While I’m a fan of Sowell, it would be nice to get the WMD issue out of the way.
If one Sowell supporter could grasp that about my goal, why can’t you? You could grasp a great deal more if you didn’t start defending him before you even know what the issue is. And Sowell’s fanatical followers are so bothered by how much I have to say: That nowhere in their minds does it dawn on them to wonder why he said so little.
If evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb isn’t worthy of consideration, what is? There was a time when people saying, “Show Me the Evidence” would look at it when you did. Those days are long gone — eradicated by a world where authenticity amounts to flooding the internet with catchy quotes promoting principles you abandon the second they’re inconvenient.
Then crank out the hate-card when called to account, because you damn sure don’t have an argument.
Never mind this . . .
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.
And this gem is just priceless
Even if he said that stuff, your entire diatribe smacks of the now classic modern progressive tactic of taking a single mistake by anyone whose views they don’t like and using that one error in judgement to try and discredit ALL their work. Everyone is human and at least occasionally shows poor judgement.
Who said I disagreed with his work?
Outside of butchering the debate on WMD — and his partisan hackery in flagrantly ignoring his own camp’s abominable behavior, record of recklessness, systematic lying, and hypocrisy that knows no bounds: I haven’t come across anything I object to. As for economics, I’m not qualified on that front. Imagine — there are still people who measure their knowledge in such ways.
You introduce statements and arguments of people who aren’t Thomas Sowell
As this story is also
About the behavior of the echo chamber around Sowell — it’s kinda necessary to include other people to properly illustrate the problem. And I wouldn’t mind explaining everything — if you thought about anything.
I’m not out to “DESTROY” Sowell!
Quite the contrary! Stick around — you’ll see. Ask some questions, you’ll see more clearly. 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. But in order to do that — first you need to see that he is not the follower of facts he fashioned for you to see.
And that’s a fact:
truth verifiable from experience or observation
If you’d simply follow the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal, you’d recognize that reality plain as day. The only way you wouldn’t see the truth is because they don’t want to. I’ve written this story a hundred different ways when one Tweet is all it should take:
Thomas Sowell flagrantly failed to follow the facts on Iraq WMD — opting to peddle partisan hackery that poisons political discourse & butchers debate to this day. Here’s my 7-part documentary that exhaustively details the biggest and most costly lie in modern history
What happened to all this jazz?
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.
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?
If that title doesn’t tell you something my commitment to objective scrutiny, what would?
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.
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
While I have a higher purpose in mind for him, lemme put his empty claims in terms you’ll understand: If Sowell 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. I put it all on a silver platter for you 10 years ago:
When I Saw the Writing on the Wall
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 practically spit on for 20 years of telling undeniable truth of mathematical certainty (painfully obvious deception shaped everything you see today). No rational person would repeatedly deny the undeniable, and just minutes into any on post this site, you’d know something’s not right.
But you find it’s with me . . .
[As] I’m not and never have been familiar
I took on the automatons of the time (Left & Right). No one listened, and lo and behold — automatons exponentially multiplied. Those times were tame compared to today. The toxicity of venom has been taken to a whole other level with pride. We’re not talking about your love of talking about your love affair with facts — we’re talking about having a history of objective scrutiny that shows your commitment.
And for people who flaunt their love for facts — you sure have a helluva lot of hate for irrefutable facts that fly in the face of your calcified convictions.
As it turns out though — that is an opportunity (to take a problem and turn it into a solution).
And about those results . . .
If you’d take a break from broadcasting your beliefs once in a while, you might take notice of the counterproductive nature of the win-at-all-costs manner in which you pursue them.
The Yellow Brick Road
Path of America’s Predictably Counterproductive Pursuits
And how systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as convoluted. And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact. From decades of being increasingly accommodating of liars aligned with your interests:
You kept lowering the bar — and now there is no bar.
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.
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.
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 (courtesy of those think tanks some of you are so keen on as Sowell’s sources) . . .
At what point does it dawn on you and your beloved genius — that blind loyalty to that cause would be colossally counterproductive to your others? I’m not brilliant and I figured that out all by myself. The Right treating Bush like the Second Coming of Christ — set the stage for the rise of the Rock Star they spent the next 8 years railing against.
