YDS: The Clare Spark Blog

July 18, 2015

Political Correctness and Chattanooga shooting

Painting by Jeff Wilkie

Painting by Jeff Wilkie

The moderate men have done it again in generally declining to investigate a precise motive for the Chattanooga shooting, while using the word “extremist” to designate their enemies on either Left or Right.

This will be a short blog, for I have beaten this horse to death, investigating the origins of political correctness in German Romanticism, the hegemony of multiculturalism (shockingly taken up by the once anti-racist Left), and the reluctance to admit to antisemitic subtexts in our political discourses. (For one example among many see http://clarespark.com/2013/07/02/groupiness-group-think-and-race/.)

In the weekend Wall Street Journal, for instance, linguistics professor at Columbia U, John McWhorter, ostensibly a neocon, writes at length about changing meanings of curse words as if they evolved, without identifiable causes. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-dare-you-say-that-the-evolution-of-profanity-1437168515.) What he left out in his essay was the time-tested tactic of the liberal establishment, acting in the interests of the neutral state, to promote politeness as a tactic in bringing warring factions into line, so that artful mediators could promote social harmony and their version of stability. For these liberals, offensive language only polarizes the conflict, promoting hate, not love and mutual “understanding.”*

Image by Jesse Lenz

Image by Jesse Lenz

Even Andrew McCarthy, in a National Review piece that correctly identifies the Palestinian background of Muhammad Youssuf Abdulazeez (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421346/chattanooga-shooting-muslim-jihad-muhammad-abdulazeez), does not identify the stakes in the widespread reticence in even suggesting that international terrorism, not some radicalized “lone wolf” was responsible for the mayhem. For we cannot suggest that all Muslims might not be agreeable to peaceful co-existence. That would evade the tenets of mandatory collectivist discourses, prompting broader investigations into individual motives, and in this bogus “lone wolf” case, polluting the dominant “moderate” view that finds moral equivalence in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Social media, rightly or wrongly, has become the new facilitator of terrorism. Yet these media are our only route to dissent in the cultural monopolies staffed by the moderate men.

*In fairness to McWhorter, in his WSJ piece, he does historicize taboo expressions, brings up middle class mores, and mentioning that groups may not be stigmatized by outsiders, but he doesn’t go far enough. All we are left with is changing times, with examples of outdated naughty speech. This from an author frequently identified with the Republican “right-wing.”


July 14, 2015

“Depraved indifference” to Education Reform?

State Government Leadership Foundation come-on

State Government Leadership Foundation come-on

A dispute broke out last night on my Facebook wall regarding education reform, with some conservatives expressing abhorrence over any national control whatsoever. Instead, all deficiencies would be remedied with “local control,” as if our citizenry (so-called) really cares about schools in this “fallen world.”

I am no fan of Arne Duncan or the teachers unions. Duncan is Secretary of Education and I wrote how Harvard was honoring his appointment here (they presented him as a savior): http://clarespark.com/2010/09/22/links-to-arne-duncan-blogs/. As for teachers unions and their opposition to merit pay in tandem with their support for tenure, I got some, but insufficient, support given the gravity of the problem, for Campbell Brown’s ambitious reform program when I shared her announcement on Facebook.

Regarding Common Core, my initial fear that the humanities would disappear in favor of math and science proved groundless. I see nothing wrong with national standards and testing in math and science to map how various schools are keeping up with international competition. But teachers unions oppose close scrutiny as to teacher competence.

Social conservatives have several claims that will be criticized in this blog: 1. The problem of (progressive) education will be solved if Big Government is halted by abolishing The Department of Education; 2. Father-headed families will instill appropriate discipline (and jingoistic patriotism?) in American children.

Here are my objections, which are heated:

America is an unevenly developed country with respect to the value of education. It was only New England’s puritan tradition that fought for free public education (along with Protestant pluralism). The slave South was militantly opposed to anything that prepared their minions (including poor whites) to participate in a democracy. The New South made inroads in order to industrialize, but their bourgeois efforts toward equal opportunity were met with resistance from Bourbons and other regionalists (Agrarians).

Does local control mean that it is up to (backward states) to resist the demands of a competitive, globalized world? Are we, in any sense, a democratic republic, determined to lay the groundwork for an educated populace?

