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.
Dr. Henderson 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!
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.
Does that strike you as a valid counterargument in response to an issue involving artillery rockets and material properties of centrifuge rotors (an industry where fractions of a millimeter matter, no less)? Never mind that comeback doesn’t qualify as argument at all. A lot of that goin’ around too!
“Compared to What?”
That — looks an awful lot like this, doesn’t it?
But this — doesn’t look anything like that:
Sowell’s 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.
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 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.
As I spotted Sowell’s patterns of hypocrisy in a matter of minutes, I have to wonder what Clifton Duncan was doing during “3 months of deep immersion into the life and ideas of Dr. Sowell.” What he missed then is one thing — what he’s willing to miss now is something else entirely. It would never occur to this actor that he’d have a play for the ages by acting on the very principles upon which he puts Sowell on a pedestal.
Imagine coming across undeniable evidence that knocks him off his high horse. But instead of avoiding reality like Black Death — Duncan embraced the discovery to take his story to new heights. An in so doing, the ultimate irony is that he would “Become [the spirit of] Thomas Sowell” for real, as the image he believes in is an illusion.
“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!
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 too! Given the world-altering consequences of manufacturing a lie to invade a Middle Eastern country in the aftermath of 9/11: The chances of Sowell being a repeat offender on lying and/or manipulating matters in a manner outside the parameters of a Maverick:
But no need to fuss over predictions:
As I’ve already got the goods to prove his hypocrisy doesn’t end on WMD. 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 no rational person would argue otherwise).
Moreover: Anyone with a history wildly out of sync with their sanctimonious claims — should not be put on 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:
I take the trail to the truth and I don’t give a damn who gets in the way.
Not only did Sowell flagrantly fail to follow the facts on all-things Iraq — he brazenly ignored the debauchery in his own party to politely pounce on the other. And yet somehow his patently obvious history of hypocrisy has gone unnoticed for decades by people heaping praise upon him.
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.’” But all I need is one — the right one:
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?
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
About that concerned citizen:
As part of my exhaustively detailed research covering angle that matters most: I 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!
As I said in my doc:
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
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.” . . .
And yet somehow . . .
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 on 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 that 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
- By acknowledging that you’re wrong (in part or in whole) — you 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:
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 the Sowell supporter above and a handful of others — 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, is that a valid excuse to say I can’t comprehend it? 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 boot — on that issue and then some).
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 . . .
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 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?
On a matter of such magnitude, 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!
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.
