s this
I’m an entertainer . . .
When Rush Limbaugh said that long ago, I didn’t believe him. Now I think it’s the most honest thing he ever said. So when I came across this question below, it really hit home. I had asked a similar question before I found this one. His was better. Not only was it more direct, but it also shed light on something I hadn’t thought of — and I love that!
I wanted to believe — and it’s easy to get lost along the way. But I never get lost for long, and this question kickstarted my turnaround:
My version . . .
Across those communities
I’ve never seen anything with even a hint of the questions we asked. And what they miserably fail to recognize is that their efforts act like a firewall by unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata. I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it. Someone really “looking at the deep questions” — would have the courage to consider mine.
By not deviating from your lane — you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it.
It would be extremely difficult to reach the Left no matter what you do. But by feeding that firewall, you’re building in barricades that block you from reaching them in ways you might be able to without the Right sailing Scot-Free.
Then again . . .
Who cares about the efficacy of your efforts when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days.
“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.
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 in the face of irrefutable fact.
Unlike Loury — who had no such notion . . .
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
And what happened to all this? . . .
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.
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?
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.”
Two things changed my mind: stories and data . . .
Right on cue | Never fails
As did his hero
Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening.
— Glenn Loury
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
When you see a sentence like “Not a trace of Thomas Sowell’s ‘follow the facts’ claim to fame can be found on the most world-altering topic of our time.”
I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .
Is not the mark of an intellectual giant — or an intellectual on any level. What part of “WMD,” “biggest and most costly lie in modern history,” and “most world-altering topic of our time” — do you not understand?
Perhaps an inquiry or two for clarification was in order?
“It was time to take stock”
That — took guts!
We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.
Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go, Glenn? The likes of Loury & McWhorter (and all of America) — want to have conversations that work for them:
As if issues exist in a vacuum . . .
Ripping on woke is all the rage
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.
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.
Tweeting your lives away with Thomas Sowell’s tenets does not magically make this man something he is not. And if you’re so sure about Sowell’s integrity is solid gold — why are you so scared of my scrutiny? You’re not scared? Well, whatever it is — it damn sure ain’t bravery.
One Voice Became Two 