Believe it or not, the best way to serve your interests is to first and foremost — hold your own accountable. If you want to make the opposition look bad, try looking good. If you want to have the moral high ground, try earning it:
The moral high ground, in ethical or political parlance, refers to the status of being respected for remaining moral, and adhering to and upholding a universally recognized standard of justice or goodness.
The story I’m out to tell takes both parties to task on the biggest and 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.
Wouldn’t it be something if an idea that threw you for a loop — piqued your curiosity to probe for more? But outside of those who inspired this post, I’ve faced a culture that “insist upon ‘affirmation independent of all findings’” (borrowing from Peck who borrowed from Buber).
They make it impossible to have this conversation within a single frame — let alone the bigger picture!
As in — not this . . .
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.
In the face of centrifuge physics — that is your argument?
Trillion Dollar Tube
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?
“Garbage website. Next.” . . .
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
That you even think that a story so complex and convoluted could be explained away so easily — is a monumental problem all by itself. And without even the most basic insight into anything on this story:
That camp has a habit of glossing over global issues of catastrophic consequences with . . .
“Seems”
About those think tanks . . .
What’s Wrong With This Picture?
And this one . . .
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 DOE before serving up images of a nuclear detonation?
— Act II
Holy War
Sowell’s hailed as a folk hero for calling out problems he helped create (and takes no responsibility for any of it).
A lot of that goin’ around!
“Remember what the Dormouse said”:
I’d know that’s important (just as I’d know that blurring out #1 and crossing out 2 & 3 is key to the story). I’d recognize that the imagery is about correlating events. And if I didn’t understand all that — I’d damn sure want to.
I didn’t get the memo . . .
When did acquiring knowledge become: “I don’t understand everything — so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything“? Would you browse a textbook then blame the teacher for your failure to understand the material? If you’re gonna blow right by illustrations and clips at the crux of the story: Don’t complain that you can’t understand what you didn’t stop to consider.
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 image — and yet have the temerity to bitch about my website.
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 . . .
What I Do Requires Work
As in actual critical thinking:
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.
— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload
“Fading”?
In our Age of Unenlightenment — that’s an understatement for the ages. That America makes it impossible to have a conversation on the most concrete evidence imaginable (on the fiasco for the ages that shaped everything you see today):
Embodies how far off the rails this nation has gone.
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.
It’s a mighty fine day when you wake up to high praise from a man of Glenn Loury’s caliber — twice! He once called my writing “brilliant,” was “honored by it,” and “blown away” by my site and signed up.
Alas, he wasn’t too keen on the truth when I took his hero to task.
I have no idea what you’re talking about . . .
There was a 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 upon “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.
On that note:
People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.
— Thomas Sowell
I’m Not Out to “DESTROY” Sowell
Quite the contrary!
Stick around — you’ll see. Ask questions, you’ll see more clearly. That his fanatical followers instantly assume bad motives (issuing rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full): Is in gross breach of the standards he espouses. You’ve been playing that hate-card crap for decades — and I’m keenly aware that the Left plays the same games.
I’ll get to them later, but in the meantime:
They’re not flooding the internet on a daily basis with quotes like this:
In light of that — how do you explain this:
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 . . .
Check . . .
About that “mudslinging” . . .
fact: truth verifiable from experience or observation
If you have a history of hypocrisy and lying — you are a hypocrite and a liar. If you don’t like being called those things, don’t do those things. But so typical of the times — nothing has meaning anymore.
Calling any and all criticism “mudslinging” is just somethin’ to say to escape scrutiny.
And the irony is:
I’ve received almost nothing but mudslinging for decades — by people who cry foul with counterfeit claims on what they do for real. And let’s face it: You need it to be mudslinging, because if it’s not — your binary beliefs are gonna fall apart.
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?
And 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?
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)
- 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)
All that sounds a lot like “investing pennies and getting dollars back.”
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. Are you telling me — that this guy and a handful of others just happened to have a Rosetta Stone to reason through what you can’t?
About that concerned citizen:
In addition to interviewing a world-renowned nuclear scientist, I also corresponded with the key physicist who wrote extensively on the tubes, along with corresponding 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:
As in, the actual experts!
For all those who pooh-pooh expertise these days:
Lemme remind you that you had no problem respecting industry standards when comparing Stockton’s toy to a craft like Cameron’s. If you can understand baseline information on materials in one context: Shouldn’t you be able to grasp the exact same principles in another? I realize his 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 . . .
“Anything by Thomas Sowell!”
