New York Times bias #1227

A huge article that consumed all of page A3 (other than an ad) was headlined – “Vilification of Muslims Is a Brazen Display of Modi’s Power.” Obviously, this article was intended to continue The Times’ battle against Modi for ostensibly preferring India’s majority Hindus over its minority Muslims.

The context for the article was set out in Paragraph Two – “His silence provided tacit backing as vigilante groups continued to target non-Hindu minority groups and as member’s of his party routinely used hateful and racist language…. With the pot kept boiling, Mr. Modi’s subtle dog whistles – with references to Muslim dress or burial places – could go a long way domestically while providing enough deniability to ensure that red carpets remained rolled out abroad for the man leading the world’s largest democracy.”

And Paragraph Three set out the specific allegation – “Just what drove the prime minister to break with this calculated pattern in a fiery speech on Sunday – when he referred to Muslims by name as ‘infiltrators’ with ‘more children’ who would get India’s wealth if his opponents took power – has been hotly debated.”

As I read Paragraphs Two and Three, I was reminded of the way The Times routinely attacks conservatives and especially former President Trump re: illegal immigration (and the replacement theory). So I wanted to know the specific rhetorical context for the specifically quoted terms – infiltrators and more children. But unfortunately, as I read the remainder of the article, the critical terms were not mentioned while The Times launched into a broad attack on Modi — until 15 paragraphs later when there was an explanation from a Modi-party spokesman – “Mr. Modi was referring to ‘intruders’ or ‘illegal immigrants’ who the party claims are being used by the political opposition to ‘redefine the demography.'” Inexplicably, The Times fails to respond to or explain this denial/explanation, and simply returns to its broad attack. I have previously read that the dispute concerns that fact that Hindu immigrants have an easier path to immigration from certain countries due to asylum-type issues, not unlike America doing the same thing with people from Cuba, Venezuela, Haiti, etc.

This situation is amazingly similar to Trump making critical comments about illegal immigrants to America, and The Times distorting the comment to be directed at all 200 million Muslims in India. Instead of repetitively using Best Practices, The Times is repetitively using its worst practices.

New York Times bias #1226

My posts under this title typically involve discrete items in a specific paper. Today is an exception because I want to include two widespread items found across the mainstream media, including the New York Times.

The first item is the common portrayal of the southern border problem as something Biden wants to fix, but can’t because the House refused to accept the bipartisan Senate proposal. “My hands are tied,” Biden crows. But nowhere in the mainstream media does anyone ask why Biden’s hands were not tied when Congress refused to forgive the student debt of Biden’s partisan base – i.e., failed college students. Rarely a month passes without the Biden administration announcing some new education directive that serves as a work-around the Will of Congress. Why can’t he do the same to reduce illegal immigration?

Furthermore, the mainstream media ganged-up on the GOP House for failing to address the Senate immigration deal, but failed to note that Democratic Senate had declined to take up the GOP House-passed bill that addressed immigration. I wish the House passage of Ukraine foreign aid had required the Senate to take a vote on HR-2, although I suspect it would have failed due to disciplined Democrats in the Senate.

On the related issue, foreign aid to Ukraine, Israel, and South Korea, much is made of the cost of $80 billion, but I have not seen anyone in the mainstream media compare that cost to the cost of student-loan forgiveness, which is much greater. Even the latest directive, by itself alone, exceeded the cost of the foreign-aid bill. And more importantly, the mainstream media gives the Biden administration a free pass when the administration crows that the forgiveness will free-up its partisan base to resume the purchases of a normal consumer lifestyle. Nowhere in our world of troubling inflation is there any discussion of the effect of this renewed purchasing on our stubborn inflation. Why not?

The answer seems obvious when you consider the comment of the NPR critic/editor who recently said that it was common for storylines to be killed if they hurt Biden. Nothing is worth the price of hurting BIden or helping Trump.

New York Times bias #1225

An open letter to The Times on April 7:

Your headline reads, “Patients Hit With Big Bills….”  Your lede reveals a woman going to an out-of-network doctor for a complex hourslong procedure and getting balance-billed for more than $100k. 

