Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Celerity
Celerity's Journal
Celerity's Journal
April 11, 2024
https://prospect.org/culture/books/2024-04-05-antitax-nation-graetz-review/
Due to excessive tax cuts, ordinary Americans are subsidizing big companies and wealthy families, while making do with fewer government services.
When Ronald Reagan accepted the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, he presented himself as a tax magician. “We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation,” he said before making a tantalizing promise. He would slash income tax rates by 30 percent over three years. Government revenue would miraculously increase, because lowered taxes would foster massive new investment, creating more jobs at higher pay. Libertarian economists Milton Friedman and Arthur Laffer vigorously championed Reagan’s claims, but even many conservatives scoffed. Herbert Stein, President Nixon’s chief economic adviser, remarked that the likelihood that tax cuts increase revenue was about the same as finding “there is human life on Mars.” George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.”
Those on the upper rungs of the income ladder made out well from the Reagan Revolution. They enjoyed significant tax savings in 1981 and 1986 as the top rate was slashed from 70 to 28 percent, a reduction twice as big as what Reagan promised. But the magic didn’t work: Under Reagan, economic growth ran slightly below, not above, the postwar average. Ballooning annual deficits more than doubled the federal debt in eight years. And Reagan didn’t shrink the federal government relative to the economy, as promised: The share of our economy paid in federal taxes was the same when Reagan assumed office and when he left.
Why, then, do such proposals continue to flourish? In his eloquent and absorbing new book The Power to Destroy: How the Antitax Movement Hijacked America, Michael J. Graetz argues that “the modern antitax movement is the most overlooked social and political movement” of the past half-century. This movement once existed on the fringes, as we see with conservative criticism of the Reagan plan. But Graetz writes that it has grown “into a powerful force that transformed American politics and undermined the nation’s financial strength.” Graetz is not the first to explore antitax political culture, as old a concept in America as Fries’s Rebellion, a 1799 Pennsylvania revolt against a new federal levy on enslaved people and land. Dorothy A. Brown’s trenchant 2021 study The Whiteness of Wealth shows how our tax system “impoverishes Black Americans.”
Then there’s sociologist Isaac William Martin’s eye-opening 2013 book Rich People’s Movements: Grassroots Campaigns to Untax the One Percent, which focused on semi-con man J.A. Arnold, who 111 years ago created antitax clubs, often led by bankers, that stirred resentment of the newly imposed federal income tax. Beginning in the 1940s, Martin showed, antitax ideology moved into mainstream conservatism after Robert Dresser, a Harvard-educated lawyer and New England textile heir, deftly blended anti-communist, anti-union, and racist appeals into tax policy. Graetz tells the next chapter in this story, tracing how modern charlatans duped the middle and upper-middle class into helping the rich shed the burden of taxes, while hurting themselves in the process. It’s primarily a tale of ideological marketing—selling the sizzle so smartly that few notice the overcooked meat is rotten.
snip
Antitax Nation: How clever marketing duped America into shoveling more tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations.
https://prospect.org/culture/books/2024-04-05-antitax-nation-graetz-review/
Due to excessive tax cuts, ordinary Americans are subsidizing big companies and wealthy families, while making do with fewer government services.
When Ronald Reagan accepted the Republican presidential nomination in 1980, he presented himself as a tax magician. “We are taxing ourselves into economic exhaustion and stagnation,” he said before making a tantalizing promise. He would slash income tax rates by 30 percent over three years. Government revenue would miraculously increase, because lowered taxes would foster massive new investment, creating more jobs at higher pay. Libertarian economists Milton Friedman and Arthur Laffer vigorously championed Reagan’s claims, but even many conservatives scoffed. Herbert Stein, President Nixon’s chief economic adviser, remarked that the likelihood that tax cuts increase revenue was about the same as finding “there is human life on Mars.” George H.W. Bush called it “voodoo economics.”
Those on the upper rungs of the income ladder made out well from the Reagan Revolution. They enjoyed significant tax savings in 1981 and 1986 as the top rate was slashed from 70 to 28 percent, a reduction twice as big as what Reagan promised. But the magic didn’t work: Under Reagan, economic growth ran slightly below, not above, the postwar average. Ballooning annual deficits more than doubled the federal debt in eight years. And Reagan didn’t shrink the federal government relative to the economy, as promised: The share of our economy paid in federal taxes was the same when Reagan assumed office and when he left.
Why, then, do such proposals continue to flourish? In his eloquent and absorbing new book The Power to Destroy: How the Antitax Movement Hijacked America, Michael J. Graetz argues that “the modern antitax movement is the most overlooked social and political movement” of the past half-century. This movement once existed on the fringes, as we see with conservative criticism of the Reagan plan. But Graetz writes that it has grown “into a powerful force that transformed American politics and undermined the nation’s financial strength.” Graetz is not the first to explore antitax political culture, as old a concept in America as Fries’s Rebellion, a 1799 Pennsylvania revolt against a new federal levy on enslaved people and land. Dorothy A. Brown’s trenchant 2021 study The Whiteness of Wealth shows how our tax system “impoverishes Black Americans.”
Then there’s sociologist Isaac William Martin’s eye-opening 2013 book Rich People’s Movements: Grassroots Campaigns to Untax the One Percent, which focused on semi-con man J.A. Arnold, who 111 years ago created antitax clubs, often led by bankers, that stirred resentment of the newly imposed federal income tax. Beginning in the 1940s, Martin showed, antitax ideology moved into mainstream conservatism after Robert Dresser, a Harvard-educated lawyer and New England textile heir, deftly blended anti-communist, anti-union, and racist appeals into tax policy. Graetz tells the next chapter in this story, tracing how modern charlatans duped the middle and upper-middle class into helping the rich shed the burden of taxes, while hurting themselves in the process. It’s primarily a tale of ideological marketing—selling the sizzle so smartly that few notice the overcooked meat is rotten.
snip
April 11, 2024
https://prospect.org/justice/2024-04-09-reform-groups-lack-of-corporate-prosecutions-doj/
Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin Mizer speaks as Attorney General Merrick Garland listens during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, March 21, 2024.
