After the horrors of Charlottesville, and President Trump’s morally ambiguous initial statement, pundits, politicians and citizens complained that we weren’t getting the moral leadership we need.
I have one question: Why do we need moral leadership?
Moral leadership probably made sense in pre-Internet days. But today we get rapid moral clarity from social media, whether we want it or not. That doesn’t mean every person agrees. But social media usually produces a dominant moral opinion, and rapidly. No need for our “moral leaders” to get involved. We got this.
Do you know anyone who watched the news about Charlottesville and thought the White Supremacists might be the ones on the right side of this issue? Well, maybe, but those people would be white supremacists, and not likely to change because a president gave a tearful speech full of moral leadership.
So why did we need moral leadership when no one in the country wanted to be led anywhere? We all had our moral opinions and they weren’t going to change because of anyone’s moral leadership. And no one suggested that one group or another should be exempt from the law. We were all on the same page on that.
It seems to me that people didn’t really need moral leadership after Charlottesville. They just wanted it. What they really wanted was a cry-point. They wanted a leader to share the emotions they were feeling and to put a voice to their concerns. But only because it would feel good, in the same way people inexplicably enjoy sad movies that make you cry. Obviously we want to know our leader is on our side. But that just takes a simple statement.
In 2017, social media is all the moral leadership society needs. It’s messy and brutal, but it generally gets the right answer, and quickly. I have literally never heard anyone ask for moral guidance on events in the news. Most of us recognize evil when we see it. And those who can’t recognize evil on their own will not be cured by a leader who shares a good cry with us.
It is entirely fair to wonder if your leader shares your priorities. And we certainly want to know our leaders view all of us as equal under the law. But we don’t really need a leader to tell us Nazis are bad. Social media has that covered.
President Trump never promised us moral leadership when he ran for office, and he has been consistent in avoiding it. For example, he prefers leaving abortion decisions to the states. He is anti-drug, but he doesn’t lecture us about it. He says he owns a Bible, but he doesn’t wave it in our faces. He told us he was “no angel,” and the evidence supported him. President Trump’s moral leadership seems to be limited to creating jobs, keeping citizens safe, and other practical matters. We’re on our own for the philosophical determinations of good and evil.
Is that a good thing?
I remind you again that Charlottesville was a weirdly unifying event. No serious person on the left or the right disagreed on the moral dimension. Political opportunists on the left tried to frame mainstream Republicans as soft on Nazis, but that was nothing but transparent political manipulation, and clearly immoral. (See how easy it was to spot immorality? No leadership required!)
When critics of President Trump say he did not provide moral leadership on Charlottesville, I agree. His initial statement was tone deaf and politically radioactive. But ask yourself who needed moral clarity on Nazis. You don’t need a leader to take you where you already are.
I won’t go so far as to say social media is the best moral conscience for the country. I’m simply saying it is our moral conscience, and no future politician is likely to take its job. You can demand moral leadership from your president, but what you are asking for is no longer a thing. We already took moral responsibility from our leaders and invested it in social media. If the unified condemnation of Nazis and other racists in Charlottesville is any guide, we’re in good hands.
Tim Ferriss just named my book in his top 5 picks that every entrepreneur should read. If you are not familiar with Tim, being on his top-5 list is like having Warren Buffett say you’re good at investing.
History is full of examples of Mass Hysterias. They happen fairly often. The cool thing about mass hysterias is that you don’t know when you are in one. But sometimes the people who are not experiencing the mass hysteria can recognize when others are experiencing one, if they know what to look for.
I’ll teach you what to look for.
A mass hysteria happens when the public gets a wrong idea about something that has strong emotional content and it triggers cognitive dissonance that is often supported by confirmation bias. In other words, people spontaneously hallucinate a whole new (and usually crazy-sounding) reality and believe they see plenty of evidence for it. The Salem Witch Trials are the best-known example of mass hysteria. The McMartin Pre-School case and the Tulip Bulb hysteria are others. The dotcom bubble probably qualifies. We might soon learn that the Russian Collusion story was mass hysteria in hindsight. The curious lack of solid evidence for Russian collusion is a red flag. But we’ll see how that plays out.
The most visible Mass Hysteria of the moment involves the idea that the United States intentionally elected a racist President. If that statement just triggered you, it might mean you are in the Mass Hysteria bubble. The cool part is that you can’t fact-check my claim you are hallucinating if you are actually hallucinating. But you can read my description of the signs of mass hysteria and see if you check off the boxes.