The obvious questions – Why did the woman go out-of-network?  Why did the doctor bill more than $100k?  What did her insurance contract promise regarding out-of-network services?

Inexplicably, your three-page article failed to address any of those questions. Instead its entire focus was on the compensation of a firm that was paid by an insurer to determine how much was owed to the out-of-network doctor. 

I wish your articles were less concerned about creating outrage and more concerned about providing balanced, unbiased information. 

Sincerely, 

Mike Kueber mike.kueber@gmail.com

San Antonio, TX

210.380.7436

New York Times bias #1224

I have always been troubled by The Times proclivity for labeling Trump statements as “false.” Or even, “without evidence.” These labels are often tied to statements regarding 2020 election fraud, but are also used with other subjects. Who determines a particular statement is false? Swope? Politifact? The Times never bothers to say. And I have never heard The Times use the same labels when other politicians say something that is patently false.

The correct practice? The Times yesterday showed it knows how to handle this issue in the context of the Wall Street journalist detained in Russia for espionage. The Times reported, “The Journal and the US government have vehemently denied that Mr. Gershikovich is a spy.” I suspect The Times has taken care in this matter because The Journal and the US govt. may be lying and the reporter may be a spy.

The Times probably isn’t concerned that the 2020 election will be reversed because of fraud, but in any event it would be helpful to The Times’ credibility (and unbias) to attribute its lying characterization to some other organization. It’s not The Times’ job to tell readers when politicians are lying. (One of my favorite practices of theirs is to report that the Southern Poverty Center has labeled some group as racist.)

The media reports, readers decide.

p.s., in next day’s paper, The Times resorted to its past proclivities by declaring, “Ms. Lake made a name for herself by falsely claiming that Democrats stole the Arizona election for Mr. Biden in 2020, then falsely claiming that her Democratic opponent in the governor’s race, Katie Hobbs, stole her election.” No indication who made this determination. Perhaps The Times declares her position false because Kari Lake and others have been unable to prove a theft, but that doesn’t slow them from declaring January 6 participants from being insurrectionists although the Attorney General has not secured any convictions for insurrection.

Sunday Book Review #170 – How to Know a Person

“How to Know a Person” was written by David Brooks. Brooks used to be one of my favorite columnists at the NT Times. He replaced William Safire many years ago, and Safire was previously my favorite, not only because of his enlightened conservative bent, but his interest in words and writing. As Brooks notes in “How to Know a Person,” he was selected to replace Safire because Brooks was a so-called conservative, but just as importantly, not so conservative to irritate the Times’ rabid liberal base.

Since his hiring, Brooks has drifted left and I have drifted right. For that reason, I no longer appreciate his perspective on most things. As James Carville said earlier this week, the Democratic Party is losing its minority base because it has been subjugated by lecturing women and Wokeness. Count Brooks as part of that movement.

Brooks starts his book by describing Diminishers and Illuminators. Diminishers make people feel small and unseen; Illuminators make people feel respected, lit up. Funny story – Churchill’s mother dined with William Gladstone and left thinking he was the cleverest person in England. A few days later she dined with Benjamin Disraeli and left thinking she was the cleverest person in England. Brooks suggests it is better to be like Disraeli for a plethora of reasons, practically and spiritually, and this book is designed to show you the way.

First step – see each person as a unique individual:

1. Some obstacles to seeing – egotism (self-centered), anxiety and insecurity, failing to appreciate that everyone’s perspective is different and unique from ours, limited information about the other person, stereotyping, and failure to modify based on new information.
2. Some tools to becoming an Illuminator – tenderness, receptivity, active curiosity, affection, generosity, and a holistic attitude.

