The main point to me is that [the players] have to be coordinated, and the 10 people have to support what that 11th guy is doing, and vice versa. . . . The only way that can happen is for there to be discipline, for everyone to be disciplined enough to do their job, knowing the guy beside him is doing his, too, so that you can count on him and he can count on you, and go right down the line.
— Bill Belichick
If a former manager included that title as part of a reference, I’d be fine with it — as long as it came with the “We wouldn’t be here without you!” part he once told me. Of course, they could have found somebody — but would that somebody deliver what I did just a few days into the job? The only way I could pull that off was by going to the right person (as I wrote in a letter to ECOLAB executives in the excerpt below):
When I started as a contractor in [March] 2023, 3 days into the job I was asked if there was any way we could meet their deadline, to which I replied:
Let me talk to the BA and we’ll see
She had never done a digital whiteboard before, but she accommodated my request and I had everything I needed in no time. Rather than wait until Monday to tell management the good news about what could be done, I just went and did it. But my role in that success is secondary to the person who provided the information in a manner outside their comfort zone.
That I never saw such openness in her again is one thing. That she became increasingly hostile toward me (and that this behavior was tolerated by leadership for months) — is something else entirely.
I doubt some other somebody would get up in the middle of the night to check-in with that key colleague during deployments. No matter how I felt — no matter how she treated me: When she asked, “How long can you stay?” The answer was “as long as you need.”
That same letter started with “I contacted HR to raise a code-of-conduct complaint against one of Ecolab’s best, and I was mysteriously fired a month later.” Somehow that experience and all that led to it — doesn’t remotely reflect the image above (which is par for the course in the culture we’ve become). In a world where rigging your own reality has become normalized: You can decorate your walls and website with lofty language (complete with how you care about “Candidate Feedback”):
And then not care one bit about feedback from somebody who actually worked there.
When that somebody is as forthright as it gets with their own mistakes — you damn well better be willing to listen up about your own. Contrary to increasingly popular opinion, quotes of virtue are meaningless without action that consistently reflects them.
And when you fall short from time to time — suck it up and say so! Allow me to demonstrate:
That my experience was nothing like ECOLAB’s claims — is invaluable information in the right hands: As in someone who welcomes what’s real to shed light on what’s not. Someone who recognizes their role in where things went wrong — and wants to know what they could have done to get it right.
You don’t have to ponder possibilities to the extent I do (or as what’s advocated in the book below). But even a little goes a long way:
Who pulled the plug and why is unclear to me. What I do know is that the powers that be did absolutely nothing in the interest of making anyone smarter (or doing anything of virtue at all). I’d never gone to HR in my entire career — but this time, I decided to learn from not seeking assistance in the past. That they took a month to do what should take an afternoon is not what I had in mind for “help.”
Particularly when I was booted out the door — by the binary beliefs embodied by these doors:
That — is not this . . .
In that story from a lifetime ago: It took minutes to make magic from what would have gone to waste in the wrong hands. Dictionary.com defines insight as “penetrating mental vision or discernment; faculty of seeing into inner character or underlying truth.” Lots of people like to think they’re insightful, but very few have that.
And if you don’t have it — you’re never gonna get it by taking the easy way out.
Imagine that manager interviewing for his dream job and he’s asked to tell of a time in how he handed a conflict and what came of it. He’d have some solid gold to share on that deal.
What would ECOLAB have to say on the same question?
We took the path of resistance by getting rid of the guy who asked for help and got none
Once she got word that I’d be taking over her database role (which she wasn’t qualified to be doing in the first place): She went from frosty to frigid in no time. On a global project of this magnitude (particularly with a limited widow to work together when we’re an ocean away): It’s pure folly to think you can run a shop smoothly when two of the most essential people for processing the results — can’t even have a one-on-one conversation.
My managers were apparently powerless in approaching her behavior head-on. But they blew golden opportunities to go around the problem. When I implemented a task-tracking system: Instead of caving into her wishes to not take an active role in QA — they squandered the conduit of communcation that would have come from it. Those managers are exceptional in ways I’ll never be, but they’re so wrapped up in their world — they didn’t see the bigger picture in mine (which has a direct impact on theirs).
In any other project I’ve ever been on — none of this would have happenend (as the regularity of working with her would have averted all this going off the rails). But with the nature of this hurry-up-and-wait project (combined with her long absense on medical leave):
We lost multiple windows of opportunity.
And with someone who clings to even the slightest of perceived slights and never lets go (not to mention making a federal case out of everything — including our interaction in implementing that tracking system).
Work was the way to work it out — by elevating the level of what was expected of her (little by little).
So, they weren’t powerless after all — they just didn’t have the insight to see the moves available to them. A lot of that goin’ around! And rather than learn how to develop it by taking The Road Less Traveled:
They took the beaten-down path so typically taken.
Which is worlds away from what I do:
Lara walked along the tracks following a path worn by pilgrims and then turned into the fields. Here she stopped and, closing her eyes, took a deep breath of the flower-scented air of the broad expanse around her. It was dearer to her than her kin, better than a lover, wiser than a book. For a moment she rediscovered the purpose of her life.
She was here on earth to grasp the meaning of its wild enchantment and to call each thing by its right name, or, if this were not within her power, to give birth out of love for life to successors who would do it in her place.
― Doctor Zhivago (referenced in Into the Wild)
In the spirit of discovery that clarity, curiosity, and courage can inspire:
ECOLAB has no notion . . .
And called nothing by its right name while striving to do their best at box-ticking: Glued to their precious paint-by-numbers protocol. As I wrote in Part I of:
I wouldn’t give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn’t have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a — a little lookin’ out for the other fella, too . . .
— Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
But why concern yourself with your fellow man when he’s just a contractor? Why talk to him when we don’t have to? That’s precisely why these people will never have a story like the leader who rose to the occasion above. That I wasn’t an employee was irrelevant to him. He objectively weighed my concerns and responded accordingly from information acquired by inquiry and insight.
As absurd as it was to take a month to make a decision on this fiasco — it seems in all that time, you could have spared a little to hear my side of the story. Yeah, you had a batch of emails (which I provided with utmost transparency). But even if you had all of ’em — they’d never tell you what my voice would (bringing to life the living hell she put me through). And yet that same voice would tell you of her qualities in the same breath of her faults (adding my own mistakes into the mix as well).
And yet the one person who would share all that with such honesty and forthrightness — was fired without even knowing why. To borrow from someone talking about Too Big to Fail — this quote is perfectly fitting for the folly I have seen too many times:
Here’s the problem with what’s happened to our culture: You’re not required to be ethical — as long as you’re legal.
Perhaps you got wind of what I said to Enterprise Architecture and didn’t like my tone in that Twilight Zone of ineptitude being tolerated.
Speaking of tone . . .
As I wrote on . . .
Thanks to the BA doing what she does best, I got what I needed inside of a week. They had 6 and had nothing. How could they when they didn’t bother talking to the people doing the work? What’s all the more absurd is that with existing solutions on a silver platter — you could rebuild it all in 6 weeks. And yet you’re sitting there excusing these people for their pathetic performance. That’s got politics written all over it — as I know for a fact that’s not how my managers really felt.
All the more insulting to my intelligence was the notion that this was a “team effort.”
In what parallel universe?
