Weekend Reading: Elizabeth Barre: What is the Point of a Teacher?

Early Monday Smackdown: David Graeber Resurfaces in My Twitterstream!


David Graeber Surfaces!: Ignorant and uncurious about the Federal Reserve, the Ming Dynasty, and many other topics--yet somehow eager to claim omniscient authority when he writes about them, and profoundly... resistant to any form of debate or correction...

No, I don't know why David Graeber surfaced suddenly in my twitter stream.

I am not going to waste the time to find out.

What is interesting here is Philip Clarke. He ought to say:

  1. Yes, Graeber got the structure of the Federal Reserve wrong.
  2. Yes, neither Graeber nor his editors did proper due-diligence and fact-checking in preparing the book ms.
  3. But Graeber is a brilliant man extending himself over a very broad intellectual range
  4. So we should be charitable in reading his book.
  5. Because there are brilliant and useful insights in his intellectual work.
  6. Like [X], which is a great insight because of [Y].

People like my friend Suresh Naidu will make (a weaker version of) that argument.

But the relatively green and wet-behind-the-ears Philip Clarke doesn't have the ovaries to be physically able to type step (1) of this argument.

And "I'm too scared of David Graeber to say that he was wrong and that votes on the FOMC are roughly 5/6 public officials, 1/6 banker representatives. So I will try to joke and say the FOMC is made up of Lizard People from ZOG" is perhaps the most undignified intellectual position I have seen anyone adopt this fall...

Well Worth Reading...