That doesn’t strike me as sound strategy. Dumb, dishonest, and delusional wars don’t either.
Nice work!
Sowell’s hailed as a folk hero for calling out problems he helped create (and takes no responsibility for any of it) — which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal. This man has a patently obvious history of hypocrisy & lies — and yet he’s worshipped as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes.
And that — is an opportunity!
I tend to believe Thomas Sowell. He is brilliant and has worked at a think tank for about 40 years. Sources matter! Yours is from a concerned citizen.
Stirring defense!
And this concerned citizen interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist, corresponded with the key physicist who wrote extensively on the tubes, along with correspondence with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR).
What did you do besides take great delight in derailing the debate every step of the way? But more importantly, what will you do now? And about those think tanks (that never talked to any of the above or anyone else with actual expertise on the issue):
Oh, how birds of a feather flock together:
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. 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:
A.K.A.
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
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.
Just picking the “root cause” that works for you doesn’t cut it. You’ve gotta look at interconnected causes across-the-board.
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.
[D]eep thinkers look at the whole sequence of events and the consequences.
There was a time when we did
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it
— M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Traveled
In a nation that incessantly blames and complains (seemingly for sport) — no one’s taking responsibility for anything. 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.
But Sowell’s supporters make it impossible to have this conversation even within a single frame (never mind the bigger picture). They’re hardly alone in being so paralyzed by politics they can’t walk and chew gum at the same time. I’m beginning to wonder if there’s anyone out there who can process anything that doesn’t come in the form of fodder in a trough.
That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong or of no value — it means that repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving:
It’s the mark of a market
The solution to this problem is more truth, not less.
No, it’s not. You cannot forever beat something into the ground and think it’ll magically make a dent someday. And even if by some miracle it does, wouldn’t you want to know if you could have cut out years or even decades had you been smart about it? And what does it say to you that such simplistic thinking as “more truth, not less”:
Is canon across echo chambers that think they’re part of some revolution in reason — then outright reject it when called to account?
A.K.A.
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
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.
Something’s not right
World-altering words in the right hands — and believe it or not, even in your hands.
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).
As I said in my doc:
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
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 . . .
There is no measure for how asinine these acolytes are in defending the indefensible — automatons devoid of rational thought & manners. Your behavior has not an atom of integrity, courtesy, curiosity, courage, decency, effort:
Or any virtue of any kind
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):
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
And thanks to all that (which Sowell is central to while engineering the illusion that he’s aboveboard on every issue he utters a word about) . . .
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.
There 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. You’re not a “critical thinker” because it says so in your bio. Without thinking things through and inquiring for any clarity required — your claims don’t mean jack.
“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.
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.
“WUT” reflects a society tuning in to people who perpetuate problems under the pretense of seeking to solve them. Some are sincere (or at least started out that way). But they all lose their way in the adulation and rewards from feeding the frenzy. I coined Star Wars Syndrome to capture the plague of allowing nostalgia to create the illusion that a movie is far better than it actually is. In and of itself, wildly exaggerating the quality of movies is harmless.
But when it becomes habit in how you see everything — either gushing with over-the-top praise or seething with over-the-top scorn:
That’s a plague!
You think I just come up this stuff out of thin air?
Echo chambers across social media worship channel hosts as “National Treasures” — treating them like they’re some of the greatest minds to ever live. At the helm of these cesspools of certitude — are people 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 wise in their ways:
They’re oblivious to how they’re feeding the very problems they’re ostensibly trying to solve.
Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant.
— Blurb to On Bullshit by Harry G. Frankfurt
V for Victory & Venom for Values
A fantasyland for fragile egos: Where you can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about.
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.
What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? These people taking endless delight in flooding the internet with ceaseless claims about their immaculate critical thinking skills.
But the second they’re challenged on anything that is even perceived as threatening their interests:
don’t do any of this
Ann Baker beautifully captures what critical thinking is and is not:
Indeed, nowadays, we tend to take in and repeat whatever the values and beliefs of those around us have rather than forming our own independent thought and stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
Where the rubber meets the road:
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?