The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has demonstrated by its actions a determination to hold corporations accountable. Its antitrust cases against Google and Apple, active investigations into Ticketmaster and UnitedHealth, crackdowns on meatpackers and realtors, and successful merger challenges in airlines and publishing testify to this open combat against corporate power. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the rest of the Justice Department, as a recent report from Public Citizen on corporate criminal prosecutions shows. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 2023 DOJ prosecuted 113 corporations, up from 99 in 2022 and just 90 in 2021, which was the lowest number in a quarter-century. Even the 2023 figures are still sharply lower than any year of George W. Bush administration, and lower than two of the four years of the Trump administration. And for broader context, the 113 prosecutions last year equal about 37 percent of the 304 prosecutions waged in 2000.
Moreover, 76 percent of the corporations DOJ prosecuted in 2023 had 50 or fewer employees. Large corporations are far less represented among the array of prosecuted companies, regardless of their culpability for corporate crime. This has drawn the attention of five accountability-minded organizations, which today asked for a greater commitment to corporate criminal enforcement in a letter to President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland obtained by the Prospect. Following what has now become a mantra amid progressives in D.C.—“personnel is policy”—the groups focused on vacancies in the top levels of DOJ leadership, which they say would be better served with appointees “who can be counted on to aggressively protect the public interest.”
Chief among the concerns for the Revolving Door Project, the American Economic Liberties Project, Demand Progress Education Fund, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and the People’s Parity Project are the two top deputies to Garland at main Justice. One of them, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, is a familiar antagonist to reformers, especially since she announced a “safe harbor” policy whereby companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions can volunteer information about wrongdoing at the target company and eliminate their liability. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has explained, this policy constitutes a double whammy of encouraging mergers and neglecting to prosecute corporate crime. Monaco has a well-documented history as a partner at corporate defense firm O’Melveny & Myers, where she represented Apple, and a principal at WestExec Advisors, where clients included Google and other large corporations.
But less well known is the number three member of the Justice Department leadership, Benjamin Mizer. He is currently serving as acting associate attorney general, after Vanita Gupta stepped down in February. Mizer was Gupta’s principal deputy, and therefore automatically stepped into the role. But while this transition was announced at a press event February 1, there was little fanfare associated with Mizer’s ascension. Perhaps that’s because of Mizer’s stint at BigLaw giant Jones Day, and the litany of corporate clients he represented. That includes serving as lead attorney for Walmart in a case defending the company from charges of facilitating the opioid epidemic among members of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. In that case, Walmart tried to force the tribe to release private data like names and birthdates for every one of its citizens. “Mizer’s resume is yet another example of a profile that has repeatedly failed to protect the American people from the most rapacious and amoral corporations,” the letter reads. “We lack confidence that Mizer should be trusted to advance the administration’s commitment to ensuring that the law applies to everyone, no matter how wealthy or connected.”
snip
Reform Groups Home In on Lack of Corporate Prosecutions at DOJ
https://prospect.org/justice/2024-04-09-reform-groups-lack-of-corporate-prosecutions-doj/
Acting Associate Attorney General Benjamin Mizer speaks as Attorney General Merrick Garland listens during a news conference at the Department of Justice in Washington, March 21, 2024.
The Antitrust Division of the Justice Department has demonstrated by its actions a determination to hold corporations accountable. Its antitrust cases against Google and Apple, active investigations into Ticketmaster and UnitedHealth, crackdowns on meatpackers and realtors, and successful merger challenges in airlines and publishing testify to this open combat against corporate power. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the rest of the Justice Department, as a recent report from Public Citizen on corporate criminal prosecutions shows. According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 2023 DOJ prosecuted 113 corporations, up from 99 in 2022 and just 90 in 2021, which was the lowest number in a quarter-century. Even the 2023 figures are still sharply lower than any year of George W. Bush administration, and lower than two of the four years of the Trump administration. And for broader context, the 113 prosecutions last year equal about 37 percent of the 304 prosecutions waged in 2000.
Moreover, 76 percent of the corporations DOJ prosecuted in 2023 had 50 or fewer employees. Large corporations are far less represented among the array of prosecuted companies, regardless of their culpability for corporate crime. This has drawn the attention of five accountability-minded organizations, which today asked for a greater commitment to corporate criminal enforcement in a letter to President Biden and Attorney General Merrick Garland obtained by the Prospect. Following what has now become a mantra amid progressives in D.C.—“personnel is policy”—the groups focused on vacancies in the top levels of DOJ leadership, which they say would be better served with appointees “who can be counted on to aggressively protect the public interest.”
Chief among the concerns for the Revolving Door Project, the American Economic Liberties Project, Demand Progress Education Fund, the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, and the People’s Parity Project are the two top deputies to Garland at main Justice. One of them, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, is a familiar antagonist to reformers, especially since she announced a “safe harbor” policy whereby companies engaged in mergers and acquisitions can volunteer information about wrongdoing at the target company and eliminate their liability. As Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) has explained, this policy constitutes a double whammy of encouraging mergers and neglecting to prosecute corporate crime. Monaco has a well-documented history as a partner at corporate defense firm O’Melveny & Myers, where she represented Apple, and a principal at WestExec Advisors, where clients included Google and other large corporations.