Given the uneven commitment to a “secular” education that could turn children away from their ancestors, it is understandable that “local control,” plus the stern father in the home, signifies for many the desire to keep their straying children in line, as if adolescent rebellion was some kind of new-fangled invention foisted upon them by “progressives.”

When I was an undergraduate and then a graduate student in the 1950s, the cry was for discipline and order in my required education classes. The exact content of student learning was irrelevant. It occurs to me now that there is massive confusion regarding the tasks assigned to families versus schools regarding student conduct. This was not something that was ever discussed. Rather we had nonsensical courses at Harvard (for instance) that stressed the poor and working class as a “sub-culture” that was focused on “trouble.” The less said about the unruly urban mobs and their living conditions, the better.


I find it hard to understand why persons my age or slightly younger (my Facebook friends), would be so distracted by aging and  health care that the future of their descendants takes little space in their imaginations. I wonder if they were ever attached to their offspring except as narcissistic extensions of themselves.

There may be more concern about dogs these days than kids.

Claude Joseph Bail (d.1921) painting

Claude Joseph Bail (d.1921) painting

July 11, 2015

Jobs, jobs, and less jobs

Muhammad-Ali-Quotes-on-Success-Hard-work-Life-Thoughts-Muhammad-Ali-Images-Wallpapers-Picture-PhotosAre we puppets on a string? It is striking that the would-be Presidents on the Right (whether “establishment moderate” or conservative) are all promising more “jobs” to the electorate, while entirely ignoring the labor question (assertions of exploitation, the nature of toil, labor competition between ethnicities, “races”  and genders) that has roiled the world since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. I took it up here, because I was struck by the constant repetition of the value of “hard work.” (See http://clarespark.com/2014/02/12/is-most-work-alienating-and-boring/.)

Back in the day when I read labor history, the emphasis was on bloody strikes, Taylorism, the Haymarket Massacre, competing labor organizations, the “de-skilling” of workers, the anarchist communes of the Spanish  Republic, and the “false consciousness” that prevented “the working class” from adhering to the precepts of dialectical materialism by making the revolution that would free the world from poverty, war, and the humdrum lives led by the toiling masses.

Such talk has faded from view partly because such countries as Soviet Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela turned out to be something other than workers’ paradises. Faced with obvious failures, even “progressives” turned to “race” and “gender” as the divisions that mattered, or, even more disturbingly, are now rehabilitating “the Middle Ages” with their Good Kings, mysticism, aristocratic hierarchies and allegedly happy peasants and artisans, kept in line through benign religions. Or, the Left took up critical theory that blamed workers for consumerism (and sports) made popular by the new mass media that misled them into 20th century dictatorships.

Ukraine collective propaganda poster

Ukraine collective propaganda poster

Right-wingers have nothing to offer the working class other than “meritocracy” (i.e., upward mobility out of the class into the petit-bourgeoisie, where immigrant families are free to “work hard” and exploit their families). As for the populists, they are haters, whether of finance capital, [red] atheists (http://clarespark.com/2015/04/24/multiculturalism-vs-yid-red-spies-which-agitates-the-right/), or the Northeastern liberal establishment that goes for education reform, free trade, and regulated “socially responsible capitalism.”

Perhaps meritocracy is the best we can do. But the Republican Party should stop pretending that the labor question is a dead letter. As for the opposite party that ostensibly celebrates “the Common Man” while favoring teachers unions over kids, they deserve all the terrible things that are about to happen to this country in the Age of Trump.

The Labor Question (vintage postcard)

The Labor Question (vintage postcard)

July 9, 2015

Harvard’s advocacy of “simplicity” as remedy for failing schools

Leadershipfreak come-on

Leadershipfreak come-on

Education reform hasn’t changed much on the “Left” despite a few conservatives railing against “Common Core.” But Harvard’s Graduate School of Education (which I attended 1958-59), isn’t worried about the lamentable and fragmented state of public education, but is suggesting “simplicity” as the winning answer. Even Diane Ravitch, an advocate for teachers unions lately, is too hard for them:

[Ed, summer issue 2015, author Lory Hough:] Education isn’t easy. In fact, in its formal state, it’s probably one of the most complex, challenging things we do in our society, especially now, given the growing diversity of our student body and greater amounts of information students are expected to know. As Diane Ravitch wrote a few years ago in the Los Angeles Times, “There are no simple solutions, no miracle cures to those problems. Education is a slow, arduous process that requires the work of willing students, dedicated teachers, and supportive families, as well as a coherent curriculum.” Yet, does it always need to be so complex? [My emph. The opening salvo goes on to hold up Steve Jobs as role model.]