The bullshitter . . . does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does, and oppose himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all. By virtue of this, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.
A.K.A.
[S]topping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving.
If you won’t watch my doc then ignore excerpts from it: Thanks for stopping by, but it’s time for you to leave. No more crying about my website and how you can’t understand what you refuse to consider.
If you’re turned off by this — that’s the point (to weed you out).
I’ve got an idea that could turn the tide, and if I have to coddle you to see it — you’re not the type to take an interest in the first place. I beat the hell out of both sides, and if you can’t handle some heat — you don’t qualify (so I don’t need ya). Call me whatever you like, I don’t care. For 20 years, I’ve been shown nothing but contempt for telling undeniable truth. When it comes to self-satisfied scorn, I’ve heard it all and I’ve seen it all (and made the most of it by making examples out of hermetically sealed minds).
A go-to tactic of the doubt-free is to make damn sure the debate never reaches the merits of the matter. I’ve seen highly intelligent people derail discussions by claiming that “everything’s just an opinion!” Nobody really believes that — it’s just a cop-out. And if you call ‘em on it, they fall back on Old Faithful — “agree to disagree.” How this hijacked-for-hackery catchphrase caught on over the years can be charted with the times:
Where things that once meant something, now mean nothing.
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 looks like he’s on point?
“Compared to What?”
That principle is built into the doc imagery staring you straight in the face. And since this issue involves an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter: My answer to “What hard evidence do you have?” is as concrete as it gets.
You can’t have “Compared to What?” without comparing what’s in question.
In the aftermath of 9/11, the marquee evidence used to sell a war in the Middle East is as critical as comparison gets. In my documentary and throughout this site: I address Sowell’s pieces littered with talking points. Mr. Sowell: Could You Tell Me What JAEIC Is? encapsulates my key arguments on that front (but there’s much more where that came from in the doc).
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 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).
I didn’t say they shouldn’t get their act together:
All I did was draw a parallel to make a point. And if you’d abide by the principles you promote, you’d find that my efforts include how the opposition should consider your valid points (and how you should consider theirs). You have no such notion — congratulating yourselves for happily ignoring my exhaustively detailed arguments on what matters most:
So you can counter with what doesn’t matter at all.
Colin Powell did not go to to the U.N. with a laundry list of quotes by Democrats, but to this day — people shovel that shit while proudly refusing to consider anything that doesn’t fit the formula. When challenged on their calcified convictions that cannot survive even the slightest scrutiny:
They run away so they can sling slogans another day — never having to answer for their asinine assertions.
The meaningless quotes below
Have no bearing on the tubes!
Just what would it take for you see the self-evident? It’s beyond belief that this had to be explained back then — but incredibly, to this day half the country still clings to this crap. Your kin who came before you made rational debate impossible when it mattered most (and you proudly carry on the tradition). Now, when it could matter in a way that could right this ship: You go out of your way to not comprehend what could not be more crystal clear.
As you refuse to address anything I’ve said as you redirect the discussion in any direction that allows you to avoid having to answer for anything.
My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone.
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?
Funny thing about information:
You’re not looking to listen & 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.
I know the program, all too well!
If I did cartwheels on TikTok to tell this story — you’d take issue with my form. We’ve created a culture that gripes over “flashy graphics” while worshipping liars in the images. Constant complaining has become a virtue — where everything of value is in the gain you get in the moment:
And easy is all the rage!
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.
Some of your favorite authority figures throw 99 items of shit on the wall to make damn sure you never discuss what matters most. And how eagerly you comply with the contempt they conditioned you to have for anyone exposing the truth and how they gutted it with your help.
So when someone comes along tell you a story about everything they conveniently left out: Offering a concrete case built by exhaustively detailed arguments rooted in mathematical certainty in centrifuge physics in uranium enrichment (an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter):
Right on cue . . .
