Smart people saying smart things

Richard Beck: “Orthodox Alexithymia

When theology and doctrine become separated from emotion we end up with something dysfunctional and even monstrous. A theology or doctrinal system that has become decoupled from emotion is going to look emotionally stunted and even inhuman.

What I’m describing here might be captured by the tag “orthodox alexithymia.” By “orthodox” I mean the intellectual pursuit of right belief. And by “alexithymia” I mean someone who is, theologically speaking, emotionally and socially deaf and dumb. Even theologically sociopathic.

… Orthodox alexithymia is produced when the intellectual facets of Christian theology, in the pursuit of correct and right belief, become decoupled from emotion, empathy, and fellow-feeling. Orthodox alexithymics are like patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex brain damage. Their reasoning may be sophisticated and internally consistent but it is disconnected from human emotion. And without Christ-shaped caring to guide the chain of calculation we wind up with the theological equivalent of preferring to scratch a doctrinal finger over preventing destruction of the whole world. Logically and doctrinally such preferences can be justified. They are not “contrary to reason.” But they are inhuman and monstrous. Emotion, not reason, is what has gone missing.

Neil Gaiman, “Keynote Address,” University of the Arts, May 17, 2012

Someone asked me recently how to do something she thought was going to be difficult, in this case recording an audio book, and I suggested she pretend that she was someone who could do it. Not pretend to do it, but pretend she was someone who could. She put up a notice to this effect on the studio wall, and she said it helped.

So be wise, because the world needs more wisdom, and if you cannot be wise, pretend to be someone who is wise, and then just behave like they would.

And now go, and make interesting mistakes, make amazing mistakes, make glorious and fantastic mistakes. Break rules. Leave the world more interesting for your being here. Make good art.

Mary E. Hunt: “Bishops Search for Condoms in Cookie Boxes

Emboldened by the Vatican’s hostile takeover of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, the [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] have shown their prowess by choosing to investigate the Girl Scouts of the USA.

… The apparent goal of this exercise of “investigating” gender female persons is to set up and enforce a male-defined model of girlhood/womanhood. A Vatican-, or in this case, USCCB-launched investigation is what Sister Sandra Schneiders, IHM, calls the equivalent of a grand jury investigation. There is the presumption that something is wrong, not something right, that there is guilt to be uncovered, not virtue to be unleashed. What is wrong seems to be women and girls thinking for themselves and acting for the common good.

Mark Thoma: “The Need for Countervailing Power

Before the recession started I could not have imagined that policymakers would fail to put the unemployed first and foremost in all policy decisions. I was sure the unemployed would come before inflation, before banks, before debt reduction and contrived fights over the debt ceiling. How could we possibly turn our backs on millions of struggling households, especially when doing so creates so many additional long-run problems for individual households and for the economy as a whole? Nothing else would be more important than putting people back to work, and we would, of course, come together and mobilize in a national war against high unemployment.

But I forgot something. With the decline in unions in recent decades, the working class has lost both economic and political power. And at the same time, those at the top end of the income scale have gained power both relatively and absolutely. So why would I have ever thought that the unemployed would come first when they have so little organized political power? Is it any surprise that policy has paid most attention to the issues that just happen to be the things those with the most political power care the most about? What was I thinking?

I suppose I was thinking that politicians were honorable, that money wouldn’t trump principle. Silly me. In any case, the question is how to change the balance of power.

  • Lori

     

    state governments are horrible but they can’t declare wars or inflate the currency.    

    But if the situation was such that you could pay to the state, but not to the federal government then the situation would also be such that the state could wage war & inflate the currency. Do you not get that?

  • Lori

     And again I find myself wanting to know why we can’t actually PLONK people in Disqus. Their unwillingness to make that possible is one of Disqus’ greatest faults.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Eh, I just mentally do it. Tends to work well enough anyway.

  • Lori

     That’s my usual method, but it would be nice to have the option.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    I resent that.