Yes, this paean to progressive clarity was published by one of the two most prestigious schools of graduate education in the country (the other being Columbia U.).  Here is a complete list of the headlines that top 21 multi-colored boxes (blue, green, turquoise, grey) in the article that lauds simple solutions to admittedly complex problems; they are listed in order of appearance:

“Be Kind”; “Start The High School Day Later”; “Teach Students To Ask Their Own Questions”; “Simplify The Financial Aid Form”; “Slow Down”; “Make Meetings More Useful”; “Use Checklists”; “Greet People Warmly”; “Let Students Move”; “Revamp The Open House”; Replace Timeout  With A Safe Place”; “Find Similarities”; “Use Texting To Keep College-Bound Students On Track”; “Help With Transportation”; “Include Dads”; “Install A Buddy Bench”; “Create Student Crews”; “Ask Outside Groups For Help”; “Use Personal Stories To Motivate Students”; “Make Space Flexible”.

A large box illustrated with a light bulb invites interactivity: “What simple ideas have you found that work? Link to this article on Facebook or Twitter and post your thoughts!”

I wish I could say that I am making all this up. For my prior blogs on Diane Ravitch and other writers on reform, see http://clarespark.com/2012/05/03/index-to-blogs-on-education-reform/. They are assuredly too complicated for most readers.

9/12/2012 West Chicago teachers' strike

9/12/2012 West Chicago teachers’ strike

July 4, 2015

Patriotism, perfectionism, excessive parental expectations, and OCD

Super Patriot, figurerealm.com

Super Patriot, figurerealm.com

This blog is about the unexplored connection between “my country, right or wrong” (super-patriotism), America-hating, conservative objections to “perfectionism,” overpraising our children’s accomplishments, and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD, a condition associated with both high achievers, and extremely anxious and depressed persons immobilized by the fear of making a mistake).

I am writing it on Independence Day because many conservatives look to the Constitution as holy writ, rather than as a document conceived by men who were creatures of their time. For these super-patriots the Constitution was perfect, even inspired by the (perfect) Divinity. It follows that any and all attempts to historicize this document must be initiated by sinister, demonic forces, out to destroy religion as such.

OCD runs in my family, though some of us have its symptoms more severely than others. In historicizing my family history, I have taken into account how immigrants, especially Jewish immigrants, have coped with competing in a society where modernity sits lightly, where populist antisemitism continues to ride high, and where immigration (often) has been tightly controlled.

As children, we had to be high achievers, even without the constant stimulation that the upper classes have achieved here and in Europe– such as devotion to high culture, engagement with world and local affairs, extensive travel, and tutors in many foreign languages at an early age.

In my particular family of origin, there was not much of that, even though my parents had high expectations of achievement, as if my genetic inheritance, my father’s precocity in medical research, and my mother’s descent from distinguished rabbis, would compensate for their neglect. In other words, I early discerned that I was on my own and fled to books.

But “neglect” had its advantages, for I was not “pushed” to be perfect. Nor was I indoctrinated in any particular ideology, unlike those veterans of authoritarian families who had to be flawlessly obedient to the ways of their ancestors, and who would be threatened by any engagement with America’s imperfect past.

I have never encountered an 18th century thinker who expected perfection from their efforts to achieve independence from Britain. Indeed, the classically-educated Constitution-makers favored a republic, not a democracy, such were their suspicions of “the people” (http://clarespark.com/2009/08/24/the-people-is-an-ass-or-a-herd/.)  And yet there are right-wingers who discard the Enlightenment as having made unreasonable demands on “human nature,” which is ever likely to get out of hand.

I have mentioned the super-patriots, but they have their opposite numbers on the Left: America-hating essentialists, the purveyors of identity politics as if America was a single individual with a uniformly horrid and shameful past. Such persons also demonize America, refusing to acknowledge any progress whatsoever in compensating for past, historically determined, mistakes. Rather, we are typified by Charles Manson.