If you’re in the mass hysteria, recognizing you have all the symptoms of hysteria won’t help you be aware you are in it. That’s not how hallucinations work. Instead, your hallucination will automatically rewrite itself to expel any new data that conflicts with its illusions.
But if you are not experiencing mass hysteria, you might be totally confused by the actions of the people who are. They appear to be irrational, but in ways that are hard to define. You can’t tell if they are stupid, unscrupulous, ignorant, mentally ill, emotionally unstable or what. It just looks frickin’ crazy.
The reason you can’t easily identify what-the-hell is going on in the country right now is that a powerful mass hysteria is in play. If you see the signs after I point them out, you’re probably not in the hysteria bubble. If you read this and do NOT see the signs, it probably means you’re trapped inside the mass hysteria bubble.
Here are some signs of mass hysteria. This is my own take on it, but I welcome you to fact-check it with experts on mass hysteria.
1. The trigger event for cognitive dissonance
On November 8th of 2016, half the country learned that everything they believed to be both true and obvious turned out to be wrong. The people who thought Trump had no chance of winning were under the impression they were smart people who understood their country, and politics, and how things work in general. When Trump won, they learned they were wrong. They were so very wrong that they reflexively (because this is how all brains work) rewrote the scripts they were seeing in their minds until it all made sense again. The wrong-about-everything crowd decided that the only way their world made sense, with their egos intact, is that either the Russians helped Trump win or there are far more racists in the country than they imagined, and he is their king. Those were the seeds of the two mass hysterias we witness today.
Trump supporters experienced no trigger event for cognitive dissonance when Trump won. Their worldview was confirmed by observed events.
2. The Ridiculousness of it
One sign of a good mass hysteria is that it sounds bonkers to anyone who is not experiencing it. Imagine your neighbor telling you he thinks the other neighbor is a witch. Or imagine someone saying the local daycare provider is a satanic temple in disguise. Or imagine someone telling you tulip bulbs are more valuable than gold. Crazy stuff.
Compare that to the idea that our president is a Russian puppet. Or that the country accidentally elected a racist who thinks the KKK and Nazis and “fine people.” Crazy stuff.
If you think those examples don’t sound crazy – regardless of the reality – you are probably inside the mass hysteria bubble.
3. The Confirmation Bias
If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, you probably interpreted President Trump’s initial statement on Charlottesville – which was politically imperfect to say the least – as proof-positive he is a damned racist.
If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble you might have noticed that President Trump never campaigned to be our moral leader. He presented himself as – in his own words “no angel” – with a set of skills he offered to use in the public’s interest. He was big on law and order, and equal justice under the law. But he never offered moral leadership. Voters elected him with that knowledge. Evidently, Republicans don’t depend on politicians for moral leadership. That’s probably a good call.
When the horror in Charlottesville shocked the country, citizens instinctively looked to their president for moral leadership. The president instead provided a generic law and order statement. Under pressure, he later named specific groups and disavowed the racists. He was clearly uncomfortable being our moral lighthouse. That’s probably why he never described his moral leadership as an asset when running for office. We observe that he has never been shy about any other skill he brings to the job, so it probably isn’t an accident when he avoids mentioning any ambitions for moral leadership. If he wanted us to know he would provide that service, I think he would have mentioned it by now.
If you already believed President Trump is a racist, his weak statement about Charlottesville seems like confirmation. But if you believe he never offered moral leadership, only equal treatment under the law, that’s what you saw instead. And you made up your own mind about the morality.
The tricky part here is that any interpretation of what happened could be confirmation bias. But ask yourself which one of these versions sounds less crazy:
1. A sitting president, who is a branding expert, thought it would be a good idea to go easy on murderous Nazis as a way to improve his popularity.
2. The country elected a racist leader who is winking to the KKK and White Supremacists that they have a free pass to start a race war now.
3. A mentally unstable racist clown with conman skills (mostly just lying) eviscerated the Republican primary field and won the presidency. He keeps doing crazy, impulsive racist stuff. But for some reason, the economy is going well, jobs are looking good, North Korea blinked, ISIS is on the ropes, and the Supreme Court got a qualified judge. It was mostly luck.
4. The guy who didn’t offer to be your moral leader didn’t offer any moral leadership, just law and order, applied equally. His critics cleverly and predictably framed it as being soft on Nazis.
One of those narratives is less crazy-sounding than the other. That doesn’t mean the less-crazy one has to be true. But normal stuff happens far more often than crazy stuff. And critics will frame normal stuff as crazy whenever they get a chance.
