Oh, How Birds of a Feather Flock Together! What’s Wrong With This Picture?

"It’s supposed to be hard. If it wasn’t hard, everyone would do it. The hard — is what makes it great!"

Nov 20, 2024

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:

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?

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

If the title in the image below doesn’t tell you something about my commitment to objective scrutiny, what would?

Fiasco for the Ages: Obliterating the Biggest & Most Costly Lie in Modern History

As I said in my doc:

The question comes down to whether or not you’re basing your belief on something in the realm of reason — not some fail-safe fantasy that allows you to believe whatever you want.

— Richard W. Memmer: Act III

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.

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?

Following Facts Where They Lead

“Said so and so”? . . . that’s one helluva trip you took there, Mr. Sowell.

Stirring Defense!

People who talk glibly about “intelligence failure” act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything.

— Thomas Sowell

DOE’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 CIA seized on as evidence in their favor.

One DOE 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?

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

JavaScript programmers would get the joke but I wonder if they’d get the point (and what they’d do if they didn’t).

If you abandon your critical thinking skills the moment you even perceive a threat to your interests — doesn’t that bring those skills into question? How can you expect anyone to admit when they’re wrong if you won’t? And every time you allow emotion to run roughshod over reason — you further calcify habits at the other end of the spectrum from these:

Rather than assert that all opinions are equal, students in seminar learn to judge opinions on the basis of the reasons given for those opinions.

Nobody ever had to explain that to me. I’m sure you all feel the same:

And yet here we are:

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 words and illustrations seem awfully specific for someone simply “attacking” Sowell, don’t ya think?

Not to mention this! . . .

The Right wants the Left and the black community to get its act together on matters deeply woven into the fabric of America’s long history of brutality and disgrace: Slavery, Jim Crow, lynchings, murder, decades of civil rights violations, questionable shootings, and so on.

While the Right won’t even look at the material properties of a tube. What’s wrong with that picture — and this one?

Hmm, so the dimensions exactly match the tubes used in Iraq’s history of manufacturing the Nasser-81 mm artillery rocket (a reverse-engineered version of the Italian Medusa)

As for how I feel about the Left's ludicrous ways of woke and rigging raced-related incidents for maximum outrage:

Good luck at The Whataboutism Awards if you wanna pull that shit with me:

Dukes of Hazard

Marching to Black Lives Matter with the first black president sitting in the White House — was that a smart move? The answer should be abundantly clear and yet the question is not even considered. I’ve been blocked on Twitter for just politely suggesting that BLM is a counterproductive cause. Instead of considering how you could fight for justice more intelligently — you act like I’m saying you shouldn’t fight for it at all.

"Was that a smart move?"

Instantly firing back with boilerplate beliefs is not an indicator of understanding the premise of that question (or even caring to). Such inquiry requires reflection and the willingness to examine the efficacy of your efforts: And what role you play in harming your own interests by the manner in which you pursue them.

Pay no mind to how many times we go backwards by the means in which you move forward.

Vanguard for Victories in Vocabulary

All this over-the-top engineering of sensitivity has gotten totally out of hand. Excessive sensitivity breeds hypersensitivity. When you water things down to be politically correct, our nation’s ability to discern decreases right along with it: Creating a culture that’s increasingly more easily offended and radically irrational — across-the-board.

Jesus — it just never ends . . .

How do you feel about those "victories" now?

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.

“[T]he role of knowledge and information in decisions”:

Sowell is possibly the most fascinating and productive scholar in the world. I say that not as a junior colleague of Sowell (I am a mere 69), but as someone who has studied his work for 44 years.

His scholarship covers a wide range of issues: income inequality, ethnic differences in economic performance, economic geography, poverty and economic growth, the destructive effects of the welfare state, the effects of affirmative action, the role of knowledge and information in decisions, incentives within the political system and within academia, and, more recently, the performance of charter schools.

What can we establish on the bit above?

First off, he’s heavily invested in seeing Sowell in the light that those 44 years have shown him. Secondly, “the role of knowledge and information in decisions” is on the table. Seems like evidence claimed as components for building a nuclear bomb (to manufacture a war in the Middle East in the aftermath of 9/11) — qualifies for consideration, don’t ya think?

Hmm . . .

The one constant on display through all these topics is an irrepressible mind digging through the data in order to understand the complex reality underneath. His intellectual process, plus his ability to write quickly, have resulted in dozens of books and hundreds upon hundreds of newspaper columns that have helped many of us learn.

— Professor Henderson

Well then, why is it that I'm showing you evidence acquired from "digging through the data in order to understand the complex reality underneath" — and Thomas Sowell isn't? He didn't even go near the surface to scatch it.

And about that “ability to write quickly”:

It’s not that difficult when you leave everything out that matters!

Professor Henderson supposedly likes to learn — so shedding light on Sowell with new information should be welcomed by someone touting “the role of knowledge and information in decisions.” His findings for 44 years shaped his solidified perception of Sowell — but what if he only went looking for what he wanted to find?

A lot of that goin’ around!

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is and-around-and-around-we-go-title-featured-image.webp

Secondly, “the one constant” does not strike me as a claim that comes with caveats. Does the book cover of Maverick suggest he only applies such principles on the pages within? Of course not, it’s implying a way of life — and no rational person would argue otherwise.

Just as no rational person would contort the definition of “constant” by restricting it to the domain that isolates Sowell’s history to what serves you:

I focused on the issues where he really did dig through the data.

By that standard, I can isolate O.J. Simpson’s character to the football field and ignore that little matter of murder. So, we’ve gone from “irrepressible mind digging through the data” to “I just meant where he really did.”

Sowell had his own moves in mind . . .

Funny how none of ’em went anywhere near the evidence on WMD or anything else on that fiasco for the ages.

Two themes emerge from [Professor Henderson’s] writing: (1) that the unintended consequences of government regulation and spending are usually worse than the problems they are supposed to solve. — Hoover Institution

But spending and unintended consequences didn’t cross your mind on this multi-trillion-dollar fiasco for the ages? And with all the wisdom in Sowell’s fancy quotes to float: This “intellectual giant” couldn’t see that coming either? 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

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.

Just how much of an “Intellectual Giant” could you be and blow it on something this big and glaringly obvious? This isn’t about intelligence, it’s about ulterior motives. But wouldn’t an intellectual giant have the foresight to see the inherent holes in his motives? That however well-intentioned they might be, catastrophic consequences tend to come with endless lying and ineptitude.

Not to mention the poison of partisanship to absolve it all — running the nation into the ground while you’re at it.

At what point does it dawn on you and your beloved Sowell — that blind loyalty to that cause would predictably damage your others? Ya know, like creating the conditions for Obama to come along and take race relations & woke totally off the rails.

Some genius!

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:

In the film, Larry Elder describes Sowell as the “greatest contemporary living philosopher and notes that he causes people to “rethink their assumptions.” Rethinking and questioning our assumptions has long been en vogue in the academy, and if you really listen to what he has to say, few scholars will make you rethink your assumptions like Sowell will. If you’re looking for a one-hour introduction to one of the great minds of the last century, Common Sense in a Senseless World is exactly that.

— Art Carden

Next to zero . . .

Number of Sowell’s followers willing to “rethink their assumptions” — about the “greatest contemporary living philosopher” who “causes people to ‘rethink their assumptions.’”

Speaking of Larry Elder: I once contacted him as a fan, but when challenged on WMD, he turned into a child (and I've got the record to demonstrably prove it). Well, at least I did when "demonstrably" meant something.