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.
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.” . . . 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
Between Sowell’s words and mine — which ones strike you as glib?
My words and illustrations seem awfully specific for someone simply “attacking” Sowell, don’t ya think?
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
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
My surgical specificity in this clip puts this lie in its place in 5 minutes alone. 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.
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.
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):
Powell’s very own intelligence agency that he conveniently ignored. INR stuck to its old-fashioned ways by agreeing with DOE (ya know, the actual experts).
What did you do?
Besides gleefully get in the way by derailing the debate every step of the way? But more importantly, what will you do now?
Greg Thielmann said the following in 2013:
It will be up to Iraqis to debate whether their country now has a brighter future than it otherwise would have had without foreign invasion and occupation in the first decade of the new century. But it is uniquely incumbent on Americans to understand who and what were responsible for an enterprise that proved so costly in terms of U.S. lives lost, money spent, international reputation tarnished, and a campaign against al Qaeda diverted.
Note:
I modified the Intelligence Community image above by overlaying CIA on top of Director of National Intelligence — to show how the IC effectively operated pre-9/11 and before DCI took center stage.
America just casually moved on.
I didn’t — as I knew then what few know now:
The immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong, understanding why, and looking to learn from it. And that not doing so — increasingly compounds the consequences of no accountability.
Look around!
Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. In reference to its opening image on Without Passion or Prejudice, I wrote: “Half the country is with me on this — and I just lost the other half. Had I started with the image below — it would be the opposite half.” 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):
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.
What I do takes work — time & effort to think it through. If you’re unwilling to work in the interest of truth, understanding, and problem solving — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well. You may take pride in not blocking anyone, but I’m asking you to make an exception (so I’ll never bother you again). Is that really too much of a courtesy to ask?
Thank you!
When you make up your mind on lickety-split perception alone: In what parallel universe does that qualify as critical thinking? Ann Baker’s article 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.
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 . . .
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 the country fit under the umbrella of mine. If you’re not interested in such discovery, let’s not waste each other’s time. Thx 🙏
I’ve got an idea — and it’s got teeth. There’s a way we can harness folly from the past for the benefit of the future.
A.K.A. Learning!
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
My idea is simple:
Cutting through our Crap is King culture to 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.
Conventional means have repeatedly failed and won’t put a pinprick in the atmosphere of absurdity suffocating the country. It’s high time to take another approach. If we don’t take a long, hard look at what America has become and how we got here — we will not see a return to some semblance of recognizing reality in our lifetime. As my videographer perfectly put it
We finally figured out what we were doing by the end
If we don’t change course as a country — we won’t!
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 WMD Delusion (taking on both parties to task — on that issue and then some).
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
Are you telling me . . .
That I can grasp this — but you can’t grasp that?
Your pursuit of truth and accountability seems awfully one-sided, Mr. Sowell. And that’s a fact: “truth verifiable from experience or observation.” Just as my lifelong record of unwavering commitment to the truth and objective scrutiny to find it.
As I said in my doc:
You can’t seem to comprehend that I don’t care what damage the truth inflicts upon politicians of any brand. I have this crazy idea that across-the-board accountability is always in the best interests of the nation.
As for my frustration — I have this thing about people who regurgitate nonsense in the face of overwhelming evidence that counters their baseless beliefs.
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Anyone wanting to know the truth would not behave in ways that make damn sure you never will. Defenders of the indefensible make it impossible to discuss even a single screenshot — and yet have the temerity to bitch about my website. You blow right by illustrations and clips at the crux of the story — then complain how you can’t understand what you didn’t stop to consider.
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 . . .
But every once in a blue moon, someone has the guts the reconsider. Not long before this Tweet — this Sowell supporter was condemning my efforts like all the rest that day (and every day).
And then he opened the doc . . .
“To learn to ask: ‘Is that true?’” . . .
Maybe there’s something to what she just said. Let me think about it. That’s interesting. Maybe I should change my mind.’” . . . When is the last time you can honestly remember a public dialogue — or even a private conversation — that followed that useful course?
“[T]he role of knowledge and information in decisions”:
Sowell is possibly the most fascinating and productive scholar in the world. I say that not as a junior colleague of Sowell (I am a mere 69), but as someone who has studied his work for 44 years.
His scholarship covers a wide range of issues: income inequality, ethnic differences in economic performance, economic geography, poverty and economic growth, the destructive effects of the welfare state, the effects of affirmative action, the role of knowledge and information in decisions, incentives within the political system and within academia, and, more recently, the performance of charter schools.
What can we establish on the bit above?
First off, he’s heavily invested in seeing Sowell in the light that those 44 years have shown him. Secondly, “the role of knowledge and information in decisions” is on the table. Seems like evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb (to manufacture a war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11) — qualifies for consideration, don’t ya think?