By furthering this façade with excuses, it allowed them to rationalize their ways (and I’d seen a lifetime of that in the last 6 months alone). And the icing on the cake: Acting as though I’m territorial in my resistance (never mind that’s got nothin’ to do with it). If you wanna replace my work with a new tool — then do it, but do so intelligently. I saw nothing of the kind (not to mention the significant loss in functionality that didn’t seem to be a factor for consideration).
That’s not to suggest it’s a bad tool — it’s whether or not it fits the bill.
When the machine has taken the soul from the man It’s time to leave something behind . . . Oh, wisdom is lost in the trees somewhere Oh, you’re not gonna find it in some mental gray hair It’s locked up from those who hurry ahead
My managers apparently have no such notion of discernment in offering a reference. And right on cue with the entirely transactional nature of our times: An agency rep left me hanging on whether or not one of ’em came through. In any case, the delay was enough to open the door to what happened (as I told him in full transparency). To his credit, he was still open to working with me — but I never heard from him again (even after I inquired on what happened on the references).
I don’t take issue with him passing on me — I take issue with his lack of courtesy. As that — is at the core of what this is all about. Just like my manager’s words below are central to the story. Clearly, they point to the mysterious politics protecting her: Amounting to a monumental obstacle in the way of my managers properly addressing this problem.
Keep in mind — this exchange was in early February. I was still dealing with this nighmare in July:
Rick, I asked you yesterday to step back from this and let me work through this. The escalation of emails has now put me in a very compromising position. . . . I now have to spend my weekend figuring out what to do next.
— [Manager2] 2/9 8:15 AM
Lemme enlighten you on how this game is played by those who think they’re insightful. They love low-hanging fruit like “escalation of emails” — and don’t stop to wonder what’s rotten in the state of Denmark on the rest. To be sure, what transpired in the emails is of vital importance — but that’s a symptom of the problem. What’s going on underneath “very compromising position” is the root of it.
The insightful don’t seek the truth simply by relying on what was said — as their radar is also scanning for what’s not being said. I’ll never know what was really going on there. But what I do know is that if you’re operating in a managerial capacity, you have an inherent responsibility to handle such problems (whether you have authority over that person or not).
I was hired to provide technical expertise — not deal with ECOLAB’s personnel problems. Not to mention how you let her lack of database skills get in the way of me fully utilizing mine (wasting resources, time, and money while you’re at it). And by the way, if a company squanders multiple opportunities to elevate skilled and dedicated resources for the benefit of all parties involved:
It’s time to take a long, hard look in the mirror (or at least look at your website):
Every job comes with a certain degree of putting up with the pettiness of people and politics. But allowing this colleague’s behavior to persist for 6 months is egregiously out-of-bounds. If I were in their shoes, even at the risk of my job (or perhaps putting that entire project in jeopardy): There’s no way in the world I’d allow this to continue on my watch. And that ain’t lofty language — it’s as real as it gets:
Rick’s the type of guy who would lose his job on principle
When a friend and former colleague said that in 2007 — while I knew it to be true, even I’ve been surprised how many times it’s come true. I’ve damn near burned my career on principle, but incredibly — I’ve always managed to come out ahead somehow. I like to think of myself as a connoisseur on silver linings — so I’ve got capitalizing on setbacks down to a science. To be sure, I’ve paid a heavy price for my principles many times over — but the gains far outweigh the loss.
If you can’t see how that applies to America and mankind itself — I don’t know what to tell ya (and I’ve been telling you for a long time). I put it all on a silver platter for you 10 years ago:
When I Saw the Writing on the Wall
You cannot be, I know, nor do I wish to see you an inactive Spectator . . . If we expect to inherit the blessings of our Fathers, we should return a little more to their primitive Simplicity of Manners, and not sink into inglorious ease.
We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.
— Abigail Adams, 16 October 1774
ECOLAB is not at fault for my employment predicament, but their mentality is (the same one the insightful congratulate themselves for in seeing a pattern developing).
There’s a pattern alright — as I’ve always clashed with a culture that increasingly values bullshit as currency. But no matter how far I’ve had to repeatedly lower my expectations — my concessions could never keep up with the pace of pampering that plagues our society. I’ve got an idea on how to change all that and a great deal more:
But “it’s locked up from those who hurry ahead.”
My aim was always to find a home where I could settle in for an ever-evolving future — a quest for belonging in the right company, with a crew that continually hones its craft. I wanted one tiny space in the world where people do right by one another — and rise to the occasion when we don’t.
All I ask for now is that people be in the ballpark of their beliefs, but even that seems too much to ask.
Or even a reference with “We wouldn’t be here without you!” And when they rightly followed with “He could have done a better job of handling how we didn’t do ours”: Would they tell ’em how they didn’t need a “creative solution” to pick up the phone the same day I took issue with Enterprise Architecture? Would they mention how they excused that crew’s incredibly half-assed ways of implementing a new tool and called it “teamwork”?
Not to mention talking behind their backs in sync with what I was saying right in front of them.
This seedless watermelon bit from Seinfeld perfectly captures the aburdity of it all. I don’t dispute that I could have done a better job at containing my disgust with Enterprise Architecture, but in the midst of my ongoing nightmare (not to mention working day and night for weeks): Having to hear their horseshit excuses called “teamwork” was too much to take.
Colleague in Poland puts a person through hell. Refuses do to her job on even the tiniest of tasks I assigned to her. Intolerant and inflexible as it gets. Doesn’t listen and dramatizes everything over nothing. Won’t take a phone call to iron out problems in minutes she’s been dragging out for months.
All that’s perfectly permisslable, but telling these people the truth they needed to hear:
That’s gotta stop! . . .
Right on cue . . .
Let’s not concern ourselves with their haphazard approach and ridiculous rationalizations to absolve themselves: Of paramount importance is admonishing the person calling out the elephant in the room (and never doing anything about the elephant).
Wars have started that way. Look around — you’ll see.
Excuses and pampering is the mark of professionalism to you? Same goes for talking behind their backs to play it safe? How about not reading emails detailing drama that only existed because they didn’t have the guts to deal with it (then blame me when it blows)?
Is that professional too?
How I’d love to work for people who think like this leader below (though in no way am I implying that the BA falls into the second sentence — as I know she works hard).
If you come here, you are going to need to want to be pushed, to be challenged, to work. If you are here to collect a paycheck, or to show up, don’t come.
— Ric Elias, CEO of Red Ventures
I want to work around people who let their actions speak for themselves (demonstating insight instead of advertising empty overtures on it). The ones who’d see what this says:
Coming with the curiosity . . .
To wonder what this says:
And respects the humility in what this says:
And recognizes the limitless possibilities in:
And see how it all fits an incredibly consistent story — where one’s claims square with their record (including where he fell short and what he did to try to make to right):
And see that this guy’s got a story to tell:
That he was the genuine article all along — going up against a world that likes to think they are. Despite it all with the pooh-poohers of possibility (I’d hate to think of a life without them). Forever on the front lines of lowering the bar while I’m trying to raise it — you’ve been a constant companion almost all my life.
Where would I be without you?
Remember that guitar in a museum in Tennessee And the nameplate on the glass brought back twenty melodies And the scratches on the face Told of all the times he fell Singin’ every story he could tell . . .
It was as if they had looked at all the possibilities Rock had to offer, and built their music out of only the best parts . . . Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers made music like the last of the true believers. They gave back to their audience what they took from Rock & Roll themselves . . . the best of everything.