But less well known is the number three member of the Justice Department leadership, Benjamin Mizer. He is currently serving as acting associate attorney general, after Vanita Gupta stepped down in February. Mizer was Gupta’s principal deputy, and therefore automatically stepped into the role. But while this transition was announced at a press event February 1, there was little fanfare associated with Mizer’s ascension. Perhaps that’s because of Mizer’s stint at BigLaw giant Jones Day, and the litany of corporate clients he represented. That includes serving as lead attorney for Walmart in a case defending the company from charges of facilitating the opioid epidemic among members of the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. In that case, Walmart tried to force the tribe to release private data like names and birthdates for every one of its citizens. “Mizer’s resume is yet another example of a profile that has repeatedly failed to protect the American people from the most rapacious and amoral corporations,” the letter reads. “We lack confidence that Mizer should be trusted to advance the administration’s commitment to ensuring that the law applies to everyone, no matter how wealthy or connected.”
snip
April 11, 2024
https://prospect.org/health/2024-04-11-privatization-warning-veterans-affairs/
When the Department of Defense (DOD) or U.S. intelligence agencies face a crisis, they often assemble a task force to conduct a review and recommend solutions. In response to cost overruns on care for nine million patients of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently convened such a high-level “Red Team.” The panel of six health care leaders includes former VHA undersecretaries for health, ex-DOD officials with military health experience, and prominent health care system executives. The group conferred with VA leaders in Washington, collected relevant budget data, and pored over reams of peer-reviewed studies. It then issued a 24-page executive roundtable report entitled “The Urgent Need to Address VHA Community Care Spending and Access Strategies” (emphasis added). Although the report was released to top VA leaders in late March, it has not yet been publicly released. The Prospect’s repeated requests for the report itself or information about it were ignored.
Rarely has a group of inside-the-Beltway experts gotten to the point so quickly or sounded the alarm so clearly. In the report, obtained by the Prospect before its public release, the group unanimously concluded: “The increasing number of Veterans referred to community providers … threaten to materially erode the VA’s direct care system.” Without a course correction, they said, mass closures of VA clinics or certain services could ensue, “eliminating choice for the millions of Veterans who prefer to use the VHA direct care system for all or part of their healthcare needs.” This call for immediate action is noteworthy because of the stature of the team’s members. Red Team chair Kenneth W. Kizer is a Navy veteran and nationally known leader in health care quality and hospital management, who led the transformation of the modern VHA under Bill Clinton. (Kizer declined the Prospect’s request for comment on the report until it was publicly released.)
Dr. Jonathan Perlin served in the same role under George W. Bush, before joining HCA Healthcare as a top administrator, and now leads the Joint Commission, which certifies and accredits private- and public-sector hospitals. Other members include Debra Friesen, a former senior executive at Kaiser Permanente; Dana Safran, CEO and president of the National Quality Forum; Kavita Patel from the Brookings Institution; Karen Guice, a former DOD official in charge of health affairs; and retired Maj. Gen. Elder Granger, who helped manage TRICARE, a private insurance program for active-duty personnel and their families who don’t use the military health care system. The authors don’t question the need for sending some veterans to private doctors or hospitals, “when needed services are not readily available in the VA’s direct care system.” But their report pinpoints all the obvious flaws, weaknesses, waste, and inefficiencies built into large-scale outsourcing, which began under Obama, exploded under Trump, and now continues on Biden’s inattentive watch.
Higher Costs, Less Quality
The cost of reimbursing the 1.7 million private-sector providers enrolled in the five-year-old Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP), which facilitates patient outsourcing, has “dramatically increased, rising from $14.8 billion in FY 2018 to $28.5 billion in FY 2023,” the report states. Referrals outside the VHA are rising by 15 to 20 percent per year and now involve more than 40 percent of all patients, who are getting at least some care in the private sector. One major source of out-of-control costs is privatized emergency room services, which now represent 30 percent of VCCP spending. When a patient or family member clicks on the website of any VA Medical Center in the country and searches for “emergency care,” they are directed to non-VHA hospital emergency rooms, despite studies like one in The British Medical Journal (BMJ) and another published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which found that veterans treated in private ERs were twice as likely to die in the first 28 days after admission than if they had been admitted to the VHA.
snip
Privatization Warning: A VA advisory panel issues a red alert on outsourcing.
https://prospect.org/health/2024-04-11-privatization-warning-veterans-affairs/
When the Department of Defense (DOD) or U.S. intelligence agencies face a crisis, they often assemble a task force to conduct a review and recommend solutions. In response to cost overruns on care for nine million patients of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recently convened such a high-level “Red Team.” The panel of six health care leaders includes former VHA undersecretaries for health, ex-DOD officials with military health experience, and prominent health care system executives. The group conferred with VA leaders in Washington, collected relevant budget data, and pored over reams of peer-reviewed studies. It then issued a 24-page executive roundtable report entitled “The Urgent Need to Address VHA Community Care Spending and Access Strategies” (emphasis added). Although the report was released to top VA leaders in late March, it has not yet been publicly released. The Prospect’s repeated requests for the report itself or information about it were ignored.
Rarely has a group of inside-the-Beltway experts gotten to the point so quickly or sounded the alarm so clearly. In the report, obtained by the Prospect before its public release, the group unanimously concluded: “The increasing number of Veterans referred to community providers … threaten to materially erode the VA’s direct care system.” Without a course correction, they said, mass closures of VA clinics or certain services could ensue, “eliminating choice for the millions of Veterans who prefer to use the VHA direct care system for all or part of their healthcare needs.” This call for immediate action is noteworthy because of the stature of the team’s members. Red Team chair Kenneth W. Kizer is a Navy veteran and nationally known leader in health care quality and hospital management, who led the transformation of the modern VHA under Bill Clinton. (Kizer declined the Prospect’s request for comment on the report until it was publicly released.)
Dr. Jonathan Perlin served in the same role under George W. Bush, before joining HCA Healthcare as a top administrator, and now leads the Joint Commission, which certifies and accredits private- and public-sector hospitals. Other members include Debra Friesen, a former senior executive at Kaiser Permanente; Dana Safran, CEO and president of the National Quality Forum; Kavita Patel from the Brookings Institution; Karen Guice, a former DOD official in charge of health affairs; and retired Maj. Gen. Elder Granger, who helped manage TRICARE, a private insurance program for active-duty personnel and their families who don’t use the military health care system. The authors don’t question the need for sending some veterans to private doctors or hospitals, “when needed services are not readily available in the VA’s direct care system.” But their report pinpoints all the obvious flaws, weaknesses, waste, and inefficiencies built into large-scale outsourcing, which began under Obama, exploded under Trump, and now continues on Biden’s inattentive watch.
