Man, I am so tired of Twitter's idiocy on this that I'm going to post this screenshot, delete it, and then say it again in a way that will make you all just as mad, but maybe with less *willful mischaracterization* of what I said. /1
1. The CDC says that unvaccinated people are not a threat to you if you are fully vaccinated. 2. If you are vaccinated but say "but I will wear a mask anyway because of unvaccinated people" then you are not accepting this basic fact 3. Not accepting facts is irrational.
/2
4. No one is saying you can't wear a mask, and some people - with medical issues - *should* wear a mask, not just for COVID, but for any number of reasons.
5. But if you are doing it, fully vaxxed, because "someone isn't vaxxed," you're not "believing in the science."
/3
6. If you think "well, the risk isn't zero," then welcome to life, where the risk is almost never zero for anything. This means only that you suck at evaluating risk.
7. You can buy flight insurance at the gate, but you shouldn't. It's harmless. But it's dumb.
/4
8. If you have any other issues with the guidance from the CDC - especially if you were insistent on "following the science and believing the CDC" until now - go take it up with the CDC.
9. We are a nation of innumerate children.
/5x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So we now have a landing page at Oxford U. Press, and this is my first of many pitches asking The Radio Free Tom Twitter Family to pre-order "Our Own Worst Enemy." (Pre-orders are an author's friend.) Short elevator pitch follows. /1 pages.oup.com/trade/13544734…
I haven't monetized anything here on my feed, especially during the last campaign. You can read me at @USATODAY and @TheAtlantic and other places, but mostly I hang and inundate you with my terrible takes on everything - for free! I'm employed and can do that, so it works. /2
But as an author, I hope you'll appreciate a longer treatment of a lot of the stuff we talk about here regarding democracy and our civic environment. If you've enjoyed those discussions, I think you'll like the book. (If you liked Death of Expertise, you likely will.) /3
The Republicans, for all their screaming about socialism and Biden, have decided to let other people run the country. They have no agenda to overturn or replace anything. They don't really care about defeating Democratic policies. This should scare you more than anything. /1
Sure, they'd take being a majority because it means power and money and security, but they don't really care about policy - beyond tax cuts for favored patrons and donors. Other than that, their goal is *never to have to live among their own voters, whom they clearly hate.* /2
Cotton, Hawley, Stefanik, Cruz didn't get top-notch educations and climb the greasy pole of power just to end up as the top attorney in Bumblefuck County or the Majority Whip in Albany or Jeff City. They're better than that, you see. Better than you. Deserving of greatness. /3
This is like when people tell me about their friends who are engineers who are dedicated Trumpists. You can be skilled at something but in terms of emotional intelligence be a cinder block. Or you can be a street sweeper and still know right from wrong and truth from bullshit. /1
One of the things you learn when you examine "foxes" (broad knowledge) vs "hedgehogs" (deep but narrow learning) is that hedgehogs are often the wrongest people there are once outside their own field. /2
Recommending the book here by @PTetlock on this, but in general, people with super-deep but narrow knowledge can be a lot dumber about a lot of other things because all they know is that one thing they're good at. /3
A couple of comments on this important piece by Flounoy, from a military education perspective. And remember, I don't speak for the war college or DoD or anyone but me. I don't disagree with anything here, but I want to amplify a point about personnel and education. /1
Every time we realize that our thinking is too hidebound, we get all kinds of trendy demands from the DoD: Do stuff in Chinese! Or Arabic! More high-tech education! Learn about technology! And culture! And it's a lot of band-aids that say: "Teach engineers to be strategic." /2
The problem is that when educators say: "Not only should our guys read 'The Thucydides Trap,' they maybe should read, you know, Thucydides first," the answer is: "No, not that old dusty crap, something relevant and hip! About technology and stuff!" It's a constant pressure. /3
Today when we were picking arbitrary "best 10 or 20 years of pop music," we all disagreed of course, but I don't think it's just that you pick the years of your youth. Rock was born in the 50s, and has had life stages. Not an expert, but will opine for a sec.
cc @dcherring
@dcherring I totally get that people might point to 1955 to 1965 as the greatest period of ferment and change, going from Perry Como to the Beatles in just ten years. It's an amazing time. "She Loves You" still sounds ...revolutionary to me, as music. Dylan. Elvis. I get it. /2
But that music is still tentative and commercial and produced in mono by old guys. From 1965 onward rock goes from a youth yawp to a no-shit art form. Soon the acts that are big are guys who wanted to be the Beatles or Elvis when they were kids. It's the next generation. /2
So, here's the thing. The "mission" is "prevent the use of nuclear weapons against the United States." The problem is endless scenario planning about warfighting use, which is ludicrous but it's what planners get paid for. /1
That's not to say planning and wargaming is a bad idea, because the President needs more options than "screw it, incinerate the planet." But the idea that "I need X warheads for the mission" is pretty much 1960 thinking. This is a throwback to "destroy X Soviet ability." /2
At every stage of nuclear reductions, someone said "Okay, but any lower and we're in mortal peril." Lower than 20,000? Peril. 6000? Peril limit. 2200? Threshold of Hell. This is baked into U.S. nuclear planning and never changes. /3