Sounds like a good way to build a company and a country — but that’s me.
The best of everything: Imagine! Yeah, yeah, yeah — I know it would never be like “the best” above or even close. But come on! We could at least do something in that spirit, couldn’t we?
About that dream . . . it lives on and always will:
When you see your ship go sailing When you feel your heart is breaking Hold on tight to your dream
It’s a long time to be gone Time just rolls on and on When you need a shoulder to cry on When you get so sick of trying Hold on tight to your dream
When you get so down that you can’t get up And you want so much but you’re all out of luck When you’re so downhearted and misunderstood Just over and over and over you could . . .
When you see the shadows falling When you hear that cold wind calling Hold on tight to your dream . . .
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:
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:
What does it say to you that across communities where claims of critical thinking are everywhere — I haven’t found it anywhere? It’s become a pastime for people to take endless delight in advertising 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 . . .
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
Perfectly put — except for the “fading” part. In our Age of Unenlightenment — “fading” is an understatement for the ages. But in a world that operates entirely on narrative, not principle: Simply the act of sharing beliefs has become equated to acting on them. In this fantasyland, applying, principles somewhere magically means you apply them everywhere.
You think I just imagined the behavior illustrated in the video below (which captures the essence of my efforts and my idea for addressing the problems that plague America):
Sounds of Silence: The Deafening Noise of a Nation Decades in Decline
Ann Baker continues: “[Critical thinking] encompasses far more than mere information gathering. It also includes knowing where to look and continuing the search without prejudice about what we may find.”
“Bias” gets all the press
When prejudice is paramount to the problem. If it were just bias, convincing you with overwhelming and irrefutable evidence might still be difficult — but you’d be willing to be convinced. Prejudice doesn’t roll that way. In fact, it doesn’t roll anywhere — as you don’t budge one bit, and take pride in it, no less.
As a friend comically put it: “It’s not ‘Pride and Bias'”
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.
I’d like to think that’d at least give me a little credibility with his supporters.
I’d like to think a lot of things. Like when someone’s peddling principles driving his popularity — he’d abide by ’em when it wasn’t popular!
That was then . . . this is now:
And they already belonged to one before that!
Alas, we live in a world that would rather split hairs over semantics than consider the spirit of an argument. Whether or not it’s literally “religion” is not the point — it’s faith-based belief that has no bearing on reality:
a.k.a. Wishful Thinking
The same wishful thinking that’s utterly oblivious to the counterproductive nature of endlessly beating issues into the ground in entirely transactional tactics. Repeatedly rehashing issues is not the mark of problem solving: It’s the mark of a market. All these channels are blunt instruments (including those I agree with).
Like Black Lives Matter, you’re just pounding away at problems without any examination of the efficacy of your efforts.
But why bother when failure is a pretty profitable enterprise these days? Then again, do these people really wanna solves problems anyway? Do you? As Theodore Dalrymple so perfectly put it in Life at the Bottom:
Man is at least as much a problem-creating as a problem-solving animal. Better a crisis than the permanent boredom of meaninglessness.
Life at the Bottom — how fitting!
If you think you’re making progress because of ever-increasing attention to your concerns — I suggest you reconsider:
We should be above whatever the fad or the fashion is of any given day. We should be looking at the deep questions. We should be analytical. We should be emphasizing reason.
— Glenn Loury, Tucker Carlson Today
Only for problems that are popular and easy to perceive? Whatever’s in your wheelhouse? Is that as deep as your questions go, Glenn? The likes of Loury & McWhorter (and all of America) — want to have conversations that work for them:
As if issues exist in a vacuum . . .
And don’t even get me started on this clownish crap for clickbait:
Jesus Christ — what’s it all worth?
“I’m an entertainer” . . .
When Rush Limbaugh said that long ago, I didn’t believe him. Now I think it’s the most honest thing he ever said. So when I came across this question below, it really hit home. I had asked a similar question before I found this one. His was better. Not only was it more direct, but it also shed light on something I hadn’t thought of — and I love that!
I wanted to believe — and it’s easy to get lost along the way. But I never get lost for long, and this question kickstarted my turnaround:
My version . . .
Across those communities:
I’ve never seen anything with even a hint of the questions we asked. And what they miserably fail to recognize is that their efforts act like a firewall by unwittingly providing an unlimited supply of candy to that piñata. I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it. Someone really “looking at the deep questions” — would have the courage to consider mine.
By not deviating from your lane — you don’t understand the roadblocks within it that were created outside of it.
It would be extremely difficult to reach the Left no matter what you do. But by feeding that firewall, you’re building in barricades that block you from reaching them in ways you might be able to without the Right sailing away on Scot-Free.
The Left institutionalizes weakness — and the Democratic Party is notorious for lacking backbone. You weaken the very people you’re trying to strengthen — branding weakness to boot.
And right on cue, the Right is ready to pounce.
I don’t blame ’em: Except for the part about them being weak while branding strength. Not to mention the force field of fallacy behind this firewall.
Conservatives control the narrative about responsibility and think that magically translates to taking responsibility. Republicans pounce on the Left day in and day out — as if the Right’s record vanished off the face of the earth. It’s all about framing the narrative — and the Left institutionalizing weakness is a gimme for the Right to rail on ’em.
That the Left brings it on themselves is another matter.
And the icing on the cake:
Somewhat sincere intellectuals justifiably calling out universities, woke ways, racially rigged incidents and such: Providing endless fodder for the Right to rip people for behavior that pales in comparison to what they’ve done for decades. The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause. Yet they went batshit crazy after 9/11: Setting the world ablaze — and browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
That — is faith-based belief at its best. The Left’s anti-racism religion, woke, and whatnot — they’re amateurs. I didn’t write Mariana Trench of Mendacity from my imagination.
By the way . . .
The right often accuses the left of exaggerating victimhood, turning a blind eye to reality, and distorting language to do so. The left, it’s often said, harbors “snowflakes” and the like who are beset by a victim complex. Lately, however, this frame of mind knows no party or political affiliation. Especially since the Capitol riot, assorted conservative figures have embodied a fragility of the right.
Lately?
Mr. McWhorter — I’ve been in the trenches dealing with these chronic complainers a helluva lot longer than “lately.” And about that branding: So courageous from your keyboards: Gutless in the face of facts you don’t like — disguised by your goose-stepping glory in the Facts Over Feelings Parade.
But the Right is Not Always Wrong (far from it):
And the smart move is to agree with them when they’re making sense (it’s also the right thing to do). The right thing tends to be the demanding thing — the difficult that can’t be captured in slogans, kneeling, and knocking down monuments. I don’t care if Kaepernick kneels — I care that you can’t solve multidimensional problems with one-dimensional gestures.
On that note . . .
Geraldine Ferraro and Rush are in opposite camps, and yet she said essentially the same thing he did:
If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.
Every word of her statement is true — but that didn’t matter one bit to those who bombarded her with “vicious e-mail messages accusing her of racism.”
Utterly Ridiculous
And I say that as someone who voted for Obama in 2008. I gave Romney a shot in the second round. I just have this old-fashioned idea about not rewarding people who are dishonest and don’t do a good job.
This nation has no such notion.
