I describe myself as an arrogant know-it-all, who presumes to lecture those in authority about their errors and shortcomings. I actually know quite a bit, but I don’t want anybody to take my word for anything, so I am not revealing my qualifications – just assume I’m simply an arrogant know-it-all. If what I say does not persuade on its own, then nothing I can tell you about my background should make any difference.
I am skeptical of any statement made by people in positions of authority, on their own authority. It matters not if they are in government, media, scientific associations, or other groups of self-serving people. I lament that the vast majority today do not question, instead taking what is said at face value. It may always have been this way, and I may have only clued-in late in the process. Certainly the major media outlets were always subject to pressures, or even ownership dictates, to toe a specific line. But there existed more independent outlets at one time, that today have been absorbed through consolidation, to the extent that skepticism over the “official story” is simply not a part of what they do. Instead, this falls on arrogant know-it-alls, or maybe “arrogant non-believers in the story”, like myself and many others. On this site, I will criticize and publicly disembowel, stories and positions that I find to be highly flawed, deceptive, or otherwise self-serving. If you don’t like it, you may call your elected representative, telling him that “Krakondack is an arrogant know-it-all who tells me I’m wrong. Oh, and he thinks you’re an idiot”. I will back that statement, with few exceptions. You can also just leave a comment, telling me I’m an arrogant know-it-all. You can criticize me too, even with some spice in the wording. But my rule is you have to state why I’m wrong, making an attempt to refute my logic, or my facts. Otherwise, I may just delete the comment as unworthy of my readers’ time. As a curmudgeon, I don’t like fan-mail, and simply agreeing with me is not worth the digits used to do so. If however, you see additional ramifications of something I’ve stated, that I have not covered, that is definitely worth posting.
One of the biggest influences on my thinking in recent years comes from having read Nassim Taleb’s “The Black Swan”. Here is a guy who, like me, is an arrogant know-it-all, except he had my ideas better than I had them, and developed them further than I had, plus he wrote them up into a book. He describes himself as a skeptical empiricist, an inelegant term that nonetheless suffices to get across how I see things. And his rationale for being such is one I very much share: To avoid being a sucker. Nothing gets my dander up faster than thinking I’m being considered a sucker, and that also applies to me as a member of the great unwashed public. That’s what I will fight against here, with the full force of my arrogance, and in the anonymity that this forum provides. Enjoy!