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. You should be insulted by the fact that they’re not trying to convince me — they’re trying to convince you . . .
Even in the most unsophisticated years of my youth, I would have never bought something so impossibly simplistic as Sowell’s “said so and so” — and the Right’s ubiquitous belief that “everybody believed Iraq had WMD.” My mind would never allow me to accept something so easily. I don’t know how people find the path of least resistance so satisfying — as I love the demands of difficulty and discernment. To not step up my game in the midst of opportunity or challenge:
Would be tantamount to treason upon my very existence.
Sowell’s disciples have no interest in such a demanding way of life — as defending the faith is all that matters in the religious-like following around Sowell. They spread the gospel by mindlessly countering with boilerplate beliefs that have no bearing on the issues in question.
What works with them would never fly with me.
If you oversimplify an issue that clearly calls for careful examination, I know you’re hiding something. If you constantly complain about the other side and defend your own at every turn — you’re not playing by the rules you rail on others for failing to follow. Occasional criticism of your own party doesn’t qualify as having a history faithful to objective scrutiny.
Speaking of not playing by the rules . . .
Oh, how birds of a feather flock together:
I’d love to . . .
And I’d ask her to explain this — and a great deal more:
Associated Press, October 3rd, 2004: Rice said she learned of objections by the Energy Department only after making her 2002 comments.
Richard W. Memmer: Are we to believe that the National Security Advisor of the United States was unaware of an intelligence dispute of this magnitude that had been going on for well over a year?
One Congressional investigator went so far as to call it a holy war. And doesn’t it strike you as suspicious that she didn’t bother consulting the D.OE. before serving up images of a nuclear detonation?
— Act II
If that title doesn’t tell you something about 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.
The one constant on display through all these topics is an irrepressible mind digging through the data in order to understand the complex reality underneath. His intellectual process, plus his ability to write quickly, have resulted in dozens of books and hundreds upon hundreds of newspaper columns that have helped many of us learn.
— Professor Henderson
And about that “ability to write quickly”:
It’s not that difficult when you leave everything out that matters!
Professor Henderson supposedly likes to learn — so shedding light on Sowell with new information should be welcomed by someone touting “the role of knowledge and information in decisions.” His findings for 44 years shaped his solidified perception of Sowell — but what if he only went looking for what he wanted to find?
A lot of that goin’ around!
Secondly, “the one constant” . . .
Does not strike me as a claim that comes with caveats. Does this book cover imply he’s a Maverick only on the pages within? Of course not, it’s suggesting a way of life — and no rational person would argue otherwise.
Just as no rational person would contort the definition of “constant” by restricting it to the domain that isolates Sowell’s history to what serves you:
I focused on the issues where he really did dig through the data.
By that standard, I can isolate O.J. Simpson’s character to the football field and ignore that little matter of murder. So, we’ve gone from “irrepressible mind digging through the data” to “I just meant where he really did.”
A.K.A. Changing the Rules:
Right on cue | Never fails
Sowell had his own moves in mind . . .
Funny how none of ’em went anywhere near the evidence on WMD or anything else on that fiasco for the ages.
Two themes emerge from [Professor Henderson’s] writing: (1) that the unintended consequences of government regulation and spending are usually worse than the problems they are supposed to solve.
— Hoover Institution
But spending and unintended consequences didn’t cross your mind on this multi-trillion-dollar fiasco for the ages? And with all the wisdom in Sowell’s fancy quotes to float:
This “intellectual giant” couldn’t see that coming either?
Just how much of an “Intellectual Giant” could you be and blow it on something this big and glaringly obvious? This isn’t about intelligence, it’s about ulterior motives. But wouldn’t an intellectual giant have the foresight to see the inherent holes in his motives? That however well-intentioned they might be, catastrophic consequences tend to come with endless lying and ineptitude.
Not to mention the poison of partisanship to absolve it all — running the nation into the ground while you’re at it.
At what point does it dawn on you and your beloved Sowell — that blind loyalty to that cause would predictably damage your others? Ya know, like creating the conditions for Obama to come along and take race relations & woke totally off the rails.
Some genius!
In the film, Larry Elder describes Sowell as the “greatest contemporary living philosopher and notes that he causes people to “rethink their assumptions.” Rethinking and questioning our assumptions has long been en vogue in the academy, and if you really listen to what he has to say, few scholars will make you rethink your assumptions like Sowell will. If you’re looking for a one-hour introduction to one of the great minds of the last century, Common Sense in a Senseless World is exactly that.
— Art Carden
Next to zero . . .
Number of Sowell’s followers willing to “rethink their assumptions” — about the “greatest contemporary living philosopher” who “causes people to ‘rethink their assumptions.’” Speaking of Larry Elder: Do you really think this is the mark of Sowell’s standards (or that of an adult, for that matter)?