That Rush did more damage to America than maybe anyone in history — has no bearing on the truth when he told it. My mind is not for sale — so I can see what’s what no matter what I think of the source. And for the record, the Right is right on the money on the utterly ridiculous ways of woke:
And don’t even get me started on how homelessness is a problem perpetuated by those most sensitive in their approach to solving it. Whatever their asinine ways on the Right, they make a helluva lot more sense on this subject than the Left.
If you wanna start solving problems instead of perpetuating them, it’s gotta get ugly.
Or as ol’ Bill perfectly put it:
Roger Waters’ question from 1988 has been answered:
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.
Isaac Newton and Einstein were brilliant — partisan hacks and high-minded influencers fueling a fix, are not. These people are not problem solvers, they’re entertainers. Their audience doesn’t know the difference (and I’m not sure they do either). I’m sure it’s intoxicating to amass a following and feel like you’re making a difference. But I’m going to weigh their impact partly as a reflection of their community: How people behave, not what they believe. If you can’t get that right, I don’t care how big your following gets — you’re taking this nation nowhere.
What’s more, you’re making matters worse and being rewarded for it. I’ve got an idea on how to change all that. But you make it impossible to explain it . . .
When you don’t do any of this:
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 only Loury had listened instead of clinging to possession — what wonders he could have worked with what I have in mind. While you should not need an incentive to do what’s right and abide by your own standards: Whatever he’s making on that book . . .
Would be pennies on the dollar had he heard me out on my idea and ran with it.
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
To the uneducated, abstract ideas are unfamiliar; so is the detachment that is necessary to discover a truth out of one’s own knowledge and mental effort. The uneducated person views life in an intensely personal way — he knows only what he sees, hears or touches and what he is told by friends.
As the unknown sage puts it, “Great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.”
But more than ever, even the most educated minds act in an uneducated manner in service of their interests — and do catastrophic damage by doing so. Even the best of the bunch are part of the problem they’re trying to solve.
“I don’t understand. I don’t understand. It’s all so incoherent and confusing with all these things I have to stop and think about.”
That’s because you wallow in a world of paint by numbers:
Where people telling you what you wanna hear every single day: Package it all neatly into nursery-rhyme narratives (turning your mind into mush). When did acquiring knowledge become: I don’t understand everything — so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything? And whining about my website and throwing a tantrum like a child is the best ya got?
It’s not my writing, my graphics, or my doc: The flaw is within you and it always has been. You have no original ideas and not a molecule of courtesy or curiosity for those who do. I have to spoon-feed you like a child while you spit it out and cry about being hungry. You have no imagination and are utterly devoid of any virtue that would allow for actual conversation to take place.
Not that lickety-split, self-satisfied crap you flood the internet with daily.
First time I ever heard of John McWhorter was in a 2017 interview. In talking about take a wild guess, he said, “He has a rather narcotic joy in dismissal and belittlement.”
A lot of that goin’ around!
And the likes of Loury & McWhorter are fueling that frenzy:
Unwittingly producing a toxicity of venom I hope they’d find sickening if they realized what they were doing. I’m not suggesting they stop — I’m suggesting they reframe the debate by broadening it. It’s the kind of thing that takes actual critical thinking to understand:
Broadcasting your abilities doesn’t count.
Keep that in mind when we come to what Loury had to say when I challenged him on something practically baked into his DNA. And we ain’t talkin’ run-of-the-mill politics here: It’s a matter of mathematical certainty (on the fiasco for the ages that shaped everything you see today). On that note. Professor Loury — behold some of your finest work from your fanatical followers:
As any proper scientist can explain to you, there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence OR mathematical certainty
Well, since I interviewed a world-renowned nuclear scientist (on a topic you have yet to even acknowledge): Perhaps we should discuss what HE said (as among the world’s preeminent experts on uranium enrichment).
Instead of “any proper scientist” as the arbiter of truth?
Such high praise from Loury is a helluva lot of incentive for me to think these people are the “geniuses” their ever-growing audience thinks they are. I don’t roll that way. While I maintain a degree of respect for him — and I’m forever grateful for the inspiration he provided:
If you’re part of the problem, I don’t care who you are — I’m calling you out!
And that’s . . .
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.
— F.A.I.R’s Pro-Human Pledge
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t care that you signed a pledge:
And neither did Loury!
I KNOW . . .
That you know the answer to this question:
The imagery above is all you need to answer that question, and the more you look — the worse it gets (and not just on Sowell). 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. It’s the kind of thing that someone looking to “expand that aperture, to learn about the world from outside ourselves, learning more, knowing more” — and being open to change: Would be willing to consider!
By the way:
Assuming bad motives is in gross breach of the very principles upon which Sowell is put on a pedestal. Not to mention how his disciples defend the indefensible by issuing rapid-fire ridicule for satisfaction in full. Sowell’s a well-mannered guy and these people act like animals to honor him.
Just what would it take to do what you say you do?
Alas, Loury had no such notion when I took his hero to task. Like Sowell’s army of acolytes marching in lockstep in the Facts Over Feelings Parade: Those precious virtues you peddle are rolled right over with your feelings. Virtually 100% of Sowell’s followers refuse to look at the bigger picture or even a single frame of it.
Never mind that the following image alone is enough to know that something’s not right: Not to mention the most obvious answer imaginable on “Which ones strike you as glib?”
Following Facts Where They Lead
“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.
Stirring Defense!
Old information at the beginning of the sentence, new information at the end.
— Steven Pinker
How do you feel about no new information — anywhere?
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.
As in — not this:
Sowell is a great man because of his books. I stand by that. you want to refute his books — go ahead. I’m listening.
— Glenn Loury
You confine his record to a box of beliefs that suit you — and stand by that.
How noble of you!
America lost its way long ago (and you’re right about how some of that happened). But all that pales in comparison to the aftermath of 9/11. Every major problem in America was exponentially exacerbated because of that fiasco for the ages — which Sowell helped sell and got off scot-free.
They all did — as they always do (Democrats & Republicans alike):
And that folly is being increasingly fueled by this folly:
Until the rise of podcasts, twitter, and the various forms of independent media / journalism, people weren’t really aware how legacy media was influencing their thinking. I think people are finally waking up and may surprise you here, especially if more talk about it.
New formats for funneling information that caters to your cravings is not what I’d call enlightened. And those who couldn’t spot clearly dishonest actors before — think they’re wide awake now? The Twitter bio behind that quote begins with “Groupthink averse.”
It would never occur to him that everything in that Tweet is Groupthink 101.
Brought to you by “new media”
“We . . . want it now, and if it makes money now, it’s a good idea. But . . . if the things we’re doing are going to mess up the future, it wasn’t a good idea. Don’t deal on the moment. Take the long-term look at things.”
— The Dust Bowl
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. Taking on the entire country by myself is worlds away from what everyone else is doing. Explaining America’s decline from decades of dishonesty and systematic self-delusion in the Gutter Games of Government: Is apples & oranges as it gets when compared to the transactional nature of news and social-media norms.
Understanding how seemingly unrelated events impact one another takes time and effort to digest.
You are being conditioned to do the exact opposite. All’s fair in The March of Folly and fraud on the The Yellow Brick Road — the path of America’s predictably counterproductive pursuits.
Where 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. 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: 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.