A small first step – “accompaniment.” “Small talk and just casually being around someone is a vastly underappreciated stage in the process of getting to know someone. Sometimes you learn more about a person by watching how they talk to a waiter than by asking some profound question about their philosophy of life.” I think Brooks could have made his point better by using a more subtle example than the too obvious “treatment of a waiter” example. I’ve heard the same point made about playing golf with someone, and I’m sure Brooks could list several mundane, prosaic examples that reveal one’s character.

The next step – “a good talk.” This reminds me of a concept I first learned from a Catholic philosopher whose name I can’t recall who talked about commonplace “encounters,” like sitting next to a stranger on a train/subway/airplane flight. Brooks focuses more on people that you probably already have a relationship with. In any event, he says that if you can engage in a good talk, you’ll be able to understand the people around you, and if you fail, you will constantly misread them and make them feel misread. “A good conversation is not a group of people making a series of statements at each other. A good conversation is an act of joint exploration.” Suggestions:

1. Treat attention as an on/off switch, not a dimmer (be there).
2. Be a loud (active) listener.
3. Favor familiarity.
4. Make them authors, not witnesses.
5. Don’t fear the pause.
6. Do the looping (repeat what was heard to ensure accuracy.

Asking the right questions.

After laying the groundwork for achieving a good talk in the context of healthy cultural environment, Brooks shifts to conversations in “an environment with political animosities, technological dehumanization, and social breakdown.” He suggests one strategy for so-called “hard conversations” – i.e., conversations across differences and across perceived inequalities. Instead of trying to win an argument by reframing the issue, it is better to avoid that temptation and discuss the matter from their perspective. That makes sense if you aren’t debating something and are more interested in making a connection.

Brooks has a separate chapter dealing with a severely depressed friend. Unfortunately, Brooks’s lifelong best friend recently committed suicide.

A separate chapter on empathy. Obstacles – avoidance, deprivation, overreactivity, and passive aggressive (indirect expression of anger). Ironically, most great men have one of these so-called “sacred flaws,” and it supports their lifetime success. Further, introspection does not cure these flaws; communication does. To improve your empathy:

1. Contact theory (get exposed to others; don’t isolate)
2. Literature
3. Emotion spotting
4. Suffering

Although Brooks hates the Myers-Briggs personality test, he strongly believes that it is easier to sense an individual’s uniqueness if you have a vocabulary for various personality traits. The Big Five:

1. Extroversion
2. Conscientiousness
3. Neuroticism
4. Agreeableness
5. Openness

We need to appreciate that each individual has a series of life tasks, usually engaged sequentially, and discerning an individual’s current life task facilitates understanding that individual:

1. The imperial task – show the world that we are in control of our lives. If we fail, we feel inferior; if we succeed, we have self-confidence.
2. The interpersonal task – we want to fit in.
3. Career consolidation.
4. The generative task – leaving an effect on the world.
5. Integrity v. despair – coming to terms with your life in the face of death.

Eliciting life stories from individuals can help you understand them and, ultimately, improve your life story, too.

Brooks’s penultimate chapter – “How do your ancestors show up in your life.” Brooks is a big proponent of an individual being inherently shaped by his family and his culture. Generation after generation. Especially his Jewishness, despite his abandoning the religion.

Final chapter – What is Wisdom? Brooks no longer thinks that wisdom is a great critical thinker. Rather wisdom is someone whose conversation leads others to think more critically.

A worthwhile read.

Sunday Book Review #169 – Outlive

My previous book review, “Good Save Texas,” indicated that I was planning next to read “big wonderful thing,” a lengthy history of Texas by Stephen Harrigan. But then I noticed that I had previously checked out two other books from my local library – “Outlive” by Peter Attia and “How to Know a Person” by David Brooks – and would need to quickly read those books before they were due to be returned. (The books are new and in demand, so renewals are not allowed.)

Although “Outlive” is 411 pages, plus voluminous Notes and References (unlike my previous unsatisfactory read, God Save Texas), it was a joy to read. Subtitled “Rethinking Medicine to Live Better Longer,” I can’t think of a better objective. (Well, Brooks’s “How to Know a Person” sounds like a wonderful objective, too, and I’m looking forward to reading that, too.)