4. The Oversized Reaction
It would be hard to overreact to a Nazi murder, or to racists marching in the streets with torches. That stuff demands a strong reaction. But if a Republican agrees with you that Nazis are the worst, and you threaten to punch that Republican for not agreeing with you exactly the right way, that might be an oversized reaction.
5. The Insult without supporting argument
When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own.
For the past two days I have been disavowing Nazis on Twitter. The most common response from the people who agree with me is that my comic strip sucks and I am ugly.
The mass hysteria signals I described here are not settled science, or anything like it. This is only my take on the topic, based on personal observation and years of experience with hypnosis and other forms of persuasion. I present this filter on the situation as the first step in dissolving the mass hysteria. It isn’t enough, but more persuasion is coming. If you are outside the mass hysteria bubble, you might see what I am doing in this blog as a valuable public service. If you are inside the mass hysteria bubble, I look like a Nazi collaborator.
How do I look to you?
I wrote a book about how to persuade yourself to success. Based on reader comments, it is working.
My upcoming book, Win Bigly, tells you how to persuade others. (For good.) That comes out October 31st.
We the People of the United States elected a populist president to go to Washington DC and make the changes the people want. Sounds good on paper.
Unless the people don’t know what they want.
That’s the situation with health care. The public doesn’t have any majority opinion on what a comprehensive plan should look like. The topic is too complicated and the public is too uninformed. We sent President Trump into battle unarmed. If We the People find a way to tell our president what we want, I have confidence he can help us get it. But if we don’t know what we want, our populist president has nothing to sell. That’s our situation today. We elected the world’s greatest salesman and gave him no product to sell to Congress.
Don’t say “repeal Obamacare.” That’s not a health care plan. That’s just a step.
What we need is a “people’s plan” for health care that does not originate from congress or lobbyists or the healthcare industry. We need 1-3 sensible plans created by the public, and presented to our populist president for selling to Congress. No other path is likely to succeed.
To get the ball rolling, I created the hashtag #PeoplesPlanHealth to capture the various ideas coming from the public. If any of those plans emerge as popular (based on retweets, likes, etc.) I have offered to help turn what is likely to be a complicated idea into something simple and persuasive. Once we have a plan with popular support, and persuasive packaging, I will make sure it gets to the right people in the White House. One way or another. (Twitter is probably enough.)
Here’s my Periscope in which I talk about this in more detail.
Speaking of lowering healthcare costs, apparently I am doing my part. Doctors are rallying around the systems-based diet ideas (just one chapter) in my book. See the comments on this tweet for how much weight people are losing after reading it.
Anecdotally, many people tell me they lost weight after reading my book on systems versus goals. I invite them to comment here. https://t.co/2gH4NCSdon
My critics have been extra vocal lately in saying I should stop writing about North Korea because I have no expertise in that area. So I decided to talk about North Korea some more. Today I’ll tell you how to end North Korea’s nuclear ambitions at a reasonable cost.
The entire GDP for North Korea is under $13 billion. China’s trade with North Korea is valued at under $3 billion per year. An article in Newsweek recently said most of that trade involves only ten Chinese companies. South Korea pays close to $1 billion per year to support U.S. troops there. I think we pay at least that much too. And that’s not counting navy assets in the area, I assume.
The South Korean military budget hovers around $40 billion. The U.S. military budget is over $600 billion per year. And North Korea is our biggest threat to the homeland. We could make all ten Chinese companies financially whole by allocating .005 of the military budget to paying them to find new suppliers and new markets. We might even become those new suppliers and markets in some cases.
As I often say in this blog, the key to deal-making is that the parties need to want different things. The Chinese companies trading with North Korea want profits, and the United States wants security. That’s the perfect set-up for a deal. The deal looks like this: “Take our money for ten years (only), stop trading with North Korea, and find new suppliers and customers, or we’ll turn out your lights with cyberattacks that look like they came from Russia.”
That’s the first-draft version. We can probably tighten that up a bit with lawyers and stuff.
Obviously this plan doesn’t work if the real problem is that the Chinese government wants to keep the North Korean nuclear threat the way it is. But that line of thinking never sounded credible to me. I’m also a bit skeptical that the Chinese fear mass immigration if North Korea falls apart. That seems like a smaller problem than nuclear war on the peninsula. But I could be wrong about that.