Loury was rightly talking about the Black Lives Matter manifesto driving the aftermath of George Floyd. But the Left’s ludicrous ways pale in comparison to conservatives going batshit crazy after 9/11. The Right delights in ridiculing the Left for burning buildings to further the cause:
Yet the “party of personal responsibility” set the world ablaze while browbeating anybody out of line in their March of Folly.
True folly, Tuchman found, is generally recognized as counterproductive in its own time, and not merely in hindsight. In Tuchman’s template, true folly only ensues when a clear alternative path of action was available and ruled out.
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:
Tuchman alighted on a root cause of folly that she called “wooden-headedness” — defined in part as “assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting contrary information.”
The outcome of that folly fashioned a culture of no consequences:
And predictably — more folly . . .
She also saw wooden-headedness as a certain proclivity for “acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by facts.”
If you’re not gonna do your part and accept responsibility for the damage you’ve done and dishonesty baked into your beliefs — why should the Left?
Why should anyone?
A Conflict of Visions . . .
And then some!
I’m not just taking Thomas Sowell to task because he’s got it comin’ — I need this guy for what I have in mind to right this ship. The ultimate irony is that blind loyalty limits him — while my criticism could elevate him to heights that hero-worship ensures he’ll never go.
So, you’re saying that your plan will elevate Sowell to worldwide recognition — by holding him accountable? That if he comes clean — he could be the catalyst to turn the tide?
That’s exactly what I’m saying!
It won’t matter that he blew it on WMD or why — all that matters is having the guts to say: “I was wrong and I’m trying to make it right.” In a culture consumed with feeling right, wouldn’t it be refreshing to talk about the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong?
Don’t just tell people how to behave: Lead by example — especially when it comes at a cost!
There are far worse culprits on all-things Iraq, but I’ve been down that road for decades. Discovering Sowell and the underworld of absurdity that shields him — makes him ideal to put these lies in their place once and for all: And change the dynamic of debate to boot. Elevating him is not my aim, but I can live with it to stem the systematic self-delusion that’s taken this nation totally off the rails:
Left & Right!
Incredibly, you look at that . . .
Coupled with this:
And act like it’s this . . .
That you have not developed the capacity understand matters of complexity beyond your current comprehension — doesn’t mean they don’t make sense. And there is no measure for how preposterous it is that people who can’t even get the self-evident straight:
Have the bottomless gall to belittle me on making correlations in 3 dimensions while you wallow in one.
Wooden-headedness, said Tuchman, was finally — “the refusal to benefit from experience.”
— Russ Hoyle
The Refusal to Benefit from Experience
[T]here could be no country that makes less use of the accumulated experience of those who have served it – none that is more frivolously neglectful and improvident of these assets – than the United States of America.
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!
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.
And 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 D.OE. before serving up images of a nuclear detonation?
— Act II
Holy War
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.
When did acquiring knowledge become:
I don’t understand everything — so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything!
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!
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.
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.
Time & effort to think it through. If you’re not interested in hearing me out and having meaningful conversation — we have nothing to talk about and I wish you well. But if you’re game for good old-fashioned conversation — please contact me through the site, Anchor.Press.gg@gmail.com, or DM (Direct Message) on X:
As I no longer respond to Tweets or superficial fragments of any kind.
The imagery image above is all you need to answer that question, but why examine the holes in Sowell’s history when you can criticize the holes in my jeans? And the more you look — the worse it gets (and not just on Sowell). 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. But in this shithole you call home — accountability doesn’t compute unless it caters to your cravings.
That — is “possession”: Fostering content, indolence, pride, and far worse. For instance:
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 . . .
I couldn’t agree more
But there’s another reason why so many people misunderstand so many issues. Professional know-it-alls like you pull stunts like this while peddling lines like that as cover . . .
To whitewash your record of patently obvious hypocrisy and lies. What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?
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 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.
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!
It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
— Attributed to Mark Twain
V for Victory — How Fitting
A world where you can win an argument without even knowing what the issue is about. What you do in denying the undeniable daily would be unthinkable for me to do ever.
“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.
“I don’t understand. I don’t understand. It’s all so incoherent and confusing with all these things I have to stop and think about.”
That’s because you wallow in a world of paint by numbers — where people telling you what you wanna hear every single day: Package it all neatly into nursery-rhyme narratives (turning your mind into mush).
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 marquee 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
Where you just must find that in acknowledging that you’re wrong (in part or in whole) — just might create a hairline crack in the convictions of your interlocutor (enough to shed some light on the truth you have to tell)
And through that exchange — perhaps they’ll come around to realizing they’re wrong (in part or in whole)
And all that sounds a lot like this:
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’m not a fan of 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 . . .
Sowell had his own moves in mind. Funny how none of ’em went anywhere near the evidence. Hmm . . .
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?
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?
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?
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.
“Compared to What?”
That principle is built into every aspect of that 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.
If you’re gonna behave a like a child — go back to playtime . . .
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.
You tell me — just what would it take to get this much straight?
After 20 years, no less!
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.
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:
“And now, even now” . . .
The cat . . . TOTALLY out of the BAG!
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
For instance:
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.
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.
Anybody can rail on Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney, and Powell. But the real story is in the machinery behind the scenes:
Including people and places you’ve never heard of.
As I said in my doc:
Notice how he turned the entire issue around to casually claim the exact opposite of reality even seven months after the war started. Perhaps the most telling moment in that interview was when Feith said, “Some people took one view; some people took another” — once again with the false equivalence of “experts” that was so craftily perpetrated by Powell.
As for that mathematical absurdity about “50 times the price” — the tightened tolerances added just a few extra dollars per tube. The sheer sloppiness in his answers alone should speak volumes about Feith’s integrity.
And the more you look, the worse it gets.
— Richard W. Memmer, Act III
Half the country took the word of professional know-it-alls over nuclear scientists. And when your camp came up empty on WMD — you just bought more bullshit from the same people who sold you the first batch:
Shrewd!
Preach Responsibility and Take None!
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
For instance:
Never mind this . . .
And this . . .
When you can peddle this . . .
AFTERBURNER WITH BILL WHITTLE, September 13, 2011: But since we now know that the fear of the invasion caused Saddam to destroy his stockpiles before the invasion, WMDs were not in fact found. And you’ve been told that this means that the war was based on a lie — despite the fact that every intelligence agency in the world thought that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Those tortured talking points need to be put out of their misery:
And I know of no one better for that than Greg Thielmann. I emailed him to ask how he would respond to Whittle’s common claim, and one of the most telling aspects to his answer was the technicality of literal truth in the manufactured myth.
Greg Theilmann should know — he had been Powell’s own Chief of Intelligence when it came to Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
Thielmann acknowledged that nearly everybody thought that Saddam had hidden away some mustard agent left over from the 1980s, but he added that the Bush administration did not make its case for war on the strength of suspicions that Iraq retained World War One-era munitions.
It’s the second half of that statement that Whittle & Company conveniently ignore.
— Richard W. Memmer: Epilogue
Thielmann elucidates one fine point after another for over a page: Germans on the unreliability of Curveball. I.A.E.A. on the tubes and “uranium from Africa” reports. D.I.A. reversing its position on the drones before the invasion. And as Thielmann talked about on P.B.S. FRONTLINE, a senior Australian intelligence analyst resigned in protest over the fabricated intelligence. . . .