There are so many useful insights in “Outlive”:

1. Our objective is to not only live longer (lifespan), but better (healthspan).
2. Historically, there have been three eras of medicine:
   • Medicine 1.0 starting 2000 years ago with Hippocrates and “do no harm,” with harm highly likely because it was based on nothing but observation and guesswork.
   • Medicine 2.0 starting mid-nineteenth century with the advent of germ theory of disease and antibiotics.
   • Medicine 3.0 starting now with a focus on avoiding the Four Horsemen (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and Alzheimers) instead of treating them.
3. Humans have evolved for thousands of years in a world with not enough to eat; now we need to mentally adjust to a “crisis of abundance.”
4. Metabolic Syndrome is achieved by three of five failing scores:
   • High blood pressure (130/85). I think I’m OK.
   • High triglycerides (150). I’m easily OK.
   • Low HDL cholesterol (40 for men). I’m barely OK.
   • Central adiposity (waste 40″ for men). I’m easily OK.
   • Elevated fasting glucose (110). I’m not OK since last year’s test.
5. There are five major tactics to affect our health:
   • Exercise is the most potent tactic:
     • Aerobic efficiency. I might need to increase my apt-gym cardio from 30 minutes to 45 when I’m not doing my 50-minute bike ride outdoors.
     • Maximum aerobic output. I suspect that my VO2 max is genetically lowered. I’m already pushing my VO2 max with Stairmaster and recumbent bike in my apt-gym – 30 minutes, 300 calories, 125-145 heart rate.
     • Strength. Grip strength is important and will be a new focus (kettle-bell walk, body weight for a minute is the goal), plus concentric (shortening) and eccentric (lengthening) loading, pulling motions (also helps grip strength) and hip-hinging movements.
     • Stability.
   • Diet or nutrition.
   • Sleep (something that I need to majorly work on despite issues with frequent urination and possibly insomnia possibly a side-effect of prednisone.
   • Emotional health.
   • Various drugs, supplements, and hormones; e.g., exogenous molecules, such as lipid-lowering drugs, rapamycin, and metformin. Metformin may be just what I need to deal with my elevated glucose/A1C.

I greatly appreciate this book and believe it provides invaluable information, so I ordered a copy on Amazon for each of my sons.

Sunday Book Review #168 – God Save Texas

“God Save Texas” is written by Lawrence Wright, an Austin-based writer who also writes for The New Yorker. I learned of the 2018 book from watching a new three-part documentary on HBO Max with the same title. The documentary is not really based on the book, but rather gives three Texas-based directors a platform to pontificate on a subject personal to them – i.e., criminal justice in Huntsville, oil & gas in Houston, and migration in El Paso. All take an exceedingly liberal/progressive, anti-Texas take, but I sensed that the documentary’s moderator, Wright, was not as unreasonable, and decided to give his book a read (recalling the trope that books are better).

Wright disappointed me. Although his best friend, influence, and fellow author, Steve Harrigan, seems to appreciate Texas, Wright has minimal affection for his home state. Harrigan and Wright met decades ago as writers at Texas Monthly, an irreverent, muckraking, iconoclastic periodical in Austin, and this book reads like a collection of 14 Texas Monthly articles. Several reviews have described the book as a Texas apologia, but the author provides at best only a halfhearted defense of Texas, and at worst full array of snobbish snark.

Instead of being a apologia, the book comes across as an oral history – conversational and poorly researched. The author spends much of his time throwing out tidbits of history (the vast majority of which this non-Texan was already aware of) and interjecting a lot of personal anecdotes connected to that history. More than a bit of a memoir. And very little about why Texas is so unique, other than dumb luck.

And aside from the severe leftist political bent (about one-fourth of the book concerns the ugly “sausage” made by the state legislature), the thing that struck me about the book was the prevalence of questionable assertions. And the absence of any footnotes (or index) to support the assertions. Not sure of the author’s rationale for failing to include footnotes in this quasi-academic book.