Without an atom of courage, courtesy, conscience, or curiosity — you redirect the “debate” to authority figures who redirected the “debate” (giving you the blueprint for slinging the same bullshit). So, the guy who wrote & produced a 7-part series totaling 2 hours and 40 minutes (by far, the most exhaustive doc ever done on WMD):
Taking both parties to task on the biggest and most costly lie in modern history (along with other issues at the core of America’s decline) . . .
What do we have for him?
But for this guy
Who cranked out a couple of 2-minute reads less than 800 words each: Not one of which addresses the tubes that took us to war or anything else of substance on this saga of endless absurdity . . .
This is your gold standard for getting to the truth (no matter how many times he and his kind gutted it). In your “where’s your facts?” refrain of an automaton — you blow off my doc that’s chock-full of facts on this fiasco for the ages:
To follow the facts to where there are none to be found:
Everything that guy just said is bullshit!
If you don’t like my illustrations, go read the bone-dry reports for yourselves: And I’ve got plenty more material to add to your reading list. But that takes work — and why bother when you can just ridicule those who did it for you.
One picture is worth a thousand words:
When you don’t want the pictures and you don’t want the words — what would you have me do?
And once I did it
We both know your next move . . .
If 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:
Einstein borrowed from the one below:
The worth of man lies not in the truth which he possesses, or believes that he possesses, but in the honest endeavor which he puts forth to secure that truth; for not by the possession of, but by the search after, truth, are his powers enlarged, wherein, alone, consists his ever-increasing perfection. Possession fosters content, indolence, and pride.
— Gotthold Ephraim Lessing
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.
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.
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.
That’s funny, because I haven’t seen a shred of that in 20 years on this topic (or any other) — by people couldn’t craft a sound argument on the subject to save their lives. And no, this is not just about targeting an organization called F.A.I.R. (which didn’t even exist back then). It’s simply an illustration that paints a picture about how people seem to think that wearing a “badge of beliefs” equates to embodying them.
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?
You people and your pledges & slogans, I swear.
From first-hand experience: A fairly prominent personality on their board didn’t go anywhere near their precious pledge when I took his hero to task. And there’s at least a handful who wouldn’t either in the blindly defending the same guy. And he’s not the only hypocrite in that circle. I challenged a far more famous pundit who’s known for peddling his love for facts — and he acted like a child in denying the undeniable. And by the way, I contacted him as a fan at the time.
Politicians and pundits are not gods. When you treat them as such — you do a cosmic disservice to them, yourselves, the country, and the world as well. Look around! 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. If you’re gonna promote a pledge on such things — seems like you should do such things.
F.A.I.R has no such notion of fairness:
Guess they didn’t take too kindly to my title:
Or my letter
(FedExed and all)
For all those who pooh-pooh expertise these days: Lemme remind you that you had no trouble appreciating the importance of material properties in comparing this toy vs. a craft like Cameron’s.
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 destruction, trillions of dollars & counting, and poisons political discourse to this day and probably generations to come.
Never heard of him
I’m not surprised
If you understand baseline information on material properties in one context: Shouldn’t you be able to grasp the exact same principles in another? Anyone entering this discussion with sincerity — would come away realizing that there is no debate, and there never was.
They just made it up
Red Team Paper: Nevertheless, by September 2001, the matter had more or less been settled. There was no serious debate within the intelligence community. One stubborn WINPAC analyst does not constitute a debate.
Richard W. Memmer: Then 9/11 happened — and whad’ya know, the tubes were resurrected.
— Act I
For two decades
America has made it impossible to have that conversation: Painfully obvious deception that shaped everything you see today. But we’ve got all the time in the world to talk about Titan:
Strikingly similar — don’t ya think? . . .
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
That’s Entertainment
This is work! Where your bullshit beliefs get put in the dustbins of self-delusion where they belong.
Something’s not right
Just as something wasn’t right with Stockton Rush and Elizabeth Holmes (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 by definition, 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
A lot of that goin’ around too
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
Walsh asked questions unwelcomed by a world wrapping its arms around a cancer survivor who came back to dominate the sport of cycling.
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 . . .
PART II TO COME
In this meantime, if you’re like a glimpse of into where this is going, feel free to take a look-see at this. It’s just finished yet but enough to plant the seed.
One Voice Became Two 