Thielmann also pointed out that few intelligence agencies had independent means of evaluating U.S. intelligence. He brings up the infamous Downing Street Memos that explicitly state that:
Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action — justified by the conjunction of terrorism and W.M.D. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
“The British said so”, Mr. Sowell?
Stirring Defense
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”
It’s impossible to overstate how egregiously uninformed these people are on this issue. Shouldn’t we be addressing what the disagreement is about before you decide on what’s a “long way” and “willfully disregarding evidence”?
Sowell never addressed the marquee evidence used to sell the war (or anything else of substance of this endless saga of absurdity).
If that’s not “willfully disregarding evidence,” what is?
Jan 22, 2014 . . .
I emailed Greg Thielmann to ask him the following question:
If you were in an interview, how would you respond to someone raising the claim that ‘every intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMD?’
The following is his response to that question:
From: Greg Thielmann Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:03 PM To: Rick Memmer Subject: Re: fairly quick question for you
Rick:
Happy New Year!
Returning to that thrilling Iraq saga of yesteryear, here’s how I would answer the question you posed at the end of your message: To say that “every intelligence agency in the world thought Iraq had WMD,” is misleading to the listener/reader.
First, few intelligence agencies had independent means of evaluating many of the claims and analyses made by the US intelligence community; they had to rely on the huge intelligence establishments of their close allies, and would run risks of future intelligence sharing if they were too skeptical of US claims.
What does it mean to assert that Denmark also thought Iraq had WMD?
Secondly, the statement about Iraqi WMD would be literally true because nearly everybody thought that Saddam had hidden away some mustard agent left over from the 1980s, largely because the verified destruction numbers did not add up to the known production numbers. (We now know that some of the CW was destroyed in secret after the 1991 war.)
But the Bush administration did not make its case for war on the strength of suspicions that Iraq retained WWI-era munitions that would not critically impede a modern military.
It waved the red flag of nuclear weapons program reconstitution with “mushroom clouds” imagery, files of anthrax, and reports of mobile anthrax laboratories and nerve gas allocated to front-line troops.
The Bush administration and its UK co-dependent further spun questionable intelligence judgments by dropping careful qualifiers about confidence levels and contrary evidence in the information provided to the public.
The Downing Street Memo’s infamous characterization about US “fixing” the “intelligence and the facts” around the policy is an implicit acknowledgement that it was a witting coconspirator in the distortions rather than an independent validator of US conclusions. Moreover, there was certainly not consensus between all foreign intelligence agencies on some of the critical WMD claims — “uranium from Africa,” mobile BW labs, the U.S. on the use of aluminum tubes, the U.S. (in Fall 2002) on CW/BW warheads for drones, etc.
For example, the Germans warned the US Government in Dec. 2002 that it could not validate the claims of its own source on the mobile BW labs, “Curveball.” IAEA experts expressed strong skepticism about the alleged use of the aluminum tubes and the veracity of the “uranium from Africa” reports.
The DIA itself reversed its position on the drones before the invasion.
Moreover, the appropriate period of time for critical scrutiny is not the weeks leading up to the UK’s “dodgy dossier” in Sept. 2002 and the unclassified summary of the US NIE in Oct 2002.
It is the 12 weeks between the return of the UN inspectors in November 2002 and the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The truth is that all evidentiary legs of the stool collapsed during that period of time, but by then, the books were closed by the US Congress, most of the press and the American public, whatever the evolving views of other foreign intelligence agencies may have been.
Regards,
–GT
Greg Thielmann Senior Fellow Arms Control Association
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.
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!
You think the end justifies the means — I say your means make damn sure it will never end. I took a look-see for what others have said along those lines. Mine’s minor league compared to this:
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.
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 anything I’ve written on this issue — you should know something’s not right.
But you find it’s with me . . .
[As] I’m not and never have been familiar
If I came across this and hadn’t done my homework, on the title alone — my first thought would be “I must be missing something pretty big!”
America has 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
I put it all on a silver platter for you 10 years ago:
When I Saw the Writing on the Wall
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. 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.
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.” 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.
— Ann Baker, Critical Thinking: A fading skill in the age of information overload
That is not this . . .
A world where regurgitating garbage gets people to Like you — celebrating “victory” by clicking “bravo” to bad manners and bunk. A world where the rush is everything:
The rush to respond
The rush you get from responding
The rush to roll out the next issue of concern
Repeat and never reflect
Exhibit B
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). America argues in a vacuum incapable of correlating anything: As if blowback has no bearing on 9/11 & today.
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!
“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.
As M. Scott Peck perfectly put it:
[W]e must accept responsibility for a problem before we can solve it.
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.
This definitely feels like a bug here . . . this is going to take some much deeper investigation
— WordPress Support Rep
I’m saying the whole system is failing to a nation that refuses to recognize that there’s even a bug. Unless it’s on the other side, of course: They’re infested with ’em — while your side is a cleanroom for computer chips.
I watched this digital scan of the Titanic wreckage with fascination — and that would have been the end of it until this bit below. I respect the reporting and the passion of the people behind these efforts. What I take issue with is a culture that craves detail at the depths of Titanic:
While issues of world-altering consequence are skated over on the surface.
Despite how extensively the Titanic has been explored — there are still many fundamental questions. The hope is this scan could provide answers. We really don’t understand the character of the collision with the iceberg. We don’t even know if she hit it along the starboard side as shown in all the movies. She might have grounded on the iceberg — and this photogrammetry model is one of the first major steps to driving the Titanic Story toward evidence-based research and not speculation.
This nation no longer understands the meaning of character — and we’re talking about the character of a collision with an iceberg in 1912? Again, I’m not trying to take anything away from the passion in their purpose (and those who take an interest in it). But come on — can you at least show some degree of commitment in how you carry yourselves when considering issues that challenge your calcified convictions?
And if you’ve got the goods to back up your beliefs — they should be able to survive scrutiny, shouldn’t they?
Start with those 3 little words of wonder and you’ll be amazed at the clarity that comes with it. To any objective observer, it was plain as day that 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 below? 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!
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 the quick win with ease.
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.
Walsh asked questions unwelcomed by a world wrapping its arms around a cancer survivor who came back to dominate the sport of cycling. Not to mention the mountains of money involved in preserving the lie — so there’s that.
What I circled above is so in tune with the times.
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 . . .
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
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?
This mountain of information was publicly available before he wrote that second article — and yet not one word addresses the marquee claim on a mushroom cloud.
How do you reconcile that?
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 . . .
In a country that can’t even get this straight:
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, no less. 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.
Yellowcake to UF6 Conversion to Uranium Enrichment:
On Titan, time-honored materials and safety standards of DSVs are taken into account to accurately assess the situation. We listen to experts and respect their input because it makes sense. Had Stockton done the same, he and his crew would still be alive.
And if this nation didn’t look at everything through a political lens — a lot of people would still be alive.
And lo and behold: The number of experts who thought carbon fiber was sound for DSVs — matches the number of nuclear scientists who supported Powell’s baseless assertions on the tubes that took us to war:
Exactly Zero!
Something’s Not Right!
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
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!
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.
When did acquiring knowledge become:
I don’t understand everything — so I can act like an imbecile who can’t understand anything!
If you don’t understand something, try this on for size:
For 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:
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. If this 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.
