What is this story about?
Ultimately This . . .
But to understand that, it’s pure fully to focus on everything — so the smart move is to focus on one thing that ties to everything. And there’s nothing better than the biggest and most costly lie in modern history (that shaped everything you see today). Sowell is simply a conduit through which to tell that story (and how his role within it could be harnessed for good). Compelling him to admit where he’s wrong will work wonders for where he’s right. And that’s where the likes of Loury & McWhorter come in: Not to mention Loury’s shameless hypocrisy in refusing to look at undeniable evidence that shows Sowell in a light that’s wildly off the mark of a Maverick.
As Loury once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up — I suggest you refrain from assumptions. And if you were abiding by the principles they preach, should I really have to remind you of that? Alas, Loury wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task.
Never mind I’ve consistently done the same to both parties for decades.
I’m Not Out to “DESTROY” Sowell
Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see. That his followers instantly assume bad motives (issuing rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full): Is in gross breach of the standards he espouses.
Ya know, like this gem
America lost its way long ago (and you’re right about how some of that happened). But all that pales in comparison to the aftermath of 9/11. Every major problem in America was exponentially exacerbated because of that fiasco for the ages — which Sowell helped sell and got off scot-free.
They all did
As they always do (Democrats & Republicans alike):
And thanks to all that: Which Sowell is a part of while manufacturing the illusion that he’s not.
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.
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?
You said they had no argument against your [R]ebuttal to Brown University’s letter on racism in the United States. Neither do you on your National Treasure. Instead of listening and learning on things you know nothing about — you let pride consume you. Maybe you don’t know Sowell as well as you thought you did: And heaven forbid you hold him to the same standards pushing your popularity.
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
A lot of that goin’ around
We’ll get to all that, but I gotta lay some groundwork first.
There was a time when people understood such things. It was a time when people understood how to understand — and didn’t blame the source because the material doesn’t magically unfold for standard scrolling with ease. It was a time when you stopped to think about things before breezing on by clips at the crux of the story — then bitching because you don’t understand what you didn’t stop to think about.
There was time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. It was a time when newfangled ways of “argument” wasn’t all the rage — where you furiously fire off some fashionable form of “You’re wrong!” and dish it all day long:
Insisting on “affirmation independent of all findings” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
I don’t roll that way.
You’re wrong — and here’s why
That’s the discipline — to have a work ethic in the way you think. Without “here’s why,” you’re just whistlin’ Dixie.
In what parallel universe does this even remotely reflect anything like that:
A couple of 2-minute reads that never even mention the tubes that took us to war (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity). Touting technicalities as “facts” doesn’t get it done: Especially when you make a living selling slogans and catchy quotes about careful consideration.
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.
Just on the titles alone
(never mind the horseshit within)
What McWhorter said below is demonstrably false. If Sowell’s Crap is King claims on WMD isn’t “seasoned” to you, Mr. McWhorter — what is?
And the more you look — the worse it gets.
But that’s just it — you refuse to look (which flies in the face of the principles upon which you put these people on a pedestal). In the infinite wisdom of his fanatical followers — you’re so bothered by how much I have to say:
That nowhere in your minds does it dawn on you to wonder why Sowell said so little.
Anything by Thomas Sowell
Great! Let’s discuss:
The story I’m out to tell takes both parties to task on the biggest & most costly lie in modern history — along with some other issues at the core of America’s decline. But Sowell’s supporters make it impossible to have this conversation (or even get to the point of what it’s about). Some of ’em even Like my links simply by virtue of his image being included (never mind the context). Making such assumptions, all by itself — is in breach of the standards Sowell espouses.
How far they will go to defend the indefensible is the real legacy that he’s leaving behind (with wildly irrational and childish behavior that never even attempts to address any of my arguments). You make it impossible to discuss even a single screenshot — and yet have bottomless nerve to bitch about my website: All of which flies in face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
And right on cue, out comes the hate-card crap.
Never mind this
Funny how this Sowell supporter below had no trouble understanding my site (and even politely replied with the makings of what real conversation looks like). To be sure, he could have investigated it further and asked some questions on that front, but to get the ball rolling — this will do:
And is worlds away from what I’m used to.
