Hello reader,

I am sorry to disappoint with another memo but there have been a few setbacks which have prevented me from pushing out a podcast episode or article (and I missed posting inside the month of September by an hour -__-‘)

Article two was going to be about beliefs, how they form and disseminate, then with the Charlottesville tiki torch incident I changed my focus to that. However, I ended up choosing not to publish my thoughts on that issue since I believe that I need to first further establish my beliefs, values, and focus as a writer and that of The Albatross as a whole. I want to focus more on how to think rather than on what to think and the conventional method of reporting on an event and arguing within that context does not fit that focus well. Context and argumentation are necessary albeit a stimuli that trigger a defensive and assumptive response on the part of the reader whether it be blind praise or blind rejection. So I will abstain from delving too deep into context and refine this approach with each publication.

Secondly, on my list of things to discuss is my writing style and interest. I am not an “advocate” in the sense that I push for specific policies, agendas, political party, ideology, etc. This is because my focus is not on good ideas per se and instead my interest lies in bad ideas. “Good” and “Bad” are poor word choices but I’ll try my best to explain.

My reasoning behind this prioritization is due to my belief that it is harder to know what is “good” than it is to know what is “bad”. In other words, it is easier to know what we are doing wrong than it is to know what is the best way of doing something. This means that before we can work towards what is good we must first address what is bad given the relative ease of that pursuit. This helps build a stronger foundation for whatever “good” idea we are pushing by narrowing it down and eliminating “bad” ideas.

“I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” – Thomas Edison

Moreover, I believe that good- and bad-focused endeavors are not equal for two reasons. The first, is the order of operations–just like in math–which is to first address and mitigate any negative effects (the bad) before you can focus on development (the good). Secondly, we must mind the law of diminishing returns as we devote our attention to things good or bad in nature and it is my opinion that in the US we tend to ignore addressing problems and instead focus more on developing good things like our economy and careers. You hear more rhetoric regarding career development and increasing profits than you do about social programs like safety nets. For example, helping the homeless get their lives back together and implementing policies that grow our middle class will have more “bang for our buck” since: 1) we are focusing on a problem rather than on development 2) we have already put so many resources into developing our corporations by bailing out banks and the auto industry plus policies like lowering their taxes will do little if any good to the nation as a whole.

This is why it is difficult for me to write about or even care for a subject such as free college tuition or border security until someone spews nonsense that I feel obligated to correct or if these policies address a problem that I believe is being ignored over other more popular policies.

So in the first case when people are misinformed or poorly advocating for a policy, I feel obligated to address the nonsense in the best interest of having a proper and informed discussion. We can’t properly discuss immigration when people lie that DACA recipients are murders and rapists when clearly in order to qualify for DACA status you must fulfill certain eligibility requirements such as having a clean criminal record.

For the second case, I feel like raising awareness of important yet obscure issues adds more value to the discussion than arguing for or against any current popular policy because I believe shifting our discussion and priority is more important. Again, thinking in terms of diminishing returns leads me to devote my effort and attention to what is being overlooked or ignored which often times isn’t an obscure policy but rather failed understanding of nuance and underutilization of critical thinking.

Now, another concern of mine is regarding Article 1. I got some feedback and there’s a good amount of people who thought the first half of the article is dense, but that the second half (the list) is insightful and easy to read and understand. Since publishing it I have been thinking about how to write more briefly and intuitively so that it does not feel so dense and hard to grasp.

Please do not forget to provide feedback. It is much appreciated. Thank you!

― Albert