    Lori- the point is the ability to inflate the currency and wage war pretty much totally indepependtly of the “general welfare’ is a bad thing.  states not being able to do that makes them, in effect, better governments than out federal government. That and the fact that they actually can be called to account to spend tax dollars for more than a fraction of what they are supposed to be spending it on.

    and you are right: a state that doesn’t destroy it’s currency or start wars probably couldn’t exist. welcome to anarchism. (anarcho-capitalism)

    Ellie- the monarchy as it existed then was very limited. they wouldn’t have the resources to do any of that stuff. thats the idea. 

  • EllieMurasaki

     Ellie- the monarchy as it existed then was very limited. they wouldn’t
    have the resources to do any of that stuff. thats the idea.

    In what world do you live that any monarchy, other than the current UK monarchy and its like (and the UK, I remind you, is a democracy, queen or no queen), has had difficulty starting wars? Particularly over who should wear the crown?

  • P J Evans

    the monarchy as it existed then was very limited. they wouldn’t
    have the resources to do any of that stuff. thats the idea.

    Another history fail. Monarchies were pretty unlimited before about 1800. That’s why it was a surprise when we didn’t do it that way.

  • hapax

     Nah, I don’t want to plonk him.

    I really really want to hear his argument that “taxation without representation” was a GOOD thing, and the purest expression of libertarian ideals.

    RON PAUL 2012!!!!!

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    the colonies didn’t have to fight those wars though did they? I mean, obviously my preference would be for no government at all but the choice is between limited monarchy and unlimited democracy I’ll take the former. 

  • EllieMurasaki

    I’m joining hapax’s chorus line. Tell us WHY taxation without representation was a good thing. Reread the Declaration of Independence before you do.

  • hapax

     

    the colonies didn’t have to fight those wars though did they?

    Oh fer cryin out loud.

    Did you study U.S. History at all? Ever hear of a little thing that we in the States called “the French and Indian Wars”? Did it ever occur to you wonder how George Washington got his military experience?  Do these words from the Declaration of Independence ring any bells?

    He has constrained our fellow Citizens take Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands

    And what on earth is an “unlimited democracy” anyhow, and what gave you the illusion that the USA approaches anything like one?  Or do you confuse the (in theory) constitutional federated republic / (in practice) corporate oligarchy of U.S. governance with the last season of American Idol?

    (Well, there is one similarity — white guys always seem to win)

  • Lori

     

    I mean, obviously my preference would be for no government at all  

    Then move to one of the world’s ungoverned spaces.

    What’s that you say? You don’t want to live in any of those places? Imagine that.

    Also, what hapax said about the your ignorance of US history. It’s either bottomless or you really like being called uneducated on the internet for the lulz.

  • Kubricks_Rube

    “bring back the monarchy”

    Okay, but be warned: when me and my three dragons take the throne, the libertarians will bend the knee and pay their taxes, or it’s to the Wall with the lot of you.

  • Lori

     

    states not being able to do that makes them, in effect, better
    governments than out federal government. That and the fact that they
    actually can be called to account to spend tax dollars for more than a
    fraction of what they are supposed to be spending it on.  

    You are incredibly, persistently clueless about how the world actually works.

    The only reason that states can’t do the things you dislike so much is that the federal government has control of those things. In a system where the federal government did not have control over those things (which would be required in order to have a system with no federal taxation) the state would be able to do it and history tells us quite clearly that a fair number of them would do so.

    If you think that states are accountable for how they spend tax money and how no issues with waste, fraud and doing things that you don’t like it’s only because you aren’t paying attention.

    The states are not an inherently more moral form of government than the federal government. The idea that they are is a fantasy.

     

    welcome to anarchism. (anarcho-capitalism)  

    Welcome your own damn self to it, I have no interest in anarchism. On anything but a tiny scale it’s a miserable way for almost everyone to live. Far, far worse than paying taxes.

  • Daughter

    Not only will the IRS send a letter first rather than show up at your door with guns when you don’t pay your taxes, they’re willing to work out payment plans with you. They are even willing to work out, “offers in compromise,” in which they accept a reduced total payment from you in the event you can’t pay them in full. And after ten years, any unpaid taxes to the IRS go away.