I could also be wrong about everything else in this post. I’m not an expert on North Korea. But as an American citizen, I have the right to wonder aloud why my government is skipping the cheap, non-military option for pressuring North Korea. If the government wants public support for whatever option they end up taking, it would help to keep citizens better informed than we are now, including me.
You might enjoy reading my book because I am not an expert on North Korea.
I saw a news item about border security seizing $500K worth of marijuana at the border. The agent being interviewed said this was not unusual.
What do they do with all of that seized marijuana? I assume they destroy it after taking home whatever they can fit in their pockets. (I kid the border patrol.)
But let’s think creatively for a minute. California’s cannabis dispensaries would happily purchase that weed and sell it to consumers. Why not sell it to state-legal dispensaries and use the proceeds to help pay for the wall?
This plan would require changes in federal law. But that’s doable. Or at least it would be, if we had a functioning Congress.
I don’t expect this to happen because Congress is not effective. They’ll let that low-hanging fruit rot.
Add that to your reasons for despising them. They earned it.
You might enjoy reading my book because of events.
North Korea keeps testing missiles that can reach the United States. China could turn off trade with North Korea, and effectively force them to stop, but that isn’t happening. Why the hell not?
A story in Newsweek says the bulk of Chinese trade with North Korea involves just ten Chinese companies. The working assumption is that those ten companies are so “connected” and powerful that even the Chinese government can’t influence them, or might not want to try.
Fair enough. That makes the government of China common observers in this drama. Embarrassing for them.
But those ten companies are certainly our enemies. I’d say those ten companies are fair game for a cyberattack, a financial attack, competitive attack, and any other kind of non-military attack we can mount. My understanding is that only our government knows which ten companies are involved. If we aren’t moving against them, I don’t understand why. The Chinese government would try to stop us, but I’m betting they wouldn’t try that hard, if you catch my drift.
By the way, how do we know ten companies are the villains in this story? Sounds like the sort of thing a clever president would leak to the press to foreshadow what might be happening behind the scenes. I’d hate to be an owner of any of those ten companies.
Keep in mind that none of us has the required knowledge to distinguish a good idea from a bad one in this realm. I offer this sort of blog post to diversify the pool of ideas. That in itself can often be good.
You might enjoy reading my book because I published two blog posts for you today and reciprocity is hardwired in humans.
Prior to President Trump’s inauguration, I predicted a coming story arc in three acts. Act one involved mass protests in the streets because Hillary Clinton’s campaign had successfully branded Trump as the next Hitler. Sure enough, we saw mass protests by anti-Trumpers who legitimately and honestly believed the country had just elected the next Hitler. I predicted that the Hitler phase would evaporate by summer for lack of supporting evidence. That happened.
I also predicted the anti-Trumpers would modify their attack from “Hitler” to “incompetent,” and that phase would last the summer. That happened too. The president’s critics called him incompetent and said the White House was in “chaos.” There were plenty of leaks, fake news, and even true stories to support that narrative, as I expected. Every anti-Trump news outlet, and even some that supported him started using “chaos” to describe the situation.
Now comes the fun part.
I predicted that the end of this three-part story would involve President Trump’s critics complaining that indeed he was “effective, but we don’t like it.” Or words to that effect. I based that prediction on the assumption he would get some big wins by the end of the year and it would no longer make sense to question his effectiveness, only his policy choices.
How does the anti-Trump media gracefully pivot from “chaos and incompetence” to a story of “effective, but we don’t like it”? They need an external event to justify the turn. They need a visible sign of the White House moving from rookie status to professional status.
They need General John Kelly to replace Reince Priebus as Chief of Staff.
Watch in awe as the anti-Trump coverage grudgingly admits things are starting to look more professional and “disciplined” at the White House. And as the president’s accomplishments start to mount up, you will see his critics’ grudging acceptance of his effectiveness, but not his policy choices. We’re entering that phase now with the help of a new Chief of Staff that even the mainstream media can’t hate. Generals command respect from both sides of the government because they have fought for both sides. No one forgets that.
Expect to see lots of stories about General Kelly bringing efficiency and effectiveness to the White House. Reporters and pundits don’t want to criticize a four-star general who fought for them. At best, expect the anti-Trumpers to say the Chief of Staff is calling the shots, not the President. That’s the predictable fake news attack. But I don’t think it will stick through the end of the year.
By year-end, expect “Effective, but we don’t like it.”
Now for some related fun. I have often said Trump supporters and anti-Trumpers are in the same movie theater but watching different movies on the same screen. You’ve seen lots of evidence of that, but I’m going to give you an experiment you can try at home. It might blow your mind.