The first item that struck me as misleading concerned a Harris county judge, Roy Hofheinz. Because I was aware of people often confusing a county administrative judge (the highest-ranking politician in county government) with a judicial judge, I wrote the following to Wright on Facebook messanger:

• I’m reading God Save Texas and noticed some ambiguity re: Roy Hofheinz on page 67. I believe Hofheinz was “the” County Judge of Harris County from 1936-44. The current county judge is Lina Hidalgo. Your book says only that Hofheinz “was called the Judge because of his brief tenure as a county official.” Lot of non-Texans confuse “the county judge” with one of many judicial district judges. In fact, one online site says that Hofheinz “left the bench,” when “the” county judge doesn’t have a bench.

Wright never responded. But as I read further, I noticed many similar misleading or incorrect assertions. And that prompted me to recall how David Marchese in his weekly interview The New York Times Magazine inserts footnotes in his interviewees’ responses to provide context and clarification. Because this book often reads like an oral history instead of a heavily-research history of Texas, I decided to see how many Marchese-esque footnotes were required. (Marchese typically supplies 8-12 in a two-page article.)

1. “Gregg Abbott was a great track star in high school, having never lost a race….” That sounded apocryphal because in Texas every athlete except the state champion ends the season with a loss. Furthermore, most runners have several events, so this Abbott would have been a state champion in multiple events. And in multiple years. When I attempted to confirm this fact, the best I could find was a statement that one biography said Abbott never lost in his senior year. Exceedingly doubtful.
2. “The redistricting process that took place in Texas (in 2003) has since been replicated in statehouses around the country, creating districts that are practically immune to challenge and giving Republicans an impregnable edge.” Texas did not invent gerrymandering in 2003. The term originated in 1812 Massachusetts when Governor Gerry created a district shaped like a salamander. Plenty of Democractic states have long practiced the gerrymander before 2003. In fact, Texas Dems did before the GOP took control.
3. “I once lobbied Craddick… to make Camp Mabry – a Texas State Guard facility in the heart of Austin, eight hundred acres of poorly used and superfluous training ground – into our version of Central Park.” My son works at Camp Mabry, and confirms that the acreage in the middle of Austin might have more sensible uses, but multiple internet sources consistently report that it comprises only 375 acres. Central Park comprises 800 acres. Further, the Texas State Guard is only one of three (and the smallest, 1,678 statewide personnel) military components of the Texas Military Forces at Camp Mabry – the other two are the Texas Army National Guard (18,160 statewide personnel) and the Texas Air Force National Guard (3170 statewide personnel).
4. “To my astonishment, Austin is now the second most popular tourist destination in the country, behind Las Vegas.” My internet search failed to find a single source listing Austin in the top-10 of tourist destinations in America. In fact, San Antonio is consistently listed as the most popular destination in Texas. I was almost as surprised with, “Austin has become one of the most economically segregated cities in the country,” but my internet search found an obscure site making that claim. Of course, 40 other cities could make the same claim, like being the best city to live in.

Because I didn’t grow up in Texas, I have never formally studied Texas history. Nevertheless, Wright’s book added very little to my store of Texas knowledge. But I did learn that Wright’s best friend, Stephen Harrigan, recently wrote a book on the history of Texas, and that will be my next challenge.

New York Times bias #1223

When The Times tires of picking on Elon Musk, it returns to its familiar punching bag, Donald Trump. Today, while writing on Trump’s rally in Ohio for a senatorial endorsement, The Times heinously misrepresented two items in Trump’s speech:

1. The article was headlined – “Trump Says Some Migrants Are ‘Not People’ and Predicts a ‘Blood Bath’ if He Loses.” The “Blood Bath” comment was all over the internet yesterday, with the mainstream media (MSM) universally failing to provide essential context – i.e., China was building two huge auto plants in Mexico and was planning to flood the US auto industry with cars. He said America had already lost 35% of its auto industry to Mexico and unless he is elected, there will be a blood bath. Clearly referring to the industry suffering a blood bath, not a blood bath over the election. But almost all of the MSM didn’t provide any context in their headlines.
2. The Times provided some context in its headline for the “Not People” comment (“Some” migrants are not people), but “Some” is such a soft word that most readers are going to pay attention to it. Rather, they will see only “migrants are not people.” And the speech itself had much more context – “He asserted, without evidence, that other countries were emptying their prisons of ‘young people’ and sending them across the border. ‘I don’t know if you call them people in some cases. They’re not people, in my opinion.” He is clearly referring to any immigrants released from prison to migrate to America.

Sunday Book Review #167 – Elon Musk

It’s been a long time since I read a book. Last year, when I was dealing with cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (and probably before that, too), I didn’t have the motivation, discipline, interest, or patience to sit for hours and read about a single subject. My attention span wouldn’t allow it. But now, since starting on prednisone for my second bout with pneumonia, I suddenly felt the energy and interest to read a book again. So I went to the NY Times bestselling list (and my local library) and picked a few books that interested me.

The first book that I started proved a disappointment – “The Body Keeps The Score,” by Bessell Van Der Kolk. Although its been on The Times list for many months, the subtitle should have scared me off – “Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma.” Way too medical/scientific for my interest. Maybe I’m not ready to return to book-reading after all.

But my next book showed I was ready. Elon Musk, by Walter Isaacson. Although the book has 615 pages, I immediately sensed that this book was so readable and interesting that its size would be no problem. Ten days later, finished. Ninety-five bite-sized chapters and plenty of photos helped.

Isaacson provides just enough of Musk’s youth (a weird, remote, harsh father who may have caused some PTSD [maybe I should have read the Brain, Mind, Body, Trauma book]) before focusing on his adult accomplishments, which start right after college and continue never-ending, without any break, up to the current times. As the book ends, Musk is simultaneously managing six important ventures – Tesla, SpaceX (and Starlink), Twitter, The Boring Company (tunnels), Neuralink (brain-computer interface), and x.AI (Musk’s new alternative Google’s Bard and OpenAI’s ChatGPT).

Musk’s first product, right out of college in 1995, was Zip2, which merged a directory of businesses with map software. Four years later, in 1999, Musk and his brother Kimbal, sold Zip2 to Compaq to consolidate it with its AltaVista for $307 million. Musk’s share – $22 million; Kimbal cleared $15 million.

Musk took $12 million and invested it in X.com, which was intended to become an online financial-services company – banking, online purchases, checking, credit cards, investments, and loans. X.com’s main competitor was Peter Thiel’s PayPal. They merged in 2000 essentially 50-50, with X.com the surviving corporate entity, but the name PayPal surviving. In 2002, Musk was squeezed out of power by Thiel, et al., and in 2002 the company went public and was acquired by eBay for $1.5 billion. Musk’s share – $250 million.

Musk then in 2002 shifted his attention to rockets. He was shocked to learn that NASA had become disinterested in traveling to other planets, and Musk felt that colonization of Mars might be critical for the survival of human consciousness should some disaster cause extinction of life on Planet Earth. Twenty years later, this private company has over 5,000 satellites orbiting the Earth, provides high-speed internet through subsidiary StarLink (helped Ukraine in its war with Russia), and is valued at $180 billion (greater than Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Verizon, or AT&T).

Tesla, of course, is Musk’s claim to fame for most of America. Musk wasn’t on the ground floor of electric vehicles, but like Henry Ford, he is the person who figured how to mass produce them. This public company at one time was worth over $1 trillion, but the market cap is currently about $600 million.

Because of Musk’s concern about what Google was doing with artificial intelligence (greedy and careless re: dangers of AI), he funded a non-profit competitor, OpenAI, with Sam Altman. But Musk eventually left the company’s direction to Altman, who partnered with Microsoft to become profit oriented. Musk is currently challenging that partnership in court, while concurrently founding a competitor, x.AI.