Some  of our presidential candidates on the Right are playing to the super-patriots, ending their appeals for votes with the utterance “We are the greatest country in the world.” They have their counterparts on the Left, who argue that their statist measures will beat the devil, and establish an error-free heaven on earth.

Here’s a toast to a more independent, historically-savvy, appraisal of our country’s past and present. Happy Fourth of July, 2015. Long may our striving toward improvement persist, for we were a great and unprecedented experiment in living with the search for truth, justice, independence and interdependence, for all.

OCD imagined by soulation.org.

OCD imagined by soulation.org.

July 3, 2015

Let’s Pretend

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 6:52 pm
Tags: , , , , ,
Nila Mack, director of radio series

Nila Mack, director of radio series “Let’s Pretend”

The United States of America are united

Masochism builds character

We are free to speak to lots and lots of people

Romantic love never fades

Time heals all wounds

Our opinions are never irrational

There are no racists in America, especially not the Founding Fathers

Race is not socially constructed

The New Deal was a howling success and ended the Depression

All liberals are secretly communists

Liberals are liberal

Multiculturalism and internationalism have, or could, end(ed) racism

Happy Fourth of July

David Chestnutt ill.

David Chestnutt ill.

July 2, 2015

Are secular societies devoid of “virtue”?

Rationalism defended by Nirmukta

Rationalism defended by Nirmukta

(This is the second of two blogs on the gay rights decision by SCOTUS this week.http://clarespark.com/2015/06/27/gay-marriage-and-what-liberty-signifies/)

I was stunned to read these lines in Dan Henninger’s weekly op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, July2, 2015: “In the North, on campuses and in sophisticated circles, we are rapidly becoming unchurched, secularized. Which raises a question: Where will a predominantly secularized society learn virtue?”

I should not have been shocked, for I am aware that WSJ, like Fox News, is run by the moderate men, whose ersatz moderation masks their organic conservatism. That is, they are not embarked on a search for truth, let alone virtue; rather, they want national unity (no matter how illusory): political stability and social cohesion above human rights and facts. (See http://clarespark.com/2013/09/17/the-illusion-of-national-unity/.)

The moderate men are thus aligned with the “ethical state,” a state that is antagonistic to the Enlightenment and its materialism and preference for individual human rights over group-think. According to these organic conservatives, mystical bonds unite warring factions, with the management of opinion-elites who scaled the Olympian heights by their discreet and mostly unseen, or deliberately hidden, stratagems.

There is no contradiction between secularism and virtue except in the minds of various hysterics. Secularism as understood by the US Constitution guarantees that there is to be no established religion.(I recall from my reading of the Federalist papers that God is mentioned only once.) This disturbs ultramontane Catholics and communists alike, for pluralism and individuality, like scientific evidence,* is damnable and a threat to aristocratic or bureaucratic leadership and their version of social control. Meanwhile, a few cranks fulfill the worst fantasies of ultraconservatives by Romantic identification with Satan, or by seeking to banish all religious artifacts from public spaces.

Such militant atheists are then deployed as weapons in the culture wars, distracting the public from pressing issues such as education reform, health reform, a high divorce rate, the real or imagined threat of climate change (a controversy that only science can solve), and foreign policy.

Here is how one Orthodox Rabbi suggested that we move on toward more pressing issues: https://www.facebook.com/RabbiShmuleyBoteach/videos/10153022077966089/.

It is my own view that the gay rights decision raises the dread specter of blurred gender identity, but that horse has already been beaten to death on this website. Artists will know what I mean.

*It is objectively true that we are interdependent with each other and with Nature.

Newton imagined by William Blake

Newton imagined by William Blake

June 27, 2015

Gay marriage and what “liberty” signifies

Mediaite sign pro-gay marriage

Mediaite sign pro-gay marriage

The SCOTUS decision legalizing gay marriage throughout all the states, despite voter opposition in many instances, has aroused furious debate, including the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, which is semi-hysterical in nature. This blog situates the SCOTUS decision within the culture wars, and argues that “liberty” and “freedom” are terms that do not invoke a common meaning between factions.

I will not go into the mixed motives that inform defenses of both heterosexual marriage and same-sex marriages (androgyny; misogyny; resentment of male power; defense of, or opposition to, state’s rights; deference to ancestors; monogamy; bisexuality; hyper-masculinity; to mention only a few factors).

Some social conservatives, not content with the religious pluralism inherent in the separation of Church and State, may wish to impose their beliefs on others. Already some comments suggest that “democratic debate,” not decrees from Big Government under pressure from a particular interest group, should have decided the issue, as if social conservatives would suddenly relinquish their belief systems in recognition of rational argument, or similarly would abandon their beliefs in the slippery slope toward perdition (if gay marriage is okay, what is next: polygamy? pedophilia? bestiality? children of gay parents diverted from heterosexual into gay relationships?)

I have argued before that there is no reconciliation possible between libertarians and social conservatives through “democratic debate,” for their conceptions of “liberty” are incompatible. Traditionalists are defending the submission to their gods as “liberty”, while libertarians believe in choice dependent on the individual and her or his unique proclivities, whether chosen or genetically transmitted.

We have been having this fight since the Enlightenment. It is yet another irreconcilable conflict, like antebellum slavery/Reconstruction or abortion rights today.

(For related blogs, see http://clarespark.com/2014/01/23/androgyny/, or http://clarespark.com/2012/05/10/androgyny-with-an-aside-on-edna-ferber/, or http://clarespark.com/2013/03/27/power-in-gay-andor-heterosexual-attachments/.)

Satyr and Goat

Satyr and Goat

June 26, 2015

Another Missed Opportunity: James Pagano M.D. on SCOTUS’s bad decision

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 7:09 pm
Tags: , , ,
James Pagano, M.D.

James Pagano, M.D.

[This is Dr. Pagano’s fourth guest blog: see links at the bottom of the page]

Twice now the Roberts court has reinterpreted the plain language of the ACA in order to keep it in force.  The first slight of mind was the bizarre decision that a tax wasn’t really a tax.  Now we learn that when congress specifically stated that  subsidies should go only to those buying insurance from an exchange set up by a state, what it really meant was the subsidies were available to everyone, regardless of whether the exchange was established by the state or the Feds.  As daft as our politicians may be, I’m fairly certain they have the intellectual wherewithal to have said as much had that been what they meant.

One of the duties of the Supreme Court is to protect the people from congressional malpractice.  The ACA is a clear case.  Thousands of pages, unread by most who voted for it, written in language intended to confuse, excluding from its reach those who wrote it, and sold to a gullible public through a series of bold-faced lies.  Rather than protect the people from this atrocity the Court has chosen instead to protect congress from itself.

The majority decision, written by the same logical contortionist who declared a tax wasn’t a tax, stated that the duty of the Court is to find ways to protect the actions of congress, not ways to un-do them.  This is frightening, implying as it does that an out of control, single party congress, like the one that passed the ACA, can do pretty much whatever it wants and get legal cover from the Supreme Court.

But enough of the whining.  You’ve heard all this before and you either agree or don’t and nothing much is going to change your opinion.  Instead let’s consider what might have been.  Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe in which the price of something is closely tied to its cost.  Those of you in business will recognize this as one of the fundamental relationships in life.  Those of you working for the government, try to hang on for a few minutes longer.  I think you’ll have some fun.

So, in this alternate world people pay for things they want or need with money.  Actual cash.  Soap, apples, cars, homes, you name it.  Even health care.  And because people are paying with real money, they expect the prices they pay to be closely tied to the cost of providing whatever goods or services they are purchasing.

In this world the government has wisely noticed that of all the things people want or need, healthcare is one of the most important and should be available to all its citizens.  It has also noticed that healthcare can be expensive.  The politicians in this world thought long and hard.  Finally, they devised a plan.  What they came up with was this:

All citizens would be allowed to create special savings accounts where money could be put aside to cover health care costs.  This money would be tax-exempt, and the accounts would be generous—say ten thousand dollars a year per person.  Those who could afford this would do so unassisted.  Those who could not would get help from the government.  These people would get health care credit cards, for an annual amount means-tested to bridge the gap between what they can afford and the ten thousand dollar maximum.

To supplement these accounts people would also be able to buy insurance.  If, for instance, someone suffers a bank-breaking illness or injury the supplemental insurance will pick up where the ten grand leaves off.  For those without the money to buy supplemental insurance the government will provide Medicaid.  While the choices of providers accepting Medicaid might be limited, care would nevertheless be available through a network of providers and through hospital ER’s.  Kind of like it was in this world before the ACA.  Come January 1st new health care credit cards are issued and those who found themselves on Medicaid at year’s end can once again have control of their health care lives.

If you are lucky enough to have money left over at the end of the year, guess what?  You get to keep it!  It stays in the bank, drawing interest.  (In this world interest rates actually reflect the real cost of money…).  And, since the maximum amount you are required to spend out of pocket each year is ten thousand dollars, that left over money becomes a retirement account.  When you reach retirement age you can roll it over into an IRA.

A world in which people make their own choices and spend their own money, with a government there to support the truly needy.  Insurance companies relegated to actually providing insurance against catastrophic losses.  Prices set by providers, drug makers, imaging centers and hospitals to reflect cost plus a modest profit.  Why?  Because they are all in competition for the same customers.  Imagine ads in the paper offering an MRI for $350, (about what it’s really worth, as opposed to the $9000 charged by hospitals, to be negotiated by various insurers), followed the next day for an ad by another imaging center for the same MRI, but for $325.  But that’s in the other universe.

Back in this world we are now saddled with a system wherein government and insurance companies set prices and ration care, the newly ‘insured’ are turning to Emergency Departments in ever-increasing numbers for their primary care needs, (patient volume in my ER is up about 35% almost entirely due to Obamacare patients with Medi-Cal managed care insurance and nowhere else to go), where the treatment options will be limited and innovation stifled.

We have lowest common denominator health care and will be paying Cadillac prices for it.  We have patients disconnected from their healthcare choices who will remain blissfully ignorant in the arms of a bloated federal government.  And the worst is yet to come.  Still, there are people seemingly ecstatic that the law was allowed to stand.  ‘The ACA is now embedded in our society!’, or something to that effect.

It’s about as absurd as my telling a patient, “Congratulations, the cancer is now inoperable.”  What a shame.

June 25, 2015

Surviving in the age of judicial activism

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 8:21 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,


[For a medical professional’s view of alternatives to ACA, see http://clarespark.com/2015/06/26/another-missed-opportunity-james-pagano-m-d-on-scotuss-bad-decision/.%5D

Like all aging persons I am obsessed with maintaining my youthful vigor and mental alertness. It is not easy, partly because there is no agreement among physicians or other health care professionals about, to give one example, the sources of anxiety and depression, with the latter mental states ostensibly the causes of inflammation and preventable early death, not to speak of disabilities.

When I started graduate school in the early 1980s at UCLA, I remember that Student Health told us (through all their handouts) that we were responsible for managing our health. But what does that mean, exactly? Besides the obvious preventive measures of diet and exercise, what were we supposed to do, say, about constant typing or sitting or the hazing inflicted by faculty members (I am not mentioning sports that stress the skull and joints)?

This personal problem is now made more acute by the Supreme Court decision today, that supports Obamacare as written, despite widespread opposition, much of it from doctors!

Such libertarian measures as eliminating any Big Government control entirely do not solve some of the basic problems, and I do not refer just to doctor shortages or rationing. I will suggest some unresolved issues that even the most well-meaning measures for expanding health care do not take into account. 1. Not all doctors are equally competent, though with increasingly standardized protocols of treatment, it may be possible for less quackery. 2. The nation is divided over contentious issues such as vaccination, abortion, “normal” sexuality in general, and the role of government in regulating the food industry. 3. Many parents do not want their children to learn hygiene and physiology at an early age, some out of prudery, others in fear that schools will usurp their proper role in controlling the education of their children.

I should state my own biases. I do believe in self-management and personal responsibility (and more, I remain worried about worker health and safety), but some problems intrinsic to health are contested or ambiguous. As I grow older, I realize that we are not rational creatures, but more pushed around by our emotional conflicts. Until we face up to the public and academic resistance to depth psychology (except insofar as it serves “the ethical state”) no amount of legislation or federalism will improve the health and life chances of the American people. Nor will a retreat into mysticism.

We need to rehabilitate “materialism” so that it applies to science and economics, not to consumerism.



« Previous PageNext Page »

The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 546 other followers