1. Identify your most lefty, Trump-hating friend or family member.
2. Share this link of President Trump’s accomplishments while you are in the same room so you can watch them read it.
3. Watch as your lefty friend turns “cognitively blind” to the list of accomplishments as if it is not really there. Your subject will KNOW President has accomplished nothing, and all of his or her friends know it, and the television channels they watch know it. So how-the-hell could there be in existence an extensive list of legitimate accomplishments that make perfect sense and can easily be verified?
The only way that list of accomplishments can exist in your anti-Trumper’s world is if the anti-Trumper has been in a hallucination for months, duped by the media and everyone they love. The existence of the list of accomplishments will form a crack in their reality. It simply can’t exist. That’s the trigger for cognitive blindness. The list will simply be “invisible,” but not in the literal sense, only the mental sense. If you check back in two days, your anti-Trumper will claim once again no such list exists. Watch their eyes when they say it. It will be freaky.
Some anti-Trumpers will pick any one or two items from the list, argue that they are not good for the country, and use it as an excuse to see the rest of the list as nonsense. Some will simply tell you Trump has shepherded no “major legislation” through Congress, which is true. It is also true that he intentionally waited for Congress (and Obamacare) to fail hard before he got serious. The harder they fail, and the more dire the situation, the more power the president will have to push creative solutions on a weakened Congress. Keep in mind that President Trump is a predator when it comes to deal-making. He would have been an idiot to enter the fight hard and early when Congress was at full credibility and strength. That gets you nothing but a committee-made crap-law that may or may not have your name on it. By waiting, he accumulates leverage and widens his options. That’s how I would have played it. I would wait for the lobbyists, Congress, and my critics to punch themselves out before I involved the public and put together a plan to shove down Congress’ useless throats with the help of social media.
I think the President would have been modestly happy with some kind of “skinny” win on healthcare. It would have been good for momentum. But he’ll be much happier with a real health care solution that takes advantage of innovation. (Our constipated Congress ignored innovative solutions, as far as I can tell.)
Frankly, I don’t know how much the world really needs tax reform or infrastructure spending. The stock market doesn’t seem to move on the news of either thing becoming more or less likely as we go. My prediction is that President Trump’s reelection chances (should he run again) will depend mostly on what happens with health care. If President Trump gets that right, on top of the things already going well, Mt. Rushmore could get crowded.
You might enjoy reading my book because you might want to have some accomplishments of your own.
Last night, Senator McCain cast the deciding vote to kill the “skinny” version of a proposed health care bill. Notice how he explains it as a failure of process, not a problem with the bill itself:
“I’ve stated time and time again that one of the major failures of Obamacare was that it was rammed through Congress by Democrats on a strict-party line basis without a single Republican vote. We should not make the mistakes of the past that has led to Obamacare’s collapse, including in my home state of Arizona where premiums are skyrocketing and health care providers are fleeing the marketplace. We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people. We must do the hard work our citizens expect of us and deserve.”
Love him or hate him, McCain did what heroes do. He took a bullet to prevent Congress from ignoring the wishes of half the country. Now we have a chance to do it right. Let in some new voices. Consider some new options. Make it a team effort.
My optimism for a good health care outcome just hit its peak. Had they passed a bill, it would have limited their options for improvement to the stale ideas we’ve already heard. Now, for the first time, the public and perhaps Democrats can contribute some ideas and broaden the options.
Today is a very good day disguised as a bad one. If you think in terms of goals, Congress failed to pass a bill last night. But if you think in terms of systems, our options for solving health care just went from limited to plenty. We’re in the best position yet.
Did you wonder why President Trump seemed somewhat hands-off on health care? I think it’s because his strongest play as a negotiator involved waiting until Congress utterly and completely failed. That almost didn’t happen last night. It took a war hero to finish the job.
Now it’s our turn to come up with better ideas, or to support better ideas wherever we see them. And if we are smart, we will insist on testing some ideas in limited ways, such as Special Health Care Zones in some states, and that sort of thing.
And we should be focused on innovation and technology to lower health care costs. There isn’t any other path forward.
You might enjoy reading my book because it is all about how systems are better than goals.
Remember when all seventeen intelligence agencies agreed that Russia interfered with our elections?
Turns out it was only four.
Do you know how you get four agencies to agree on something of this nature? It’s easy. One publishes an opinion and the other three loyal agencies assume it is credible, so they support it. Do they all do independent investigations?
i kinda doubt it.