- He acknowledges the marque evidence driving the story
- While he already knew the truth about the tubes — he’s keeping the door open on Sowell (as to whether he “fell for it or lied about it”)
- It’s the most clear-cut case of lying by omission imaginable, but right now — all the matters is that he’s allowing the conversation to breathe (which means we can build on it)
- He did something for me and now it’s my turn to respond in kind. Barking back with “No, No, No, he lied” — is not how it’s done
- Genuine conversation is a journey — and along the way in this pursuit of truth & understanding, are glorious discoveries in the willingness to be wrong
- Where you just must find that in acknowledging that you’re wrong (in part or in whole) — just might create a hairline crack in the convictions of your interlocutor (enough to shed some light on the truth you have to tell)
- And through that exchange — perhaps they’ll come around to realizing they’re wrong (in part or in whole)
And all that sounds a lot like this:
Contrast this crap below with the reasonable reply above. Do you see any politeness and consideration here? And there is no measure for how laughable it is that he’s telling me to “take yourself above what you’re told to find the truth on the subject” (when he doesn’t even know what the subject matter is).
And yet, someone who’s blindly defending Sowell (with no idea of the issue or what Sowell said about it): Wants to educate me on critical thinking.
On a matter of mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics (an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter): I’m the only person who told this story in full (from all the angles that matter most). If Sowell’s acolytes simply abided by the principles they preach, they’d know in no time that their “National Treasure” is not the man they believe him to be.
Because [Sowell] doesn’t show favoritism on any subject matter.
That is demonstrably false and no rational person would argue otherwise. It took me all of 10 minutes to size up Sowell. On WMD, it 2. And guaranteed, there’s more where that from. There always is.
by the way
What road have you taken where you must remain glued to the utterly ridiculous notion that we have to stay boxed in by what started a conversation: Instead of considering the possibility that someone just came along with a larger conversation.
That would open up a world of possibility on the ones you’re having.
I almost forget to mention one of the most important elements in his reply: Disappointment! Now that is a beautiful thing — and it’s in Thomas Sowell’s best interests (and that of his followers and all of America and the world as well): For him to feel that disappointment — and then some!
Disappointment doesn’t register with this crowd.
In over 3 years of telling this story on Thomas Sowell, that’s the first time I’ve seen a supporter express any disappointment at all. And what does it say that this guy and a handful of others had no trouble understanding what I was saying, but somehow countless others can’t?
Are you telling me . . .
That they just happened to have a Rosetta Stone to reason through what you can’t? Would a reasonable person blow right by critical evidence at the beginning — so you can cite website style as your reason to outright reject it by the end? I hate comic books — but because I’m not keen on that kind of layout to tell a story, is that a valid excuse to say I can’t comprehend it?
There was a time when people understood how to understand — and didn’t blame the source because the material doesn’t magically unfold for standard scrolling with ease. It was a time when you stopped to think about things before breezing on by clips at the crux of the story — then bitching because you don’t understand what you didn’t stop to think about.
There was time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” — would look at it when you did. It was a time when newfangled ways of “argument” wasn’t all the rage — where you furiously fire off some fashionable form of “You’re wrong!” and dish it all day long: Insisting on “affirmation independent of all findings” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
I don’t roll that way.
You’re wrong — and here’s why
That’s the discipline — to have a work ethic in the way you think. Without “here’s why,” you’re just whistlin’ Dixie.
As for his question: I have nothing to say about that or anything else outside what I’m out to do. Just as I’m making a choice not to get directly involved on your areas of interest, you have the same choice in the face of mine:
As I have an idea that could turn the tide (which would serve your interests whether I agree with them or not): All conversations on here fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏
If you refuse to watch my doc then ignore excerpts from it: Thanks for stopping by, but it’s time for you leave. No more crying about my website and how you can’t understand what you refuse to consider.
Go back to playtime and block me when you got there, as this is no place for you. Good day!
Where does Sowell say, “Show Me the Evidence as long as it works in my favor”? Does he say to defend before you consider? How about assuming bad motives excuses you from facts and logic? Does he say blind loyalty is a virtue and it’s okay to act like a child? If you’re such a huge fan and he advocates for no such behavior — then why do his fanatical followers insist on acting in such ways?
The answer to that is this:
People want an authority to tell them how to value things, but they choose this authority not based on facts or results. They choose it because it seems authoritative and familiar — and I’m not and never have been familiar.
— Michael Burry, The Big Short
If that were not overwhelmingly true, this site would not exist. I would not have been treated with nothing but contempt for 20 years of telling undeniable truth of world-altering consequence. And Thomas Sowell would not be seen as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes for helping to shape our society of self-satisfied scorn.
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
As a distinguished scholar once said: “The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.”
— Thomas Sowell
The man’s a magician:
As I’m practically spit on by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Simply by virtue of writing those words, he couldn’t possibly do the same in service of his own ideals? And lo and behold — sleight of hand is how they pulled it off.
When you have absolutely no idea what’s going on here, on what basis are you so doubt-free?
Sowell flagrantly ignored irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty (opting to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse to this day). On a matter involving war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11 — the stakes don’t get much higher.
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 evidence used to manufacture this fraud?
I did — Sowell didn’t
Which one below looks like he’s on point?
Which one looks like he’s doing 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?
A [maverick] is a person who shows independence of thought and action, especially by refusing to adhere to the policies of a group to which he or she belongs
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? About that being on point: You know the answer — and anyone with an atom of objectivity would know by now that’s something’s not right.
But you find it’s with me . . .
[As] I’m not and never have been familiar
If I came across this and hadn’t done my homework, on the title alone — 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
Whatever I think of Thomas Sowell — I’ve never seen him act like a child. I’ve seen almost nothing but in defense of him. In your bottomless contempt for correction, you are utterly devoid of desire to understand anything that isn’t self-evident in 60 seconds. To cling to your calcified convictions that cannot survive scrutiny:
Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency, or any virtue of any kind.
And that — is an opportunity (as I came up with an idea that could turn the tide). But in order to do that, I need Sowell to serve a higher purpose. And despite what I think of him, he’s perfectly placed to pull that off in a way no other could.
But first I gotta take him to task — and he’s got it comin’ . . .
And so do you!
There’s no willingness to say, “I’m wrong.” I mean, you have to take a 2×4 to these people, basically — to get ’em to, sorta, knock ’em down and admit they were wrong.
Trust me — I’m just getting up!
I’ve got somethin’ for all of ya in this clusterf#@k of a country you created with your goddamn greed to your way (and Anything Goes to get it). 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.
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
As for the likes of Loury & McWhorter — I don’t see them as dishonest, but they’re damn sure intellectually dishonest when it comes to Sowell. Would McWhorter behave as Loury did the day I dropped the hammer on his hero (which I’ll get to Step 2). Maybe not, but I find it hard to believe that a linguist on his level — somehow can’t spot the patently obvious patterns of hypocrisy in Sowell’s record (and not just on Iraq).
It Took Me All of 10 Minutes to Size Up Sowell
On WMD — it took 2
Since your beloved Sowell says, “Show Me the Evidence!” — shouldn’t you consider it when someone does? Do you see anything in that cup and T-shirt that limits these principles to the Left? Do you see any caveats about not doing these things when the person in question:
Is the same one saying you should do these things?
- “Compared to What?”: Pops on display to illustrate materials germane to the matter
- “At What Cost?” Trillion Dollar Tube
- “What Hard Evidence Do You Have?”: Exhaustively detailed arguments on irrefutable evidence of mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics and a great deal more
Funny thing about information: It can seem incoherent when you don’t take any of it into account. Would you browse a textbook then blame the teacher for your failure to understand the material? If you’re not gonna watch clips at the crux of the story, what’s the point? That the decline of America over the last 30 years in the Gutter Games of Government — doesn’t unfold for standard scrolling with ease, is not a flaw in my argument and array of illustrations:
It’s a flaw in your willingness to work through it — absorbing each building block of information your brain is well-equipped to handle.
Or at least it used to be before information became so funneled in a fashion to your liking — you don’t even know what to do with anything that isn’t. It astounds me that wading through unfamiliar territory on this site is somehow seen as complicated as quantum physics.
I assure you: What it took to acquire this information was infinitely more demanding than anything you face here — let alone the complexities in exposing systematic deception at the core of our country’s ills. I tried telling this story 10 years ago about the automatons of the time (Left & Right). No one listened, and lo and behold — automatons exponentially multiplied:
Left & Right
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 the above:
Have the bottomless gall to belittle me on making correlations in 3 dimensions while you wallow in one.