Higher Costs, Less Quality
The cost of reimbursing the 1.7 million private-sector providers enrolled in the five-year-old Veterans Community Care Program (VCCP), which facilitates patient outsourcing, has “dramatically increased, rising from $14.8 billion in FY 2018 to $28.5 billion in FY 2023,” the report states. Referrals outside the VHA are rising by 15 to 20 percent per year and now involve more than 40 percent of all patients, who are getting at least some care in the private sector. One major source of out-of-control costs is privatized emergency room services, which now represent 30 percent of VCCP spending. When a patient or family member clicks on the website of any VA Medical Center in the country and searches for “emergency care,” they are directed to non-VHA hospital emergency rooms, despite studies like one in The British Medical Journal (BMJ) and another published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), which found that veterans treated in private ERs were twice as likely to die in the first 28 days after admission than if they had been admitted to the VHA.
snip
April 11, 2024
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-10-final-act-government-surveillance/
A preliminary floor vote on a House rule to expand government surveillance powers, favored by leadership in both parties, failed to pass on an initial vote this afternoon. The rule was defeated by a sizable margin, 228-193, with ten members not voting. Nineteen Republicans crossed their own Speaker, voting against the rule and preventing it from coming to the floor. The fight involves whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) had plotted a strategy to oversee the most dramatic expansion of government surveillance powers since the original Patriot Act.
With many Republican members voting down the rule this afternoon, the path ahead to passing FISA just got a lot harder. Leadership will have to reconvene with the relevant committees to chart out a new road map. Speaker Johnson tried to load up the rule by attaching two controversial, unrelated resolutions that were added at the last minute. One denounced the Biden administration’s immigration policies and the other condemned “efforts to impose one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza.” These resolutions were likely included to try to make it more challenging for Republicans and pro-Israel Democrats to vote no, despite objections they might harbor about FISA. But the gambit did not work. “The Speaker’s thumb just broke the scale,” said Sean Vitka, policy director of Demand Progress.
Danger still lies ahead, and the stakes remain pretty high. Intelligence agencies are currently able to tap a backdoor search database of Americans’ communications without a warrant, under the guise of queries regarding a foreign threat. And under what’s known as the data broker loophole, the government can also compel certain types of companies to hand over data collected on Americans. In each instance, the House Intelligence Committee is now pushing for broader legal criteria authorizing this surveillance. Reform advocates have referred to the Intel Committee’s amendments as “Patriot Act 2.0.” One Intel Committee amendment would expand the already broad definition of foreign intelligence in FISA to specifically include any information about international trafficking, sale, and production of narcotics driving “overdose deaths,” which could cover any drug under the Controlled Substances Act.
Another amendment targets immigrants traveling to the U.S. by allowing intelligence agencies to run backdoor searches on these groups without providing any rationale, which is the only restriction on these powers when applied to Americans. “As if the base text wasn’t bad enough, these amendments would all significantly expand Section 702. In particular, the weaponization of a post-9/11 warrantless surveillance authority to search for immigrants traveling to the U.S.—with no suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever—is deeply offensive and should be radioactive,” Chris Baumohl, law fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), told the Prospect. House Intelligence Committee leaders are pushing for even more drastic changes by dropping key qualifications on which types of businesses are subject to Section 702 information requests. The government could now compel companies as far-reaching as office buildings, landlords, and even the backbone of the internet such as data centers, according to FISA Court amicus lawyer Marc Zwillinger. Access to data centers would constitute a massive expansion of “upstream” government surveillance, Zwillinger suggested.
snip
The Final Act on Government Surveillance
https://prospect.org/politics/2024-04-10-final-act-government-surveillance/
A preliminary floor vote on a House rule to expand government surveillance powers, favored by leadership in both parties, failed to pass on an initial vote this afternoon. The rule was defeated by a sizable margin, 228-193, with ten members not voting. Nineteen Republicans crossed their own Speaker, voting against the rule and preventing it from coming to the floor. The fight involves whether to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) and Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) had plotted a strategy to oversee the most dramatic expansion of government surveillance powers since the original Patriot Act.
With many Republican members voting down the rule this afternoon, the path ahead to passing FISA just got a lot harder. Leadership will have to reconvene with the relevant committees to chart out a new road map. Speaker Johnson tried to load up the rule by attaching two controversial, unrelated resolutions that were added at the last minute. One denounced the Biden administration’s immigration policies and the other condemned “efforts to impose one-sided pressure on Israel with respect to Gaza.” These resolutions were likely included to try to make it more challenging for Republicans and pro-Israel Democrats to vote no, despite objections they might harbor about FISA. But the gambit did not work. “The Speaker’s thumb just broke the scale,” said Sean Vitka, policy director of Demand Progress.
Danger still lies ahead, and the stakes remain pretty high. Intelligence agencies are currently able to tap a backdoor search database of Americans’ communications without a warrant, under the guise of queries regarding a foreign threat. And under what’s known as the data broker loophole, the government can also compel certain types of companies to hand over data collected on Americans. In each instance, the House Intelligence Committee is now pushing for broader legal criteria authorizing this surveillance. Reform advocates have referred to the Intel Committee’s amendments as “Patriot Act 2.0.” One Intel Committee amendment would expand the already broad definition of foreign intelligence in FISA to specifically include any information about international trafficking, sale, and production of narcotics driving “overdose deaths,” which could cover any drug under the Controlled Substances Act.
Another amendment targets immigrants traveling to the U.S. by allowing intelligence agencies to run backdoor searches on these groups without providing any rationale, which is the only restriction on these powers when applied to Americans. “As if the base text wasn’t bad enough, these amendments would all significantly expand Section 702. In particular, the weaponization of a post-9/11 warrantless surveillance authority to search for immigrants traveling to the U.S.—with no suspicion of wrongdoing whatsoever—is deeply offensive and should be radioactive,” Chris Baumohl, law fellow at the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), told the Prospect. House Intelligence Committee leaders are pushing for even more drastic changes by dropping key qualifications on which types of businesses are subject to Section 702 information requests. The government could now compel companies as far-reaching as office buildings, landlords, and even the backbone of the internet such as data centers, according to FISA Court amicus lawyer Marc Zwillinger. Access to data centers would constitute a massive expansion of “upstream” government surveillance, Zwillinger suggested.
snip
April 11, 2024
UK studio Fletcher Crane Architects has completed Kingston Villa in Richmond, London, offering a contemporary "evolution" of the area's typical suburban architecture in pale brick and metal. Tasked with turning a dilapidated bungalow on the edge of Richmond Park into a new family home, the Surrey-based studio drew on its neighbouring buildings to create a simple, gabled form.
"This new family villa bordering Richmond Park seeks to evolve the historic villa typology and inject character and quality into a typical suburban streetscape architecture," explained Fletcher Crane Architects. "The resultant detached home has been inspired by the varying historic features within the quality built environment; friezes, bays, entrance porticos and construction methodology – represented into an architecture of its day," it continued.
Facing the street, Kingston Villa is fronted by a metal canopy that shelters its entrance. This sits beneath a gable end that has been finished in pale textured brickwork. The entrance route leads past two smaller lounge and study spaces into a living, dining and kitchen space, centred around a double-height seating area and fireplace overlooked by a metal and timber stair. In these living and circulation areas, the internal finishes mirror those of the outside, with exposed brickwork, tiled floors and dark wooden carpentry bringing a "heavy, yet quiet" quality to the spaces.
At the rear of the home, full-height windows look out towards the park, finished with alternating deep-set and projecting metal reveals that subtly animate the facade. On the ground floor, sliding glass doors provide access to a sunken paved patio that steps up to the garden beyond. "Bold white brickwork is contrasted by bronzed window frames, metalwork panels and arboreal planting," explained the studio. "The architecture is heavy, yet quiet with a focus on emphasising the fabulous location and aspect with panoramic views of the park," it added.
snip
Fletcher Crane Architects completes pale brick home overlooking Richmond Park, London
https://www.dezeen.com/2024/04/05/fletcher-crane-architects-kingston-villa-london/UK studio Fletcher Crane Architects has completed Kingston Villa in Richmond, London, offering a contemporary "evolution" of the area's typical suburban architecture in pale brick and metal. Tasked with turning a dilapidated bungalow on the edge of Richmond Park into a new family home, the Surrey-based studio drew on its neighbouring buildings to create a simple, gabled form.
"This new family villa bordering Richmond Park seeks to evolve the historic villa typology and inject character and quality into a typical suburban streetscape architecture," explained Fletcher Crane Architects. "The resultant detached home has been inspired by the varying historic features within the quality built environment; friezes, bays, entrance porticos and construction methodology – represented into an architecture of its day," it continued.
Facing the street, Kingston Villa is fronted by a metal canopy that shelters its entrance. This sits beneath a gable end that has been finished in pale textured brickwork. The entrance route leads past two smaller lounge and study spaces into a living, dining and kitchen space, centred around a double-height seating area and fireplace overlooked by a metal and timber stair. In these living and circulation areas, the internal finishes mirror those of the outside, with exposed brickwork, tiled floors and dark wooden carpentry bringing a "heavy, yet quiet" quality to the spaces.
At the rear of the home, full-height windows look out towards the park, finished with alternating deep-set and projecting metal reveals that subtly animate the facade. On the ground floor, sliding glass doors provide access to a sunken paved patio that steps up to the garden beyond. "Bold white brickwork is contrasted by bronzed window frames, metalwork panels and arboreal planting," explained the studio. "The architecture is heavy, yet quiet with a focus on emphasising the fabulous location and aspect with panoramic views of the park," it added.
snip
April 11, 2024
Polls show that far more Republicans than Democrats have a favourable opinion of independent candidate Kennedy
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rfk-jr-aide-rita-palma-trump-stop-the-steal-rally-b2526383.html
A campaign aide for independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr has been revealed as an attendee of the infamous “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6 2021 in support of Donald Trump. Rita Palma, who is an aide for RFK Jr’s campaign in New York, called Mr Trump her “favorite president,” and attended several “Stop the Steal” rallies following the 2020 election, according to now deleted tweets sent from Ms Palma’s account seen by CNN, as well as comments she posted on the conservative social media site Parler that have since been made private.
According to CNN, in late December, Ms Palma tweeted that she would attend the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington DC on January 6. “I got my hotel room!,” she wrote, adding: “I’ll be there in Jan 6th #FightforTrump #Jan6.” Although Ms Palma allegedly attended the January 6 rally, there is no indication that she took part in any violence or attended the Capitol riot that followed, CNN reported. However, she later dismissed the violence during the Capitol riot as the work of a few attendees. “Jan 6 was not a riot. A small group of people were trouble. It was 99.9 peaceful, respectful. I was there,” she wrote in a deleted tweet.
She also dismissed suggestions from then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Mr Trump was to blame for violence at the Capitol. “Actually the fault lies with the rigged election. Genius,” she wrote the day after the riot. In separate tweets, which were analysed by CNN using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, Ms Palma repeatedly affirmed her support for Mr Trump and even asked whether he could run for a third term in 2028, despite the constitution prohibiting this. “#Trump2024 Can he run in 2028 too?” she tweeted, posting a meme that said she would vote for Trump in 2024. She also used the hashtag #BidenCheated 86 times from November 2020 to February 2021, according to CNN.
Meanwhile, in posts she made on the conservative social media site Parler, Ms Palma was also seen posing for a photo at the former Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, alongside Sidney Powell – the pro-Trump attorney who later pleaded guilty in Georgia’s election subversion case. In the same post, she called Ms Powell “MY PERSON OF THE DECADE!!” Ms Palma also posted about her affinity for Ms Powell on Twitter. “You were born/ chosen for this fight and you will win, win, win. WE LOVE YOU, TOO!” she wrote. Last year, Ms Powell pleaded guilty in Georgia’s election subversion case in which Mr Trump and a host of co-defendants are accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme to replace state electors with Trump loyalists in an effort to overturn the 2020 election.
snip
RFK Jr campaign aide revealed as attendee of Jan 6 'Stop the Steal' rally for Trump
Polls show that far more Republicans than Democrats have a favourable opinion of independent candidate Kennedy
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rfk-jr-aide-rita-palma-trump-stop-the-steal-rally-b2526383.html
A campaign aide for independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr has been revealed as an attendee of the infamous “Stop the Steal” rally on January 6 2021 in support of Donald Trump. Rita Palma, who is an aide for RFK Jr’s campaign in New York, called Mr Trump her “favorite president,” and attended several “Stop the Steal” rallies following the 2020 election, according to now deleted tweets sent from Ms Palma’s account seen by CNN, as well as comments she posted on the conservative social media site Parler that have since been made private.