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
I point you to a 7-part, 2 hours and 40 minutes doc — that distills a story that demanded a massive amount of effort, thought, research, and writing: And you tap a Tweet with a talking point or two — thinking you can inform me. I offered you overwhelming and irrefutable evidence that exhaustively exposes the biggest and most costly lie in modern history:
Taking both parties to task for it — and then some!
You refused to even glance at the doc while deriding my efforts with pleasure. So with this site I tried another approach: Interweaving clips in conjunction with the behavior of those who slavishly defend the indefensible.
The doc is structured to the hilt in 7 segments averaging 24 minutes apiece — so it’s much easier to digest.
But circular certitude is quite the convenient cop-out: Allowing you to blow off the doc, dish your derision on issues you’re wildly unqualified on — then complain how you can’t follow the format of a site that wouldn’t be needed if you simply watched the doc in the first place. You go out of your way to not comprehend what could not be more crystal clear. 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.
You think I wanted to chop up my doc into clips to accommodate America’s attention span of a child?
But still that wasn’t enough — as you won’t consider 160 seconds, let alone 160 minutes. I do all the work, you do nothing and consider nothing — then blame me for failing to convince you. In slinging your insults, you’re insulting your intelligence far more than you’re insulting me (not to mention being in gross breach of those precious principles you preach).
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?
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?
“Compared to What?”
That — looks an awful lot like this, doesn’t it?
But this — doesn’t look 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.
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 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?
I started this site to tell a story about a colleague who was coddled by a company that enabled her increasingly hostile behavior. After all other attempts failed over a 6-month period: I went to HR to raise a code of conduct complaint. A month later I was fired. Who pulled the plug and why is unclear to me.
As told in “When the Machine Has Taken the Soul from the Man” — there were mysterious forces in play with this person (i.e., politics, plain as day). Within her wheelhouse, she was exceptional (even winning an award for excellence). But how she performed outside her area of expertise is what’s in question. Would you judge the quality of her work strictly on how she is seen by those who celebrate her:
Or would you look at the totality of the story for the whole truth?
I don’t know anyone who would argue for the former. And yet, this goes on every single day — blindly defending people on beliefs that cannot survive scrutiny. Invariably, there are ulterior motives involved: Just like ECOLAB looking away from behavior by someone who deserved a good kick in the ass a long time ago.
Tough love used to be timeless — and look what happened when it became outdated. They’d be doing her a favor by being hard on her, but they tap danced around it — squandering a golden opportunity to elevate all those involved by embracing the challenge.
A lot of that goin’ around!
Sowell’s acolytes instantly assume I’m out to discredit all his work — which is in breach of Sowell’s own standards:
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?
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 genuine article — they’d be pushing you to make a habit of welcoming challenge:
Not just endlessly pointing out the opposition’s flaws while unconscionably ignoring your own.
My idea is simple: Cutting through our Crap is King culture to get you to see it — is not. 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 love you so much that I can’t leave you Even though my mind tells me I should But then you make me think that you still love me And all my thoughts of leaving do no good . . .
You’ve got me heart over mind worried all the time Knowing you will always be the same You’ll keep hurting me I know but I still can’t let you go Cause my heart won’t let my love for you change
You cannot be, I know, nor do I wish to see you an inactive Spectator . . . If we expect to inherit the blessings of our Fathers, we should return a little more to their primitive Simplicity of Manners, and not sink into inglorious ease.
We have too many high sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.
— Abigail Adams, 16 October 1774
Note: As you’ll find in the image of the letter to executives below.
I contacted HR to raise a code-of-conduct complaint against one of Ecolab’s best, and I was mysteriously fired a month later. I hold no ill-will against my managers — especially since they didn’t support my ouster. Who pulled the plug and why is unclear to me. I sure didn’t see this coming from what I witnessed in week one.
When I started as a contractor in [March] 2023, 3 days into the job I was asked if there was any way we could meet their deadline, to which I replied:
Let me talk to the BA and we’ll see
She had never done a digital whiteboard before, but she accommodated my request and I had everything I needed in no time. Rather than wait until Monday to tell management the good news about what could be done, I just went and did it. But my role in that success is secondary to the person who provided the information in a manner outside their comfort zone.
That I never saw such openness in her again is one thing. That she became increasingly hostile toward me (and that this behavior was tolerated by leadership for months) — is something else entirely. Things started to fall apart after an email I sent to management two days before Christmas, in which I wrote:
Proper allocation of resources is in everybody’s best interest
Had that happened early on or somewhere along the way — it would have changed the course of all that followed. I am not without blame, as the link below will explain. But no one else would have gone so far to rectify the situation: Driving improvements in our processes by implementing an issue-tracking system, retooling our design and development, and putting automation in place on multiple fronts (much of which was on my own time).
On a project of this magnitude, fluid communication between key resources is imperative (all the more so when we’re an ocean away). The overlap in time zones should be capitalized to the fullest so that we maintain some sense of rhythm. As it was, what could be cleared up in 5 minutes on the phone could take 5 days in emails. In some cases, I never got the answers I needed — but I kept moving with what I had. Despite having to decipher her 28-page document with no help, I automated 4 hours of work to as many minutes. And still, she complained.
Two weeks later, not a word from HR (with things worsening by the day). She refused to touch even the tiniest of tasks if not formatted to her liking. At the very least, take a look tonight and we’ll talk about it tomorrow — so we can keep moving.
I would have made her better. Ecolab made her worse.
Though the bridge between the band would become the culprit in question, she was exceptional within her wheelhouse. How she behaved outside of it is how this saga all started (which was avoidable with better decisions by all parties involved). Despite how it went off the rails — you’ve got some dedicated people who deserved a helluva lot better than the fiasco that follows.
However it ended up, this image is in memory of all the good they give (including her).
All that aside . . .
I wouldn’t give you two cents for all your fancy rules if, behind them, they didn’t have a little bit of plain, ordinary, everyday kindness and a — a little lookin’ out for the other fella, too . . .
— Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
On the image above, ECOLAB looks like a lovely place to work. On a lot of levels, it is. I spent many a morning marveling at how this team of subject matter experts could be so on the ball at 6:00 AM. My job was a cake walk compared to theirs. But since all their efforts flowed through mine — it seems a bit more importance should have been placed on our processes.
It was the easiest thing to get right — and we got it wrong right out of the gate.
Why would a company hire expertise and then hamstring his abilities by catering to a colleague with limited skills in that area? To get this project off the ground in a rush, it was the right call for the BA to crank out code in ways I couldn’t. But to meet the urgency of the moment, we built bad practices into our database design, and what’s worse — we kept doing it.
A younger version of me would have been appalled by the piecemeal approach in which we slapped this stuff together (so I share some blame in how this happened). But by the end of the year, I’d had enough — it was time to right this ship (and make amends for my part in its listing). As I wrote in the opening line of my email Some End-of-Year Thoughts:
Regardless of what I have to share, every mistake I made this year was avoidable and my responsibility. . . . I cannot overstress that ECOLAB’s mistakes do not absolve me of mine, but going forward we need to take a hard look at how we’re doing things on this end.
Much to my delight, Manager2 was quite welcoming of what I had to say in my Christmas gift. This guy’s as good as it gets in setting the mood in seconds. He called me shortly after that email and immediately put me at ease.
That — is class!
Note: Manager1 hired me and Manager2 is in charge of the project.
The main point to me is that [the players] have to be coordinated, and the 10 people have to support what that 11th guy is doing, and vice versa. . . .
The only way that can happen is for there to be discipline, for everyone to be disciplined enough to do their job, knowing the guy beside him is doing his, too, so that you can count on him and he can count on you, and go right down the line.
— Bill Belichick
Coaching a subordinate would be a walk in the park for my managers, but she doesn’t work for them — and therein lies the rub. Even without authority over her, if you’re in a managerial capacity and you see an increasingly problematic issue in your purview, you’ve gotta find a way.
But what was in their way is what interests me most.
I’m not excusing their failure to resolve the situation, but it’s only fair to understand all sides of the story. What they did right vastly outweighs where they went wrong — so it’s grossly unfair for this to taint their fine work (under a degree of pressure & responsibility I couldn’t handle and wouldn’t want to).
And let’s face it — they never should have had to deal with this drama in the first place. They had bigger and better things to do, and so did we. Wherever they dropped the ball on a bit of planning in our processes, she and I should have picked it up. Eventually, I’d be moving on — but she’d remain (with a record of impressing the hell out of everyone had she followed my lead). I would have trained her right out of my own job if I could — so how much she wanted to grow was entirely up to her.
I will be happy to teach her everything I can, but she’s not had time to advance her SQL skills much (so she’s mainly relied on her experience from Access). As my career revolved around Access in the early years, I completely understand that (and I still respect that tool). But part of the purpose of going to another platform like SQL Server is to harness the advantages that come with it — and we haven’t come anywhere close to doing that.
All the while participating only to the extent of her limited SQL skills (which were capable of much more than her hermetically sealed M.O.). She’d blow her whole morning before she’d add a column to keep moving. My mindset doesn’t compute the Charmin-soft standards of today — as this is more my sentiment:
Step up your game or get out of the way!
Even if she didn’t want to participate outside the confines of her cage: The far-bigger problem is her complete lack of effort in taking an active interest in the needs on my end. That initiative alone would have fostered communication and a better understanding of what I’m trying to do:
And how we can help each other & ECOLAB at large.
To be sure, I should have done some things better from the beginning (just as we all should have). But that’s the past — it’s time to get busy on the present and how we pave the way for the future. But she was having none of it. No matter how many times I went out of my way for her — she never responded in kind.
How I would love to work for people who think like this leader below (though in no way am I implying that the BA falls into the second sentence — and I know she works hard).
If you come here, you are going to need to want to be pushed, to be challenged, to work. If you are here to collect a paycheck, or to show up, don’t come.
— Ric Elias, CEO of Red Ventures
Despite constant resistance and barely any help from management in handling her intransigence — we still were making major strides (and well on our way to a well-oiled machine even without fixing the engine under the hood). I offered ideas for short and long-term solutions to fix those problems:
But it seems the more I had to say, the more of a burden I became.
Predictably — not a peep!
By the way, that manager and I are friends to this day. He didn’t dismiss my concerns — he respected my challenge and openly said so to the team. We had a free-flowing dialogue then got right back to work. See how easy that is? When it comes to my experience at ECOLAB and the aftermath of reporting my concerns: You wildly overcomplicated even the most fundamental of matters.
Please hear me out as I show you how that expectation could be a reasonable one (and solve all kinds of problems to boot). I’m in a great mood and after I send this, I’m gonna go right back to doing what I’m asked to do. But it’s in ECOLAB’s best interest to adopt at least the bare-minimum option below (which is simple and could be turned around in a few days):
On the surface, some minor structural changes and a few new files seems straightforward (and it should be). But we didn’t design for scalability—we designed to meet [her] skillset (which was fine to get things off the ground, but all development after APW2 should have been in my hands). With a more sophisticated approach, we would have created simplicity: So accommodating the needs of each deployment would have been a breeze.
But we designed to meet [her] needs (thereby creating complexity through overlap and duplication).
Please hear me out . . .
That I felt the compelled to say, “please” to promote ideas should speak volumes (not to mention that my mood should have nothing to do with it). By the way, I finished that email before I was fired and sent it anyway (offering my assistance with grace):
As for HR . . .
Two weeks later and you’re still working out what to do?
I’m not sure how much more I could have done to impress upon you the urgency of the situation. Why not handle it in stages? Even without reading all the emails, you could pick up the gist pretty quickly then meet with her manager to get her update to speed. Now, this person has authority — so why not exercise it? By all means, set up another meeting with all immediate parties involved — but until then, try this on for size:
We’ve been informed of a complaint about your ongoing behavior. We’re investigating it further and will contact you for discussion at the appropriate time. For now: Knock it off, get on the phone with this guy, and get to work
ECOLAB had other ideas . . .
Incredibly, you needed another 2 weeks — for what seems like a summit meeting for something that should have been tightly contained.
I made it clear that I didn’t want to harm her career. So I’m not just bothered by word getting out because of what happened to me. I don’t like the additional weight of negative impact on her and my managers as well. Jesus, she just needed a good kick in in the ass — and you people blew this whole thing out of proportion.
So what you deem as careful consideration — was sloppily handled in my eyes.
I’m keenly aware that I have no protections as a contractor.
But when I contacted HR for help — I was under the impression that their efforts would reflect something in the realm of What Real Leadership Looks Like:
When you said you’d have an update for me, booting me out the door is not what I had in mind. But it’s all par for the course — including the asinine decision to pull the plug before you even bothered to protect your investment:
Stopping deployments dead in their tracks.
You’ve got a Java programmer who picked up my kind of work pretty well in just a short time of training her months ago. Granted, it was pretty simple stuff as an introduction — but she’d had already built on what I showed her (and pretty impressively, I would add). With just 2-3 days of guiding her along — you’d be in good hands to keep the lights on until you got another developer in my domain:
But you might not even need one — as she’s pretty sharp.
Moreover, she could have contacted me anytime — and I’d do what I could to help her out. So just by thinking it through and knowing the integrity of the person you’re dealing with — you’d make the smart move and reap the rewards:
Keeping the lights on, eliminating the burden, elevating her skills, and in so doing — possibly save a bunch of money to boot.
Once again . . .
Even with all the obstacles in the way and atmosphere of apathy on my input: It was demonstrably clear that things were greatly improving from one deployment to the next. I just needed a little more time to tie up loose ends — and a modicum of courtesy and understanding would have been appreciated
By the way, this notion of “self-validation” had gotten totally out of hand.
Naturally, she didn’t have time to assist on that or anything else I asked her to do (and management catered to her complaints, as always). I’ve never seen anyone spend so much time complaining while citing concerns about efficiency. I know a little somethin’ about efficiency — and that ain’t it! I once turned around a project in 3 days that took someone else 3 months. I relay that story in The Cut of Your Jib — where I showed that guy some grace despite getting none.
It’s under the Listening, Learning & Empathizing menu for a reason.
Lara walked along the tracks following a path worn by pilgrims and then turned into the fields. Here she stopped and, closing her eyes, took a deep breath of the flower-scented air of the broad expanse around her. It was dearer to her than her kin, better than a lover, wiser than a book. For a moment she rediscovered the purpose of her life.
She was here on earth to grasp the meaning of its wild enchantment and to call each thing by its right name, or, if this were not within her power, to give birth out of love for life to successors who would do it in her place.
― Doctor Zhivago (referenced in Into the Wild)
In the spirit of discovery that clarity, curiosity, and courage can inspire:
