Despite the agency's human resources department saying he hadn’t even been onboarded, Jeremy Lewin oversaw the destruction of USAID. It’s not clear he had the legal authority to do so.
Yeah that’s the only way. And that’s what I keep trying to remind people, but a lot of people don’t want to hear it.
Like, I’m not being naïve about the upbill battle that it is, I know we’re the underdogs and success is not guaranteed. But it’s literally the only way.
So people who claim “that never works” are only being defeatist. More accurately, “it hasn’t worked yet.” Nothing does until it does, but that’s no reason not to try.
And it’s intellectually lazy to assume nothing will ever change, because change has always been the only constant running throughout all of human history.
rant:
But some people get really smug about claims like “well the past was always XYZ, so the future will be too!” Yet the facts of history do not support that claim, and it’s honestly a praesen-centric claim, because it applies hindsight bias to the past, survivorship bias to the present, and availability bias to the future. In other words, it’s a claim that our current perspective, from our current vantage point, is the only valid one.
It’s to claim “we are at a unique moment in time that is somehow separate from the very past from which it emerged, and is obviously superior to it in every way; even though it only is what it is because it came to be via the processes that unfolded throughout the past and up until this very moment.”
And so everything “good” or “correct” looks like it’s because we’re in the enlightened present, and everything “bad” or “wrong” looks like it was because of the ignorant past. But the truth is, there’s no separation, and it’s exceptionalist to claim that there is. There’s a continuity which can’t be ignored.
So in a way, it’s really just another extension of ego-centrism, just like ethnocentrism, linguocentrism, natio-centrism, etc.; i.e. of being unable to imagine anything outside one’s own experience or identity.
It merely expands the “in-group” to “now” rather than drawing spatial or cultural boundaries. Perhaps a more enlightened perspective than those other examples, but still trapped within the delusion of separation.
I digress. Key takeaway: do not feel we are doomed just because it seems grim, because that assumes we are omniscient. In truth, the possibilities for the future might defy the limits of our imaginations. So we mustn’t give up; we must keep striving for change.
Yeah basically keep pushing left until a majority is willing to impeach and disqualify
Yeah that’s the only way. And that’s what I keep trying to remind people, but a lot of people don’t want to hear it.
Like, I’m not being naïve about the upbill battle that it is, I know we’re the underdogs and success is not guaranteed. But it’s literally the only way.
So people who claim “that never works” are only being defeatist. More accurately, “it hasn’t worked yet.” Nothing does until it does, but that’s no reason not to try.
And it’s intellectually lazy to assume nothing will ever change, because change has always been the only constant running throughout all of human history.
rant:
But some people get really smug about claims like “well the past was always XYZ, so the future will be too!” Yet the facts of history do not support that claim, and it’s honestly a praesen-centric claim, because it applies hindsight bias to the past, survivorship bias to the present, and availability bias to the future. In other words, it’s a claim that our current perspective, from our current vantage point, is the only valid one.
It’s to claim “we are at a unique moment in time that is somehow separate from the very past from which it emerged, and is obviously superior to it in every way; even though it only is what it is because it came to be via the processes that unfolded throughout the past and up until this very moment.”
And so everything “good” or “correct” looks like it’s because we’re in the enlightened present, and everything “bad” or “wrong” looks like it was because of the ignorant past. But the truth is, there’s no separation, and it’s exceptionalist to claim that there is. There’s a continuity which can’t be ignored.
So in a way, it’s really just another extension of ego-centrism, just like ethnocentrism, linguocentrism, natio-centrism, etc.; i.e. of being unable to imagine anything outside one’s own experience or identity.
It merely expands the “in-group” to “now” rather than drawing spatial or cultural boundaries. Perhaps a more enlightened perspective than those other examples, but still trapped within the delusion of separation.
I digress. Key takeaway: do not feel we are doomed just because it seems grim, because that assumes we are omniscient. In truth, the possibilities for the future might defy the limits of our imaginations. So we mustn’t give up; we must keep striving for change.