According to CNN, in late December, Ms Palma tweeted that she would attend the “Stop the Steal” rally in Washington DC on January 6. “I got my hotel room!,” she wrote, adding: “I’ll be there in Jan 6th #FightforTrump #Jan6.” Although Ms Palma allegedly attended the January 6 rally, there is no indication that she took part in any violence or attended the Capitol riot that followed, CNN reported. However, she later dismissed the violence during the Capitol riot as the work of a few attendees. “Jan 6 was not a riot. A small group of people were trouble. It was 99.9 peaceful, respectful. I was there,” she wrote in a deleted tweet.
She also dismissed suggestions from then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Mr Trump was to blame for violence at the Capitol. “Actually the fault lies with the rigged election. Genius,” she wrote the day after the riot. In separate tweets, which were analysed by CNN using the Internet Archive Wayback Machine, Ms Palma repeatedly affirmed her support for Mr Trump and even asked whether he could run for a third term in 2028, despite the constitution prohibiting this. “#Trump2024 Can he run in 2028 too?” she tweeted, posting a meme that said she would vote for Trump in 2024. She also used the hashtag #BidenCheated 86 times from November 2020 to February 2021, according to CNN.
Meanwhile, in posts she made on the conservative social media site Parler, Ms Palma was also seen posing for a photo at the former Trump International Hotel in Washington, DC, alongside Sidney Powell – the pro-Trump attorney who later pleaded guilty in Georgia’s election subversion case. In the same post, she called Ms Powell “MY PERSON OF THE DECADE!!” Ms Palma also posted about her affinity for Ms Powell on Twitter. “You were born/ chosen for this fight and you will win, win, win. WE LOVE YOU, TOO!” she wrote. Last year, Ms Powell pleaded guilty in Georgia’s election subversion case in which Mr Trump and a host of co-defendants are accused of orchestrating a fraudulent scheme to replace state electors with Trump loyalists in an effort to overturn the 2020 election.
snip
April 11, 2024
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1778153272194322871
Trump just now calling his ending of Roe "an incredible thing" Right: A 13-year-old rape survivor forced to give birth
as a result of Trump ending Roehttps://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/1778153272194322871
April 10, 2024
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/09/2024/how-a-ceasefire-backing-progressive-scared-pro-israel-groups-out-of-her-race
David Weigel
Apr 10, 2024
PITTSBURGH – To win a safe Democratic seat here in 2022, Rep. Summer Lee had to overcome nearly $4 million in ad spending by AIPAC’s super PAC. Democratic Majority for Israel spent nearly $500,000 more, helping her less-progressive primary opponent come within 978 votes of beating her. “You have to brace yourself,” Lee said in an interview, reflecting on that race. “You recognize that one interest group is able to completely change the course of a campaign.” And six months ago, when pro-Israel groups said they’d work to beat Democrats who wanted an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, Lee was near the top of their list, telling The New York Times that Israel’s response “look increasingly like a genocide of innocent Gazans.”
But AIPAC and DMFI haven’t spent anything in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District this year. What looked like risky politics in October, when Democrats condemned the tone of some ceasefire protests, is becoming a mainstream position with primary voters. “Instead of shaming the uncommitted movement and calling them extremists, we need to recognize that the Democratic Party can’t win without this coalition,” Lee said.
The Lee campaign’s polling has mirrored national public polling, with most self-identified Democrats turning on the war since last year. Last week, when Lee signed a letter urging the Biden administration to stop weapon transfers after an IDF strike that killed aid workers, she was joined by Nancy Pelosi. “Our money is being used to finance a war that is massacring people by the thousands,” said Kipp Dawson, a Jewish civil rights activist in Pittsburgh who supports Lee. “Summer believes that Israel is being empowered by what our government does. I agree with her completely. That’s one reason why she’s come under attack. She and people in Congress who agree with her are opposed by big money that supports the Israeli war right now.”
Lee has pulled some skeptics to her side with constituent work, rallied with the Biden campaign, and scooped up endorsements. That answered one of the most effective attacks against her in 2022 — that she’d undermine Biden and hurt her party. (“Summer Lee attacked Biden’s character,” warned one of UDP’s primary ads.) After looking closely at the race, pro-Israel groups decided that the primary wasn’t winnable. Democrats such as New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, weakened by scandals totally unrelated to the Gaza issue, looked vulnerable. Lee did not.
snip
How a ceasefire-backing progressive scared pro-Israel groups out of her race
https://www.semafor.com/article/04/09/2024/how-a-ceasefire-backing-progressive-scared-pro-israel-groups-out-of-her-race
David Weigel
Apr 10, 2024
PITTSBURGH – To win a safe Democratic seat here in 2022, Rep. Summer Lee had to overcome nearly $4 million in ad spending by AIPAC’s super PAC. Democratic Majority for Israel spent nearly $500,000 more, helping her less-progressive primary opponent come within 978 votes of beating her. “You have to brace yourself,” Lee said in an interview, reflecting on that race. “You recognize that one interest group is able to completely change the course of a campaign.” And six months ago, when pro-Israel groups said they’d work to beat Democrats who wanted an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, Lee was near the top of their list, telling The New York Times that Israel’s response “look increasingly like a genocide of innocent Gazans.”