Twitter is Musk’s latest interest. Musk is a huge supporter of a meritocracy and despises the Woke DEI. Because Twitter became famous for favoring Progressives and censoring Patriots, Musk impulsively offered to take the company private 2022 for $44 billion, an offer too good to turn down. After immediately eliminating 6,000 of the 8,000 Twitter employees, Musk is currently focusing on earning income (keeping advertising, collecting fees for blue checks) and Content Moderation.

Re: Content Moderation, Twitter’s erstwhile policies presented Musk with three options according to Isaacson:

1. It was a laudable effort to prevent the spread of false information that was medically dangerous (Covid), undermined democracy (Trump and conservatives), provoked violence (Trump and conservatives), stirred up hate (Trump and conservatives), or perpetrated scams.
2. It was an effort that was originally well-intentioned, but had gone too far in repressing opinions that dissented from the medical and political orthodoxy or offended the hair-trigger sensitivities of Twitter’s progressive and Woke staff.
3. A dark collusion between the Deep State actors conspiring with Big Tech and legacy media to preserve its power.

Isaacson says Musk generally agreed with #2, but came to accept some of #3.

Musk’s modus operandi, or lessons learned for efficiency and effectiveness with his ventures, are his well-publicized Algorithm:

1. Question every requirement.
2. Delete any part or process you can. Cut out so much that some of it will be brought back as essential. If you don’t bring back 10-20%, you probably didn’t cut out enough.
3. Simplify and optimize.
4. Accelerate cycle time.
5. Automate, only after the first four steps.
6. Corollaries ———– as follows:
7. All technical managers must have hands-on experience.
8. Comradery is dangerous.
9. It’s OK to be wrong; just don’t be confident and wrong. (The guy who may be wrong, but never in doubt.)
10. Never ask your troops to do something you are not willing to do.
11. To solve problems, don’t just meet with managers; go one level down.
12. When hiring, look for the right attitude. Skills can be taught; attitude change requires a brain transplant.
13. A maniacal sense of urgency is essential.
14. The only rules are the ones dictated by physics; the others are mere recommendations.

As a personal matter, Musk has had a succession of wives and girlfriends who have gifted him with nine kids, most IVF. And Musk says he has undiagnosed Aspergers.

Saturday Night at the Movies #154 – God Save Texas

God Save Texas: A Journey into the Soul of the Lone Star State is a well-regarded 2018 book by well-respected Pulitzer author, Austin resident, Lawrence Wright. The book is on-hold for me at the Igo public library, and I look forward to reading it.

God Save Texas is also a 2024 three-part documentary on HBO MAX. Although the documentary was boring at best and disturbing at worst, I finished it yesterday. As my brother Kelly warned, the documentary was hyper-progressive. Apparently, the documentary wasn’t based at all on the book, which consists of ten chapters. Instead, the book’s author Wright introduces the three directors and then gives them free rein to provide their perspective on three subjects special to Texas – treatment of criminals at Huntsville, treatment of Blacks in the Houston oil industry, and treatment of Mexicans in El Paso.

One director, Richard Linklater, is accomplished (Dazed & Confused), while the other two seem to be neophytes undeserving this platform (Alex Stapleton and Iliana Sosa). They were apparently chosen primarily because their hometowns were Huntsville, Houston, and El Paso, respectively. And, of course, Stapleton and Sosa were selected because of their color. While Wright and Linklater show some affection for their state, Stapleton and Sosa obviously hate where they live (Texas doesn’t deserve them), but they are probably working here because they would be ignored anywhere else.

None of the directors seems especially well-read or insightful. Linklater has the benefit of more life’s experiences, while the two neophytes come across as young kids who have a lot of strong opinions from extremely limited perspectives. They remind me of when I first ran for Congress, thinking I had learned all I needed to know by sitting around with my friends arguing politics. Didn’t realize you have to get outside your bubble and engage others to refine your thinking.

As Ayn Rand said about having a philosophy – “Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation – or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight; self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown.

Rand was describing Stapleton and Sosa, imo, and perhaps Linklater. I expect much better from Wright in his book.