Based on my experience on this planet, probably one intelligence agency out of seventeen investigated and told the others they did a great job of it. Still, you can’t ignore even one intelligence agency that did an investigation and is totally positive Russian interfered with the election. That’s still credible information.
Wait, did I say “totally positive”? Here’s a quote from CIA Director Mike Pompeo from this past week: “I am confident that the Russians meddled in this election, as is the entire intelligence community.“
Is confident the same as totally positive? And are “the Russians” the same as Putin?
Personally, I use the word “confident” when I’m not 100% sure, but I think the evidence all points one way. Coincidentally, that is exactly what confirmation bias looks like too – all the signs point in the same direction. They just happen to be false signs. And it seems to me that a good non-Russian hacker could make a hack look like it came from anywhere.
A related thought is that real Russian government hackers wouldn’t have gotten caught. But that might underestimate our capacity to track this sort of thing.
But wait, if we can track this sort of thing and know who did it, using our secret methods, doesn’t that mean we are 100% positive? That’s different than being confident.
A few months ago, seventeen intelligence agencies knew for sure that the Russian government interfered in the election. Today, I’m guessing just one of them looked at the information in any detail. And we don’t know how well they can identify this sort of thing. They won’t tell us. For good reasons.
It is entirely possible that our intelligence agencies know Russia interfered with our elections. But they packaged it exactly like a bunch of lying weasels who are simply hoping they are right. I hope that’s just bad brand management and nothing worse.
A funny thing happened after my conversation with Sam Harris on the topic of President Trump. An avalanche of anti-Trumpers descended on my Twitter account and insisted I become their moral leader – sort of like their Pope. I have not accepted the job, but I can see the need.
Let me give you some context.
Sam Harris’ view on President Trump is that our new leader is a lying, unscrupulous, unethical con man. My view on President Trump is that he’s a skilled persuader who has offered to use his talents on behalf of the country. I have been silent on the ethics and morality questions because I trust people to make those decisions on their own. Personally, I would lie to a terrorist to save your child’s life. Some people would consider that immoral because lying is bad. I say every situation is unique, and we all have to make our own moral/ethical decisions as we go.
To me, that all seemed clear enough. I completely understand Sam’s criticisms of President Trump’s use of hyperbole and his casual relationship with the facts on the stuff that generally doesn’t matter. (As I like to say, President Trump is consistently “directionally accurate” even when he is playing loose with the facts. Persuasion looks exactly like that.
Anyway, my critics – who are also President Trump’s critics it seems – called out to me on Twitter to clarify the ethical and moral dimensions of this presidency. I didn’t think my opinion on that topic was useful because no one gets their ethical guidance from cartoonists. I figured people could work out the morality questions on their own. But I was wrong. The anti-Trumpers need a Pope. And apparently they want it to be me. I didn’t see this coming.
I will consider the job over the weekend and let them know my decision. If you see white smoke coming from the man-cave in my garage, it means I have accepted the position.
You might enjoy reading my book because I’m sort of like a Pope to my critics. But without the cool hat. (Not saying I won’t get one.)
We are making updates to the Dilbert blog (moving to the WordPress platform) that will result in an error message for many (example here).To minimize those affected, the site will be down starting Tuesday the 25th around midnight ET and be back online …
By popular demand, I had a two-hour conversation with Sam Harris (a prominent Trump critic) about our different “filters” on our new president. You can listen to it here.
The Haters of Imaginary Events are out in force already. They imagine I said objectionable things during my conversation with Sam and they tweet about their hallucinations in anger. So far, no one has accurately stated my opinion before criticizing it. That’s a tell for cognitive dissonance. I’ll be making those monkeys dance today on my Twitter feed here.
You might enjoy reading my book because monkeys are awesome.
Congress just proved something that we all suspected: They are the wrong tool for fixing health care. The topic is too complicated, the politics are too corrosive, and the money interests are too strong. That’s why citizens will step in and fill the gap with their own proposals. I expect to see a number of citizen-created health care proposals emerge soon. To that end, I thought I would get the ball rolling by framing the problem in this short 4-minute video. This is how any large business would approach the problem of spiraling healthcare costs. Here is the graphic from the video clip:
The advantage American citizens have in 2017, that we never had before, is a populist president who can sell the bejeezus out of a health care plan if someone could come up with one that makes sense. But for that to happen, Congress first had to do a hard faceplant in the asphalt, to show the country they are not the right tool for the job. That phase is complete. Time for the next phase.
You might enjoy reading my book because Congress is broken.