But AIPAC and DMFI haven’t spent anything in Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District this year. What looked like risky politics in October, when Democrats condemned the tone of some ceasefire protests, is becoming a mainstream position with primary voters. “Instead of shaming the uncommitted movement and calling them extremists, we need to recognize that the Democratic Party can’t win without this coalition,” Lee said.
The Lee campaign’s polling has mirrored national public polling, with most self-identified Democrats turning on the war since last year. Last week, when Lee signed a letter urging the Biden administration to stop weapon transfers after an IDF strike that killed aid workers, she was joined by Nancy Pelosi. “Our money is being used to finance a war that is massacring people by the thousands,” said Kipp Dawson, a Jewish civil rights activist in Pittsburgh who supports Lee. “Summer believes that Israel is being empowered by what our government does. I agree with her completely. That’s one reason why she’s come under attack. She and people in Congress who agree with her are opposed by big money that supports the Israeli war right now.”
Lee has pulled some skeptics to her side with constituent work, rallied with the Biden campaign, and scooped up endorsements. That answered one of the most effective attacks against her in 2022 — that she’d undermine Biden and hurt her party. (“Summer Lee attacked Biden’s character,” warned one of UDP’s primary ads.) After looking closely at the race, pro-Israel groups decided that the primary wasn’t winnable. Democrats such as New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman and Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, weakened by scandals totally unrelated to the Gaza issue, looked vulnerable. Lee did not.
snip
April 10, 2024
Whether you are 20 or 90, each moment of life presents an opportunity to focus on what really matters to you
https://psyche.co/ideas/rather-than-fearing-getting-old-heres-how-to-embrace-it
Do you dread getting older? You are not alone. There’s a widespread assumption that old age is painful, lonely and unattractive. While most of us in the developed world appreciate the medical developments that mean we can expect to live around six years longer than our grandparents, we don’t actually want to be old. Marketing and media messages tell us that life is all downhill from the age of 50, and we are offered copious amounts of ‘anti-ageing’ products or lifestyle changes that can help us avoid going down that hill.
With an increasingly older population, I believe it is about time that our collective mindset on ageing catches up with reality. Luckily, the negative picture you’ve probably formed about ageing is simply not true. For instance, research into the so-called happiness curve indicates that our level of happiness increases from around midlife and up until the age of 70. Yes, it might take you a little longer to learn new things late in life, and you might perform some activities more slowly than you used to, but there are also many ways in which older age is a strength. With increasing age, you can expect to accumulate better knowledge of the world and become better at retrieving and applying it, and for your emotional intelligence to increase.
Of course, as in all stages of life, old age brings distinct challenges. But instead of telling older people to age ‘successfully’ (which basically means ‘Don’t age!’), I think we should be more supportive of these challenges. After all, we do not tell teenagers to avoid the challenges of their age. Rather, we try to facilitate ways for them to face their challenges and come out wiser and more resilient. We should support people transitioning through life after 50 in the same way. In that spirit, here are some ways to embrace increasing age, so that, instead of running away from it, you can let it be a catalyst for growth.
Using mindfulness to grow older rather than get older
To grow with age, I suggest practising various forms of mindfulness. Just as exercise for the body helps to maintain and improve physical health, mindfulness is mental training that flexes the mind for optimal health and wellbeing. It involves a curious investigation of the present moment – your thoughts, emotions and physical sensations. The benefits include improved concentration, more awareness, an ability to stay focused on what is important, and the ability to meet challenges with kindness, humour, resilience and mental adaptability. Here are five mindfulness-based ways to grow with age rather than merely get older:
Choose what you pay attention to...........................
snip
Rather than fearing getting old, here's how to embrace it
Whether you are 20 or 90, each moment of life presents an opportunity to focus on what really matters to you
https://psyche.co/ideas/rather-than-fearing-getting-old-heres-how-to-embrace-it
Do you dread getting older? You are not alone. There’s a widespread assumption that old age is painful, lonely and unattractive. While most of us in the developed world appreciate the medical developments that mean we can expect to live around six years longer than our grandparents, we don’t actually want to be old. Marketing and media messages tell us that life is all downhill from the age of 50, and we are offered copious amounts of ‘anti-ageing’ products or lifestyle changes that can help us avoid going down that hill.
With an increasingly older population, I believe it is about time that our collective mindset on ageing catches up with reality. Luckily, the negative picture you’ve probably formed about ageing is simply not true. For instance, research into the so-called happiness curve indicates that our level of happiness increases from around midlife and up until the age of 70. Yes, it might take you a little longer to learn new things late in life, and you might perform some activities more slowly than you used to, but there are also many ways in which older age is a strength. With increasing age, you can expect to accumulate better knowledge of the world and become better at retrieving and applying it, and for your emotional intelligence to increase.
Of course, as in all stages of life, old age brings distinct challenges. But instead of telling older people to age ‘successfully’ (which basically means ‘Don’t age!’), I think we should be more supportive of these challenges. After all, we do not tell teenagers to avoid the challenges of their age. Rather, we try to facilitate ways for them to face their challenges and come out wiser and more resilient. We should support people transitioning through life after 50 in the same way. In that spirit, here are some ways to embrace increasing age, so that, instead of running away from it, you can let it be a catalyst for growth.
Using mindfulness to grow older rather than get older
To grow with age, I suggest practising various forms of mindfulness. Just as exercise for the body helps to maintain and improve physical health, mindfulness is mental training that flexes the mind for optimal health and wellbeing. It involves a curious investigation of the present moment – your thoughts, emotions and physical sensations. The benefits include improved concentration, more awareness, an ability to stay focused on what is important, and the ability to meet challenges with kindness, humour, resilience and mental adaptability. Here are five mindfulness-based ways to grow with age rather than merely get older:
Choose what you pay attention to...........................
snip
April 10, 2024
The modern obsession with textual purity stems from a misapplication of the philosophies of Wittgenstein and Derrida
https://psyche.co/ideas/censoring-offensive-language-threatens-our-freedom-to-think
Graffiti on the wall of the Odéon theatre in Paris, France; 23 May 1968. Photo by Guy Le Querrec/Magnum
‘The Karen buried her hatchet and submitted to the straight, fat hillbilly’s rule of thumb that gay ladies and gentlemen of colour should be blackballed from the powwow.’ This sentence offends almost everyone, according to the inclusive language guidelines being drawn up by universities, corporations and public bodies in the Western world. Their guidelines would have struck a red line through every word. What I should have written was: ‘The entitled white woman, in the interests of peace, accepted the default ruling of the obese, heterosexual person from the Ozarks that LGBTQ+ and BIPOC should not be invited to the get-together.’ Obviously, this is meant satirically. No writer worth his or her (or their) salt would write such a sentence (for aesthetic reasons, hopefully, and not because it offends).