Great! Let’s discuss . . .
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 — he didn’t!
“Without [the tubes], they had nothing”:
And nothing on the tubes (or anything else of substance on this endless saga of absurdity): Is what you’ll find in Thomas Sowell’s articles on Iraq WMD. His 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.
And the hits just keep on comin’ . . .
It’s a sign of the times that even on matters of quantifiable fact — there are competing camps for rigging your own reality. We have The Math Club (with the latest in fashion being the Philosophical Fluff Faction): Who find meaning in “mathematical certainty” having no meaning:
As any proper scientist can explain to you, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence OR mathematical certainty
Well, since I interviewed Dr. Houston Wood (among the world’s preeminent experts on uranium enrichment — a topic you have yet to even acknowledge): Perhaps we should discuss what he said.
Instead of “any proper scientist” as the arbiter of truth?
Something’s Not Right . . .
Start with those 3 little words of wonder and you’ll be amazed at the clarity that comes with it. Then there’s this crew in the club with the mentality of a mob:
Who want to feel right even in the face of what could not be more wrong.
So, on an issue involving the separation of uranium isotopes:
You wanna ignore the evidence to show off your math skills by splitting hairs over the meaning of “mathematical certainty”? By the way, decorating your points with special punctuation does not make meaningless crap magically have merit. But who cares when keeping with tradition with 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
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.
Behold my “Shrine of Hatred”
To Your Beloved 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?
Thanks to all that . . .
Now this counts as conversation:
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
Are you telling me . . .
That I can grasp this — but you can’t grasp that?
The Russians said so.
The British said so.
Bill Clinton said so.
Leaders of both political parties said so.
a.k.a. Glib:
On a matter of world-altering consequence: What does it say about Sowell being glib while criticizing people he claims are being glib?
“The British said so”? . . .
“smooth-tongued” or “slippery”
“Or to talk around the subject”
By never go anywhere near this:
Take note of the trite & trendy language that follows: Strikingly in sync with Sowell’s, don’t ya think?
CIA is not the all knowing God of the Bible. The CIA could do everything 100% correct but still not know everything.
There’s another reason why they wouldn’t know everything: Nuclear scientists don’t work there — they work at the Department of Energy:
And that — is what this is all about.
You’d know that had you watched Trillion Dollar Tube instead of trying to educate me on things you know nothing about.
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!
As with what counts as conversation today:
This is what now counts as critical thinking: Flagrantly ignoring facts that fly in the face of your calcified convictions (then delighting in telling others to try some critical thinking). Funny how “stopping to organize and evaluate the information we are receiving” — is nowhere to be found in the force field of fallacy they hide behind.
What is the subject matter?
Shouldn’t ya know — since you’re advocating for critical thinking and all? Understanding what you’re disagreeing about seems like a pretty important place to start. And we’re not talking about “the works” you’re aware of:
We’re talking about these works . . .
Then tell me how [Sowell] was wrong about one thing that he has no expertise in.
Lemme Get This Straight
A layperson with limited resources and no connections:
- Can do countless hours of research & writing
- Interview a world-renowned nuclear scientist
- Correspond with Colin Powell’s chief of intelligence — along with a key physicist
- Spend $15,000 of his own money to write & produce the most detailed documentary ever done on WMD (taking both parties to task for it)
Qualifying me to exhaustively explain how half the country could not be more wrong on this issue of world-altering consequence. But it’s all good . . . that Sowell cranked out this crap that any Iraq War cheerleading jackass could issue in chain-letter lies — topped off with smug sloganeering.
After all — he doesn’t have any expertise in it.
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
Case in Point
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?
In response to my appreciation, he replied with a sincere question that’s central to the whole story.
Asking questions in the pursuit of truth & understanding! Not to mention the importance of politeness and the courtesy in following up (as I hadn’t seen it):
He said, “I’ll give it a gander” on the doc and he did:
Keeping his word and coming around in ways so few have the courage to do. We could move mountains with more people like that. “Give it a gander” is like the cowboy code below. Duvall’s nod of acknowledgement embodies an honor code in one’s willingness to listen. I love the idea of the journey you can take in that “roll” — that pausing even for a split-second can be life-altering. And I would know — many times over.
Just Roll It Around Is All I Ask!
This nation has no such notion:
And it shows! . . .
For Over Two Decades:
America has made it impossible to have this conversation: Painfully obvious deception that shaped everything you see today. But we’ve got all the time in the world to talk about Titan.
And you’re all in tune on materials when you find the topic entertaining:
