Remarkable Xavier, you’ve taken bothsideism and transformed it into a useful tool for intellectual rigor and clarity. Regarding the attack on Venezuela, this essay along with Timothy Snyder’s and Robert Arnold’s essays on Substack today, have given me more insight than everything else I’ve read on mainstream news sources. Thank you.
When I first heard the news of whatever you want to call what was done, it was from American sources and left me with the initial impression that no weaponry had been brought into play and no one had been hurt. Of course I soon learned otherwise, but, speaking cynically as a non-American, yeah, lives were lost, but not AMERICAN lives (as people in the U.S. define "American", but that's another issue) so it didn't make the first news. Or maybe in the fog of...again whatever you want to call it...the concern about getting the story out fast precluded knowledge of the violence that had, in fact, occurred.
When I read news stories I do as you advise, and seek many viewpoints, but what really interests me is informed commentary...the subjective views of various experts in relevant fields.
The trouble here is that commentary cannot be very "informed" for two reasons -- the opacity of the current regime, or, if you prefer, administration, precludes the information required. But I think of even greater importance is the fact that we can only speculate on, but not predict, the future.
Past adventures of this nature -- each being individualistic, thus different from each other, suggests that for Venezuelan citizens there will likely be no good come of it -- a frying pan to fire situation -- and for most American citizens, ditto. There is a good chance, I think, that absurdly wealthy Americans will become much more wealthy, a function of war, but they are not my concern.
As a Canadian of course I worry about the fact that a system that has protected us since WWII is now being broken by the country most in a position to break it. It is a sad truth that we are in what in a secular sense (or so I believe) is a war between -- again anything I say will reflect my own bias -- the rule of law on one hand, and the might-makes-right paradigm favored by those who have, or think they have, the might on their side. It has been thus since history was first recorded. Trump is, I think, trying to turn the U.S. into what Britain, or Rome for that matter, more recently, Germany either were, or tried to be. It does not bode well.
“In the big picture, this case underscores why media literacy is vital.”
Call me skeptical. You made your argument, I have no reason to think I don’t understand your logic, I just happen to disagree. And … constructive criticism is the hallmark of a healthy society.
To me, in the big picture, every case underscores why morality literacy is vital. Allow me to explain:
When two parties (individuals or groups) observing the same irrefutable evidence draw conflicting conclusions, they’ve interpreted the evidence using different logic. And … there are flaws in the logic. What if there are no logic flaws? Then there is no conflict.
What if Party A and Party B are both moral (unbiased)? Then they are open to having their interpretations subjected to rigorous skepticism, the logic flaws are identified and replaced with sound logic, and the conflict is resolved. If Party A is unwilling to subject their assumptions to skepticism, rigorous or otherwise, then Party A’s behavior is immoral (biased against Party B).
Am I biased against the Spin Spectrum concept? Or is the Spin Spectrum concept inherently biased? We all must judge for ourselves. One thing I can say for sure is that I am open to having my logic subjected to skepticism, rigorous or otherwise.
I’ve used scientific language in the below-referenced essay, but it should be readily understandable to anyone reading this highly sophisticated newsletter, and I suggest the essay’s underlying message applies to every community, scientific or otherwise.
I enthusiastically agree, and maybe the following is preaching to the choir, but I’d like to seize an opportunity by expanding on your comment.
The way people use the words “skeptical” and “cynical” seems unnecessarily ambiguous to me.
If I say I’m highly skeptical of an idea you express, it means I feel very confident that I’m not going to get a good argument from you supporting your idea, but I’m open to the possibility that you’ll surprise me.
Conversely, if trying to resolve a conflict with someone is like talking to the wall, then I would say that person is cynical about my idea and naïve about their conflicting idea.
In other words, to paraphrase you:
Cynical is bad. Cynical is unhealthy. Cynical is unnecessary.
To someone not familiar with a rigorous challenges to their point of view it comes off as a personal attack or an unwillingness to explore a different pov. Am I understanding you correctly here? The scientific community is an obvious example of this type of rigorous testing with its peer review.
Another thought came to mind for your consideration …
Have you seen the movie Conspiracy (2001) staring Kenneth Branagh? If I correctly understand your categorization criteria, I’d label its characters as centrists. If I respond appropriately to the fact that they — in a very competent, professional, and business-like manner — are planning the mass execution of Europe’s Jews, I’d expect your criteria to label me as left of center.
Personally, I think I can ignore where the flag is tied to the rope to know where the center is in tug of war.
Albert Einstein said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Translation: if I could make my answer simpler without making it too simple, it would be simpler, so please bear with me.
The origin of our species was roughly 12,000 generations ago. Our prehistoric post-origin ancestors lived in the planet’s first multi-family “hunter-gatherer band” social system. Anthropologists specializing in the topic know a lot about how the system works, and they will tell you that band members were very “familiar with rigorous challenges to their point of view” in a context in which it didn’t come off as a personal attack and instead came off as necessary for survival.
Rigorous challenges to conflicting points of view within a social system are good, healthy, necessary, and moral whereas rigorous between-system challenges are unnecessary.
Why were two hunter-gatherer bands separate systems? Because they were socially and economically autonomous. How many human social systems are there in the 21st century? One (aka “we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality” per MLK).
Is it ever okay to agree to disagree? Yes. Our task is to resolve conflict in our direct personal relationships. Our historic ancestors established moral traditions with the specific purpose of resolving “beyond direct personal relationship” conflicts with familiar names like the Abrahamic tradition, Buddhism, democracy, science, justice, and capitalism. However, they only work when the people in positions of power are moral.
What makes me such an expert? My idiosyncratic interpretation of the Libet experiment per my above-referenced essay.
Someone told me an elevator speech is max 300 words. So, the above is (just) my elevator speech.
I understand that different media has different biases. I also think that’s what got DJT elected this second term. I agree we must read different sources. But FOX is not “real news”. It is entertainment. Unfortunately much of America get all their “news” only from Fox.
How do you analyze Trump’s address yesterday am? I listened myself and the main focus of what he was saying to me was this military operation was because of the oil, that he wants for the big oil companies. He said it several times. I don’t think this was covered in the Traditional media, like Reuters or AP was it? Did they report that 40 people had been killed, including some civilians and that a small number of our military had been injured?
I think people should know these facts. Those outlets and Trump himself made it sound like it was a perfect operation.
Marco Rubio today said on MTP that it was a total law enforcement operation, which was not true.
I read HCR every day and I appreciate her historical comparisons, like today.
My immediate thought when I heard the initial report was this comes to fruition of a deal made with the oil companies. Obviously pardoning one narco dealer head of state and taking another into custody paints a different picture of motives. We have much to deal with in trying to recover our world reputation as a law abiding nation and one of moral integrity.
Thank you! I would note from the information you have gathered from the Left to the Right that the worry about future fallout on policy issues is more likely to be on the left. While the Right wanted a celebration of the the past tense. While Mainstream Neutral sources focused only on the here and now. I wonder if that focus reverses with a switch of power in government or do liberals go into neutral after the Midterms!
By the way, In a Press release in the British Independent Newspaper that my British Cousin forwarded to me, was a report that this move by Trump and Trump's Statement that America was taking ownership of Venezuelan Oil has caused widespread panic in Russia of Starvation and calls for Putin's Head! It seems it has dawned on the population that the price of oil if "Our Oil" is indeed successfully brought back on line would drop the World price of oil to $50/barrel. The Russians can't produce their oil at that price.Oil is almost the only commodity that Russia has to sell! If we are worried about what a Trump will do when cornered politically, just think about what this will induce Putin to do! We saw what a threatened Netanyahu is doing! EGads, can you tell what side of the political spectrum I fall into?
Excellent insight into the variations of media coverage. This example explains so much about the divide in opinions about Trump's actions. Those turning to only a single source for news are allowing themselves to be manipulated into a particular bias. Unfortunately the main source of "news" for many people is not actually a truth telling source but rather a propaganda machine. Bias is one thing, but propaganda is intentionally misleading.
I don't understand how our country can do this to another country, how would we take it if this very thing was done to us? What about the "Golden Rule" of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or Confucius' "Don't do to someone else what you don't want done to you".
Empathy and essential life skills like sharing and playing fair are taught in kindergarten, which our current president and his administration obviously flunked.
Thanks so much for your analysis, such good reading as usual!
Remarkable Xavier, you’ve taken bothsideism and transformed it into a useful tool for intellectual rigor and clarity. Regarding the attack on Venezuela, this essay along with Timothy Snyder’s and Robert Arnold’s essays on Substack today, have given me more insight than everything else I’ve read on mainstream news sources. Thank you.
Excellent work (and a lot of it; well done).
When I first heard the news of whatever you want to call what was done, it was from American sources and left me with the initial impression that no weaponry had been brought into play and no one had been hurt. Of course I soon learned otherwise, but, speaking cynically as a non-American, yeah, lives were lost, but not AMERICAN lives (as people in the U.S. define "American", but that's another issue) so it didn't make the first news. Or maybe in the fog of...again whatever you want to call it...the concern about getting the story out fast precluded knowledge of the violence that had, in fact, occurred.
When I read news stories I do as you advise, and seek many viewpoints, but what really interests me is informed commentary...the subjective views of various experts in relevant fields.
The trouble here is that commentary cannot be very "informed" for two reasons -- the opacity of the current regime, or, if you prefer, administration, precludes the information required. But I think of even greater importance is the fact that we can only speculate on, but not predict, the future.
Past adventures of this nature -- each being individualistic, thus different from each other, suggests that for Venezuelan citizens there will likely be no good come of it -- a frying pan to fire situation -- and for most American citizens, ditto. There is a good chance, I think, that absurdly wealthy Americans will become much more wealthy, a function of war, but they are not my concern.
As a Canadian of course I worry about the fact that a system that has protected us since WWII is now being broken by the country most in a position to break it. It is a sad truth that we are in what in a secular sense (or so I believe) is a war between -- again anything I say will reflect my own bias -- the rule of law on one hand, and the might-makes-right paradigm favored by those who have, or think they have, the might on their side. It has been thus since history was first recorded. Trump is, I think, trying to turn the U.S. into what Britain, or Rome for that matter, more recently, Germany either were, or tried to be. It does not bode well.
“In the big picture, this case underscores why media literacy is vital.”
Call me skeptical. You made your argument, I have no reason to think I don’t understand your logic, I just happen to disagree. And … constructive criticism is the hallmark of a healthy society.
To me, in the big picture, every case underscores why morality literacy is vital. Allow me to explain:
When two parties (individuals or groups) observing the same irrefutable evidence draw conflicting conclusions, they’ve interpreted the evidence using different logic. And … there are flaws in the logic. What if there are no logic flaws? Then there is no conflict.
What if Party A and Party B are both moral (unbiased)? Then they are open to having their interpretations subjected to rigorous skepticism, the logic flaws are identified and replaced with sound logic, and the conflict is resolved. If Party A is unwilling to subject their assumptions to skepticism, rigorous or otherwise, then Party A’s behavior is immoral (biased against Party B).
Am I biased against the Spin Spectrum concept? Or is the Spin Spectrum concept inherently biased? We all must judge for ourselves. One thing I can say for sure is that I am open to having my logic subjected to skepticism, rigorous or otherwise.
I’ve used scientific language in the below-referenced essay, but it should be readily understandable to anyone reading this highly sophisticated newsletter, and I suggest the essay’s underlying message applies to every community, scientific or otherwise.
https://jamesrcarey.substack.com/p/why-scientists-are-expert-problem
Skeptical is good. Skeptical is healthy. Skeptical is necessary.
I enthusiastically agree, and maybe the following is preaching to the choir, but I’d like to seize an opportunity by expanding on your comment.
The way people use the words “skeptical” and “cynical” seems unnecessarily ambiguous to me.
If I say I’m highly skeptical of an idea you express, it means I feel very confident that I’m not going to get a good argument from you supporting your idea, but I’m open to the possibility that you’ll surprise me.
Conversely, if trying to resolve a conflict with someone is like talking to the wall, then I would say that person is cynical about my idea and naïve about their conflicting idea.
In other words, to paraphrase you:
Cynical is bad. Cynical is unhealthy. Cynical is unnecessary.
To someone not familiar with a rigorous challenges to their point of view it comes off as a personal attack or an unwillingness to explore a different pov. Am I understanding you correctly here? The scientific community is an obvious example of this type of rigorous testing with its peer review.
Another thought came to mind for your consideration …
Have you seen the movie Conspiracy (2001) staring Kenneth Branagh? If I correctly understand your categorization criteria, I’d label its characters as centrists. If I respond appropriately to the fact that they — in a very competent, professional, and business-like manner — are planning the mass execution of Europe’s Jews, I’d expect your criteria to label me as left of center.
Personally, I think I can ignore where the flag is tied to the rope to know where the center is in tug of war.
Thank you for that question.
Albert Einstein said, “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Translation: if I could make my answer simpler without making it too simple, it would be simpler, so please bear with me.
The origin of our species was roughly 12,000 generations ago. Our prehistoric post-origin ancestors lived in the planet’s first multi-family “hunter-gatherer band” social system. Anthropologists specializing in the topic know a lot about how the system works, and they will tell you that band members were very “familiar with rigorous challenges to their point of view” in a context in which it didn’t come off as a personal attack and instead came off as necessary for survival.
Rigorous challenges to conflicting points of view within a social system are good, healthy, necessary, and moral whereas rigorous between-system challenges are unnecessary.
Why were two hunter-gatherer bands separate systems? Because they were socially and economically autonomous. How many human social systems are there in the 21st century? One (aka “we are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality” per MLK).
Is it ever okay to agree to disagree? Yes. Our task is to resolve conflict in our direct personal relationships. Our historic ancestors established moral traditions with the specific purpose of resolving “beyond direct personal relationship” conflicts with familiar names like the Abrahamic tradition, Buddhism, democracy, science, justice, and capitalism. However, they only work when the people in positions of power are moral.
What makes me such an expert? My idiosyncratic interpretation of the Libet experiment per my above-referenced essay.
Someone told me an elevator speech is max 300 words. So, the above is (just) my elevator speech.
I understand that different media has different biases. I also think that’s what got DJT elected this second term. I agree we must read different sources. But FOX is not “real news”. It is entertainment. Unfortunately much of America get all their “news” only from Fox.
How do you analyze Trump’s address yesterday am? I listened myself and the main focus of what he was saying to me was this military operation was because of the oil, that he wants for the big oil companies. He said it several times. I don’t think this was covered in the Traditional media, like Reuters or AP was it? Did they report that 40 people had been killed, including some civilians and that a small number of our military had been injured?
I think people should know these facts. Those outlets and Trump himself made it sound like it was a perfect operation.
Marco Rubio today said on MTP that it was a total law enforcement operation, which was not true.
I read HCR every day and I appreciate her historical comparisons, like today.
Thank you.
Some infographics to follow the people, motives and costs behind Trump's invasion:
Petro-Politics: How Campaign Cash Fueled Trump’s Invasion of Venezuela
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/01/04/petro-politics-trump-venezuela-invasion-oil/
Follow the money behind Trump’s grift in attacking Venezuela for its oil with this interactive map
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/01/03/venezuela-maduro-trump-grift-oil-reserves/
Mapping the jungles of Venezuela where Americans will die in Trump’s grift for oil
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/01/03/trump-invades-venezuela-for-oil/
What happened when America invaded Iraq for its oil?
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/01/03/venezuela-maduro-kidnap-trump-iraq-invasion-lesson/
Americans go hungry as Trump spends millions to invade Venezuela: Mapping the trade off
https://thedemlabs.org/2026/01/03/venezuela-us-military-strikes-maduro-trump-hunger-tradeoff/
Good read Xavier.
I was so angry about this action I was spitting.
My immediate thought when I heard the initial report was this comes to fruition of a deal made with the oil companies. Obviously pardoning one narco dealer head of state and taking another into custody paints a different picture of motives. We have much to deal with in trying to recover our world reputation as a law abiding nation and one of moral integrity.
Thank you! I would note from the information you have gathered from the Left to the Right that the worry about future fallout on policy issues is more likely to be on the left. While the Right wanted a celebration of the the past tense. While Mainstream Neutral sources focused only on the here and now. I wonder if that focus reverses with a switch of power in government or do liberals go into neutral after the Midterms!
By the way, In a Press release in the British Independent Newspaper that my British Cousin forwarded to me, was a report that this move by Trump and Trump's Statement that America was taking ownership of Venezuelan Oil has caused widespread panic in Russia of Starvation and calls for Putin's Head! It seems it has dawned on the population that the price of oil if "Our Oil" is indeed successfully brought back on line would drop the World price of oil to $50/barrel. The Russians can't produce their oil at that price.Oil is almost the only commodity that Russia has to sell! If we are worried about what a Trump will do when cornered politically, just think about what this will induce Putin to do! We saw what a threatened Netanyahu is doing! EGads, can you tell what side of the political spectrum I fall into?
I’m 79 with limited income..please accept my enthusiastic support sans $$👵
Excellent insight into the variations of media coverage. This example explains so much about the divide in opinions about Trump's actions. Those turning to only a single source for news are allowing themselves to be manipulated into a particular bias. Unfortunately the main source of "news" for many people is not actually a truth telling source but rather a propaganda machine. Bias is one thing, but propaganda is intentionally misleading.
Once again, the incredible X presents us with the superior quality of information that leads to informed choices. Thank you my friend!
I don't understand how our country can do this to another country, how would we take it if this very thing was done to us? What about the "Golden Rule" of Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or Confucius' "Don't do to someone else what you don't want done to you".
Empathy and essential life skills like sharing and playing fair are taught in kindergarten, which our current president and his administration obviously flunked.
Thanks so much for your analysis, such good reading as usual!
This is why historians like HCR are vital to us understanding the context of current events. Context here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh
Another great piece of writing, X!! Thank you for your voice!!
I am getting “Audio Processing” message for days. Can’t listen to these posts. Anyone else having this issue?