But the fact that I feel the need to explain myself at all suggests the presence of an intimidating new force in society, a kind of thought virus that has infected most organisations and political parties, on the Right and Left, the key symptom of which is an obsession with textual ‘purity’, that is, language stripped of words and phrases they deem offensive. Yet, in trying to create a language that offends no one, they offend almost everyone. Why are we so afraid to use words freely, to offend with impunity? Whence arose this fetish for the ‘purity’ of the text? I trace the origins of this obsession with textual purity to the triumph of linguistic philosophy in the early 20th century. Let’s alight on a few key moments in that story to understand how we got here.
Richard Rorty, the editor of the seminal anthology The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method (1992), described ‘linguistic philosophy’ as ‘the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use’. The elevation of language to such dizzy eminence divided philosophers: some thought it the greatest insight of all time; others were disgusted by what they interpreted as ‘a sign of the sickness of our souls, a revolt against reason itself’. The ‘linguistic turn’ on which the new thinking hinged was a radical reappraisal of the very purpose of philosophy. It swung away from the grand philosophical systems of the 18th and 19th centuries (as adumbrated by G W F Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and lesser lights), and divided into two streams of thought – ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ philosophy – which disputed much but shared this: an obsession with language and the limits of meaningful language.
The thinker who did most to propel philosophy into the orbit of linguistics was an Austrian logician and star pupil of Bertrand Russell’s called Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). He blamed what he saw as the confusion in philosophy on ‘the misunderstanding of the logic of our language’, as he recounted in the first of his two philosophical works, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921). The ‘whole meaning’ of this book, explained Wittgenstein, was to define the limits of meaningful language and, by extension, meaningful thought: ‘What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent. The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather – not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts.’ In a letter to Russell, he was more specific: language, he wrote, was the same as thought: ‘The main point [of the Tractatus] is the theory of what can be expressed … by language – (and, which comes to the same, what can be thought).’
snip
Censoring offensive language threatens our freedom to think
The modern obsession with textual purity stems from a misapplication of the philosophies of Wittgenstein and Derrida
https://psyche.co/ideas/censoring-offensive-language-threatens-our-freedom-to-think
Graffiti on the wall of the Odéon theatre in Paris, France; 23 May 1968. Photo by Guy Le Querrec/Magnum
‘The Karen buried her hatchet and submitted to the straight, fat hillbilly’s rule of thumb that gay ladies and gentlemen of colour should be blackballed from the powwow.’ This sentence offends almost everyone, according to the inclusive language guidelines being drawn up by universities, corporations and public bodies in the Western world. Their guidelines would have struck a red line through every word. What I should have written was: ‘The entitled white woman, in the interests of peace, accepted the default ruling of the obese, heterosexual person from the Ozarks that LGBTQ+ and BIPOC should not be invited to the get-together.’ Obviously, this is meant satirically. No writer worth his or her (or their) salt would write such a sentence (for aesthetic reasons, hopefully, and not because it offends).
But the fact that I feel the need to explain myself at all suggests the presence of an intimidating new force in society, a kind of thought virus that has infected most organisations and political parties, on the Right and Left, the key symptom of which is an obsession with textual ‘purity’, that is, language stripped of words and phrases they deem offensive. Yet, in trying to create a language that offends no one, they offend almost everyone. Why are we so afraid to use words freely, to offend with impunity? Whence arose this fetish for the ‘purity’ of the text? I trace the origins of this obsession with textual purity to the triumph of linguistic philosophy in the early 20th century. Let’s alight on a few key moments in that story to understand how we got here.
Richard Rorty, the editor of the seminal anthology The Linguistic Turn: Essays in Philosophical Method (1992), described ‘linguistic philosophy’ as ‘the view that philosophical problems are problems which may be solved (or dissolved) either by reforming language, or by understanding more about the language we presently use’. The elevation of language to such dizzy eminence divided philosophers: some thought it the greatest insight of all time; others were disgusted by what they interpreted as ‘a sign of the sickness of our souls, a revolt against reason itself’. The ‘linguistic turn’ on which the new thinking hinged was a radical reappraisal of the very purpose of philosophy. It swung away from the grand philosophical systems of the 18th and 19th centuries (as adumbrated by G W F Hegel, Immanuel Kant, Arthur Schopenhauer and lesser lights), and divided into two streams of thought – ‘analytic’ and ‘continental’ philosophy – which disputed much but shared this: an obsession with language and the limits of meaningful language.
The thinker who did most to propel philosophy into the orbit of linguistics was an Austrian logician and star pupil of Bertrand Russell’s called Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951). He blamed what he saw as the confusion in philosophy on ‘the misunderstanding of the logic of our language’, as he recounted in the first of his two philosophical works, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (1921). The ‘whole meaning’ of this book, explained Wittgenstein, was to define the limits of meaningful language and, by extension, meaningful thought: ‘What can be said at all can be said clearly; and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent. The book will, therefore, draw a limit to thinking, or rather – not to thinking, but to the expression of thoughts.’ In a letter to Russell, he was more specific: language, he wrote, was the same as thought: ‘The main point [of the Tractatus] is the theory of what can be expressed … by language – (and, which comes to the same, what can be thought).’
snip
Profile Information
Gender: FemaleHometown: London
Home country: US/UK/Sweden
Current location: Stockholm, Sweden
Member since: Sun Jul 1, 2018, 07:25 PM
Number of posts: 43,344