    They’re actually quite reasonable. They’ll only be really harsh if you a) ignore their notices, rather than call and try to work something out; or b) don’t pay your payroll taxes if you’re an employer. (And even then they’re can be flexible; a friend of mine leads a nonprofit in which the last executive director didn’t payroll taxes. Because she’s new in the role and not responsible for the last person’s failure, the IRS is willing to work out a repayment plan with her).

    Chris, do you really imagine that the local area bosses who would arise if we had the state of anarchy you desire would be this understanding if you didn’t pay your “protection money”?

  • Daughter

     Not to mention, most monarchies became more limited as some form of representative government arose.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “And what on earth is an “unlimited democracy” anyhow,”

    where the goverment grows and grows.

    lori = “In a system where the federal government did not have control over those things (which would be required in order to have a system with no federal taxation) the state would be able to do it ”

    why? you don’t need standing armies or taxes to live.

    “If you think that states are accountable for how they spend tax money and have no issues with waste, fraud and doing things that you don’t like it’s only because you aren’t paying attention. ”

    I said repeatedly that they are. They just have less power so they can’t extend their corruption into wars and money printing.  So clearly power is the problem.

    as for moving to another place: my family and community is here but if it comes to it you may see many going the way of saverin and others. heroic defectors from behind the iron curtain.

    daughter – yeah the IRS are real nice guys. oh my days

    “Chris, do you really imagine that the local area bosses who would arise ”

    we live in the first world and are products of western civilization. Our society wouldn’t regress it would evolve.

    At any rate, you guys know i’m all too willing to venture to the furthest extremes (anarchy, monarchy) of all this but it is academic. As the first commentor in the article we initially discussed pointed out, unions exist to get more for people who HAVE jobs. unions aren’t a solution to joblessness. government spending is not going to create the next industrial revolution. taxing the rich at 70 percent might make you feel better but it’s not going to do anything for this country.  We have a historical crisis that is systemic in nature. we are experiencing flaws in modern democracy that have not existed exactly in this manner before. it’s in front of your eyes on newspapers and tv every day. the status quo is falling apart. Washington got too big. kind of like how the banks got too big. what they are trying to do can’t be done. you can’t have all these different types of people mailing all this money into DC and expect them to mail it back out in a way that all those people will like.  It’s coming to an end right before our eyes. we should embrace it.

     

  • Lori

    we live in the first world and are products of western civilization. Our society wouldn’t regress it would evolve. 

    O just keep asking myself the same question over and over—are you actually this dumb?

  • hapax

     

    It’s coming to an end right before our eyes. we should embrace it.

    You underestimate the power of the Dark Side. If you will not fight, then you will meet your destiny.

    Really, once you start talking like a B-movie villain, don’t you know that you’ve lost the argument?

    P.S.  Just a piece of friendly advice, I’d suggest not trying turning into a giant snake.  It never helps.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    My jaw is literally dropped at the moment. How can anybody be so unthinkingly naive about how civilization works? Hasn’t Lord of the Flies made any particular impact? Or, for that matter, price gouging as routine practice during disasters? ($100 for some water bottles on 9/11, gas prices cranked to $6/gallon post-Katrina, etc)

  • Lori

     Yeah. I’m not sure which is more appalling—the blatant ignorance of how the world works or the implied racism of thinking, against all evidence, that Westerners are immune from going Lord of the Flies.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Reminds me of the time some guy, when presented with the plain fact that the USA comes in dead last on a lot of quality of life statistics, pulled out the hoary old chestnut of “BLAME THE MINORITIES”, only to end up sputtering incoherently when backing out the minority statistics still showed white people coming in pretty much near dead last.

    That kind of casual unthinking racism really is a serious problem, and it’s compounded by a lack of any serious consideration of why we need an impartial rules-setting body in society. Alas.

    In less unpleasant news, have a writeup on EoA. :)

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    How does my paying part of my paycheck to washington for stuff I don’t want somehow equal civilization?

    You guys are putting the cart before the horse. in the 20th century the economy grew and the government clung to it like a parasite. and grew. and started wars and took more and more money from the people and made the previously stable dollar able to purchase less and less. thats not civilized at all. 