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.
Debunking the WMD delusion & Trayvon tale is a conduit for showing how this nation systematically derails debate. 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.
Pay no mind to how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward.
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. And whatever I think of the Right:
They’re right on the money about the impossibly stupid pampering of 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.
Was that smart move?
Instantly firing back with boilerplate beliefs is not an indicator of understanding the premise of that question (or even caring to). 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.
And on that note
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)
But you all know best
The March of Folly mentality always does:
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
I don’t understand. I don’t understand!
Well, if you’d stop acting like this — you’d be amazed at what you would understand.
I can’t do everything for you
And just how many times do I have to rewrite the same story before you find the courage to ask a single question? Just how brief does a story of this magnitude have to be for your TL;DR mentality to comprehend?
If I came across someone so clearly in command of this material — I wouldn’t give a f#@k about format. They could write it down on napkins and I’d roll with it. I don’t need somebody to babysit me with the just the right formula for me to carefully consider something. I’m happy to put some time and effort into working it out on my own.
And for anything unclear, I’ ask questions. I’m old-fashioned that way.
This — is not that
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 . . .
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 . . .
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.
What part of this do you not understand?
The Yellow Brick Road: Path of America’s Predictably Counterproductive Pursuits
You don’t work that out
By being enamored with yourselves for this lickety-split, self-satisfied crap you flood the internet with daily.
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.
Sowell is central to that machine, but . . .
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.’ 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
My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. As I said, I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell. 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.
Trillion Dollar Tube
To take a story this complex and convoluted and boil its essence down to a few minutes was no small feat:
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?
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?
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.
Behold my shrine of “hatred”
to Thomas Sowell . . .
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?
Your kind has been playing that hate-card crap for decades:
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.
You cry and cry about being called “racists” to counter your criticism of the Left’s ludicrous ways of woke and rigging race-related incidents. And yet, on a matter of mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics — you played the same goddamn games back then as you do now. For such fanatical fans of the man:
Why must I explain his own standards to you?
Speaking of work
Work is a Journey on Which You Welcome Challenge
Work does not instantly respond — work digs to discover and inquires to clarify. Work is difficult and demands discernment. Work wonders, pauses, listens, absorbs, and reflects. Work does not rest on who’s right and who’s wrong: Work wants to know if there’s something more to see, something to learn, something that sharpens the mind. Work never stops building on the foundation of your own work and what you learn from the work of others.
Work works its way through material that is not easy.
Work recognizes complexity and the demands of in-depth explanation. Work will go on a trip to ideas that take time and effort to understand. Work knows that you can’t see your way through to a solution without understanding the different dimensions of a problem.
Work does not defend before you consider
More to follow on work.
At the core of why my efforts don’t compute — is that my mission is not driven by changing your values, but rather the manner in which you pursue them. How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t? And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason, you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these:
Rather than assert that all opinions are equal, students in seminar learn to judge opinions on the basis of the reasons given for those opinions.
Nobody ever had to explain that to me. I’m sure you all feel the same:
And yet here we are
On that note
I was fan of Loury & McWhorter, but I changed my mind when seeing that the savagery in defense of Sowell was even worse than what I’ve witnessed for decades. And the likes of Loury & McWhorter are feeding that frenzy:
Producing a toxicity of venom I hope they’d find sickening if they realized what they were doing.
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
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. My idea takes this problem and turns it into a solution. If you’ve got a better idea on how to turn the tide . . .
I’m all ears — you’re not!
The Religion of Ripping on Race & Woke Religions
Maybe when you’re done talking race, woke, and CRT for the ten-thousandth time — we can consider approaching problems in a more multi-dimensional manner?
Just a thought!
I’m going to show you how to fix the problem you don’t even know you have. And I can do it by showing who Sowell really is. You assume that any effort to criticize is out to crush the enemy (because that’s how you think in your win-at-all-costs ways of #winning). I don’t roll that way.
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 that 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 feeling right, wouldn’t it be refreshing to talk about the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong?
Don’t just tell people how to behave: Lead by example — especially when it comes at a cost! 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
That — is objective scrutiny looks like:
Not this . . .
Of the countless times I’ve seen his principles promoted below, you know how many times I’ve seen them applied to anybody but the Left?
The only person applying those principles across-the-board — is me!
And on that, I hope to God I’m wrong!
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. Even the best of the bunch are part of the problem they’re trying to solve.
Thomas Sowell’s disciples say he does one thing and I’m showing you that sometimes he does another (which brings his credibility into question on everything else). Does that mean he’s wrong on everything else? Did I say that? I’m not even implying it — I’m simply saying his credibility is in question.
And that anyone with a history wildly out of sync with their sanctimonious claims — should not be put a pedestal as a bastion of virtue.
But that story about blind belief — is a conduit for telling a larger story about blind belief. And I don’t care whether it’s about this guy or that guy: It’s dumb, dishonest, delusional, destructive, dangerous, and deadly.
We can change all that, and 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.
As everything is poisoned by perception and hypocrisy now — denying the undeniable gets easier by the day. 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
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. But you’re busy . . .
You’re always busy
And on that note
I couldn’t agree more
But there’s another reason why so many people misunderstand so many issues.
Professional know-it-alls like you pull stunts like this while peddling lines like that as cover: To whitewash your record of patently obvious hypocrisy and lies. 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?
At every turn . . .
The faithful tap dance around reality — oily evading anything that requires them to hold Sowell to his own standards.
Hard to Imagine:
That I have to explain that quote to people who seemingly live to flood the internet with his words.
He and his flock incessantly complain about the media — and they don’t make policy. But the second I scrutinize Sowell — suddenly you have new standards.
180 — how fitting
Mr. Loury & Mcwhorter:
How proud you must be that the asinine ways of your audience in blind defense of Sowell and the servile who serve him (including you). You had a chance to lead by example and show your audience & America how it’s done — and you pissed it away for your f#@king pride.
Not to mention this . . .
Speaking of the moon
Thanks to Sowell and his kind peddling that poppycock:
Not the tiniest trace of reasoning or molecule of courtesy 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?
Or Not . . .
Snowflake, Libtard, Libturd, Cupcake, Bush hater, Bush basher, Bush Derangement Syndrome, TDS, Demon-crat, Democrat Party
Stirring Defense
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 . . .
My idea is simple:
Cutting through our Crap is King culture to get you to see it — is not.
Where infantile insults are celebrated
The doubt-free who don’t do their homework are the experts.
Those who belittle and outright reject correction — are the righteous and wise. The ones with courage to admit when they’re wrong — are the weak. Tireless dedication is mercilessly mocked — while intellectual laziness is esteemed. Original thinking and uniqueness are bashed — while conforming to the trite is trumpeted. Depth is discarded with disdain — while shallowness is embraced with love.
The honest & sincere are shunned — while manipulators & liars are welcomed with open arms.
This is my story — and if you read it in full, you’ll find it’s part of your story too. You’ve all dealt with the same behavior I have — the difference is that I get it from every direction.
What part of any of this do you not understand?
Because once we get into Step 2, don’t come crying to me about what you can’t understand when you swatted away Step 1.
It’s not my writing, my graphics, or my documentary: The flaw is within you — and it always has been. You have no original ideas and have no questions for those who do. I have to spoon-feed you like a child while you spit it out and cry about being hungry. You have no imagination and are utterly devoid of any virtue that would allow for actual conversation to take place.
Almost every post points to an identifiable disconnect — enough to know that something’s not right with people you put on a pedestal. But you’re not looking to learn, you’re looking to respond.
And entire industries are engineering that need.
We get rewarded by hearts, likes, thumbs-up — and we conflate that with value, and we conflate it with truth.
“I think we have created tools that are ripping apart the social fabric of how society works,” . . . Palihapitiya’s criticisms were aimed not only at Facebook, but the wider online ecosystem.
Part II to come
I love you so much that I can’t leave you
Even though my mind tells me I should
But then you make me think that you still love me
And all my thoughts of leaving do no good . . .
You’ve got me heart over mind worried all the time
Knowing you will always be the same
You’ll keep hurting me I know but I still can’t let you go
Cause my heart won’t let my love for you change
One Voice Became Two 