    We didn’t emerge from  anarchy.  In ancient times people believed their leaders were Gods and they devoted everything to them.people like Moses, Jesus and Muhammed were the antidote to that.

    We’re going Lord of the Flies on the road we’re on now.

    neutrino- what does price gouging have to do with this. Yes when there is more demand than supply prices will naturally go up because people are willing to pay more for them when they wouldn’t in normal times. it had nothing to do with absence of authority. There was plenty of authority.

    Who was paying 100 dollars for water bottles on 9/11?? in New York?

  • P J Evans

     It isn’t worth replying to you in answer to your questions, because you don’t understand the answers, if you even bother to read them.

    Go find some site that’s more at your level of understanding, where they’ll cheer your ignorance.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    I don’t want to be cheered, I want to discuss ideas. We all have different ideas about how to improve our country. You all generally have this bogeyman of “anarchy” which will result in some kind of extreme corporatism and ultimate loss of freedom.

     funny that we have the same fears with completely opposite solutions.  I see us going in to more debt, maintaining our massive worldwide military empire and being in this state of extreme polarization that drags on for years.  I think you guys accept it and I don’t. Why not go for the brass ring? How about we pass a law that eliminates the pentagon? why not? it’s our country.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Reduce the Pentagon? Right there with you. Eliminate the Pentagon? Better have something good in mind to replace it with, because I kind of like being safe from foreign invaders while on US soil.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    IIRC as far back as the 1990s, when the US government was spending money on the military to the tune of ~$300 billion per year, there were several people who did some studies and made convincing cases that the US government could easily spend $100 billion less and still maintain the necessary state of military readiness that the US’s then-current defence doctrine held as being desirable.

    I’m sure it’s no different than today, but the kinds of politicians who like to talk the game Chris Hadrick seems to believe in are the first to flinch from attacking their sacred cow.

  • P J Evans

    Why not go for the brass ring? How about we pass a law that eliminates the pentagon? why not? it’s our country.

    It’s ours, too, beckwit. We actually have a clue what we’re doing (because we know history and civics), and I don’t think you have anything but propaganda you’ve been spoonfed.

  • P J Evans

     In fact, they’re willing to give that sacred cow more than it has asked for, even as they take things away from people people who desperately need help.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    neutrino- Ron Paul has been at the forefront of calling for defense cuts. He did a bil with Barney Frank on it. 

    and the Dems are just as bad. even some of the “cool” ones are all bought by AIPAC and the defense contractors. 

    I call for eliminating the pentagon and you then try to paint me as some kind of hawk by association gimmee a break.

    Ellie- to me the pentagon is a symbol of the military industrial complex. We don’t need one. We need not to have one.  it’s destroying this country in ways you can easily measure. dollars sucked out of the economy, men and women taken from their families and communities.  My guess is you largely agree with that. Obviously i’m opposed to other spending as well but the military spending is the most glaring and obviously ridiculous. My guess is you largely agree with that.   I don’t think hillary Clinton does. i think she looks at the US as a the de facto King of the “international comminity” and that we use our military resources really quite wisely.  You look at the bill to annoy iran or whatever, it’s totally bipartisan. 

    I wrote an article about it!  http://lesterhalfjr.blogspot.com/2012/04/its-brown-and-in-town.html

    PJ- I know history and civics too, the current status quo is demented and unsustainable.

  • EllieMurasaki

    the pentagon is a symbol of the military industrial complex. We don’t
    need one. We need not to have one.  it’s destroying this country in ways
    you can easily measure. dollars sucked out of the economy, men and
    women taken from their families and communities.  My guess is you
    largely agree with that.

    Do you think all the money that goes to the military and its toys gets shoveled into fireplaces? The US Air Force employs five hundred thousand US citizens. Boeing Military Aircraft, which exists more or less for the sole purpose of selling toys to the USAF, another twenty-three thousand. There’s more like BMA. Don’t forget all the USAF retirees, who get money from the Pentagon. And the USAF is hardly the only thing the Pentagon spends money on.

    The US military-industrial complex is primarily a JOBS PROGRAM. With bonus government-funded health care.

    Unless you’re going to argue that the Pentagon money should be redirected into federally funded jobs programs and health care programs, which I don’t think you are, don’t argue for taking away the Pentagon.

  • Daughter

    “How does my paying part of my paycheck to washington for stuff I don’t want somehow equal civilization?”

    Here’s how: there are plenty of things I don’t want part of my paycheck paying for. Wars, for instance, and subsidies for big corporations.

    But there are plenty of other things that Washington pays for that I think are good. I want low-income mothers to have WIC, so they can have a healthy pregnancy and food for their kids up til age 5. I want federal-backed student loans and Pell grants, so young people who aren’t wealthy can go to college and our populace will be well-educated. I want interstate highways, and research and development, and the CDC looking into diseases, and clean water and food inspection. I want Social Security and Medicare, so that seniors aren’t left impoverished and sick. I could go on, but the point is that there are plenty of things the federal government pays for that I think are important for our civilization.

    The problem, of course, is that in a democracy, people will disagree about what is important for civilization, and hence we get our taxes supporting somethings we don’t want. But in a democracy, you accept that everyone won’t agree with you, and if you feel strongly enough about it, you work to educate and persuade enough people to see and vote your way.

    What I don’t get, is how you somehow believe that monarchy or anarchy would be a better way to go, and that you still wouldn’t have to pay taxes or tributes or protection money that still would go for things you don’t want.  And unlike now, you  wouldn’t have any say in the matter.  Sorry, I don’t have your confidence. We’ve been there before.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

    to me the pentagon is a symbol of the military industrial complex.

    To me, it’s an office building. Some useful work goes on there. You should try thinking more about reality and less about symbols. 

    How are the thousands of people whose jobs you take away from them by closing the pentagon helping the economy?

  • P J Evans

    FWIW, military research funding  paid for developing the basis for the Internet. So, if you’re going argue to close the Pentagon because you don’t like what it symbolizes, you damned well ought to find out what all it actually does, instead relying on what you think it might be doing.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    That being said, people like Seymour Melman have argued that the US’s military spending is a very inefficient jobs creation vehicle, so there is truth to the notion that the money could be better spent.

    The thing hindering the process is mainly the seemingly visceral need by a couple of generations of politicians to spend more money than the next ten nations down the line combined for a military out of all due proportion to the USA’s apparently peaceful objectives.

    It does not help one iota that defence contractors know that Pentagon contracts mean easy money and are willing to push for programs that may look and sound snazzy on paper, but tend to translate into long time scales for bringing to fruition.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    “Do you think all the money that goes to the military and its toys gets shoveled into fireplaces? The US Air Force employs five hundred thousand US citizens. Boeing Military Aircraft, which exists more or less for the sole purpose of selling toys to the USAF, another twenty-three thousand. There’s more like BMA. Don’t forget all the USAF retirees, who get money from the Pentagon. And the USAF is hardly the only thing the Pentagon spends money on.”

    that’s horrible and wrong. The pentagon  takes people and resources OUT of the productive economy for it’s purposes. A guy who was going to start a business in his town but joined the national guard now has to go patrol kabul instead. and fire bullets and spend all sorts of resources ina fruitless, useless war. Theres a good chance he will be horrible injured and/ or killed.

     I would MUCH rather all that money go into a “jobs program”.  That would be an awfully large jobs program. the budget is what a trillion a year?

    The idea that we need the pentagon for jobs is simply wrong. They said the same thing after ww2 oh where are all these soldiers gonna go. it never materialized quite the contrary.

    lets all hire 10 people to kill one random person, it will create  jobs and thus help the economy. oh my days.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    PJ- the internet would be pretty useless for most of us  if the free market hadn’t created low priced personal computers.

  • EllieMurasaki

     Is his National Guard salary all going to people outside the US, even that part of his salary spent by his family at home? Are the bullets made by non-US manufacturers?

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    The money for the bullets is a waste of money.  They’re going to get fired at people or things and wether they miss or hit it will achieve the same thing:  nothing.  his ability to work is being wasted in a pointless job that has no positive effect on his self,family, or community as opposed to his being a proprieter , laborer, and or consumer in his actual normal environment. 

    It’s ridiculous on it’s face:  We are paying him to fight a war he doesn’t want to fight and we don’t want him to fight!

    a conservative arguing against military spending with a squadron of leftists. Now you’ve seen it all slacktivist!

  • EllieMurasaki

    If you want to argue that military spending should be replaced by federally funded jobs programs, carry on. Meanwhile, US manufacturers of military toys are spending money from the Pentagon on wages and materials, and those employees are buying everything they can afford to buy, and US military folk, stateside and otherwise, and their families are buying everything they can afford to buy, and none of this would be getting bought if not for military spending.

  • Daughter

    Chris, granting your argument about the wasteful military (and I definitely grant it), you haven’t addressed the other areas that federal taxes fund, such as infrastructure, R&D, health care, education and social safety net. I see these as investments in a decent society. Do you object, and why?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Also some Congresscritters have rather frankly admitted the only way they can reliably get jobs for their districts is by earmarking military spending for that purpose.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    guys, there are plenty of countries with very small militaries that have robust economies. We don’t need to spend a trillion dollars a year on it. The point of the military is to provide for the defence of the country. it should be as big or small as is needed for that. There are plenty of things people in the military can do and again, after ww2 when all those soldiers came home the economy exploded to the upside.  Unfortunately many died and/or were scarred by their war time experience but the point is ending an outsized military is not going to be bad for the economy.

    More to the point:  Our presence in the middle east incites fundamentalist muslims to attack us here. it makes us less safe. Why would we pay to make ourselves less safe?

    daughter- all government have things they do right. Everyone knows Cuba has excellent healthcare.   germany seems to run a very tight ship economically. It’s nto a quantitative thing that a government thing is bad. if a person is a good doctor and they go work at a government hospital they are still a good doctor. i have no problems that I know of with The Coast Guard, for example.  The problem is the entire package deal heavily favors garbage. You talk about infrastructure. we all agree our infrastructure stinks. yet we havea 4 trillion dollar a year budget. How is that possible? The word infrastructure implies it’s pretty basic and yet the basics are being ignored in favor of…stuff.  Social Security is different because people pay into specifically that. education is worse than the infrastructure as far as the schools go look at the state of the schools.  I would rather not pay for wars and instead privately pay for awesome schools, roads, etc If I thought a democratically elected govt would ever get to the point where it’s priorities actually mirrored those of it’s citizens I wouldn’t bother with any of this stuff.

  • P J Evans

     If you want to know why we have a 4-trillion-dollar budget, go read any of the many articles about what’s actually in it. Or charts:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget
    http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2012/assets/hist.pdf

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    PJ- we ‘ve been over it.  Our budget was 1.7 trillion in 1999. I don’t remember any riots.

    One liberal trend I like is the “keep the government out of my Uterus” type of argument for pro choice.  It’s very libertarian. My uterus is Iran and the internet and most things.

  • Lori

     

    I know history and civics too  

    This statement is demonstrably untrue. You are either lying to us or to yourself. In either case there’s no point in trying to discuss anything with you that requires knowledge of history or civics. Or human nature for that matter since you are demonstrably clueless about that as well.

  • Lori

    My uterus is Iran and the internet and most things. 

    No. No they are not.They are not your uterus. They are not like a uterus. They aren’t sort of like a uterus. They are not.

    Good god almighty, there is just no end to your assholishness.

  • P J Evans

     Do you actually have one, as opposed to using the word as another damned talking point? Because I can’t see anywhere where you’ve demonstrated any understanding that what you’re saying hurts real people more than it benefits them.

  • http://twitter.com/lesterhalfjr Chris Hadrick

    a uterus?

  • Daughter

     ”I’m not a purist, I just want some semblence of the consent of the governed restored.”

    That’s very different from what you’ve previously argued about completely getting rid of federal taxes.  I think you’d find a lot of agreement here about restoring greater consent of the governed (particularly by getting corporate money out of politics).


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X