|
FOCUS | Biden and Student Debt: A 40-Year Love Affair |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=58443"><span class="small">David Sirota, Julia Rock and Walker Bragman, The Daily Poster and Newsweek</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 24 February 2021 12:52 |
|
Excerpt: "In his new fight with Elizabeth Warren, the president is falsely insinuating that student debt relief would help rich people."
President Biden. (photo: Getty)
Biden and Student Debt: A 40-Year Love Affair
By David Sirota, Julia Rock and Walker Bragman, The Daily Poster and Newsweek
24 February 21
 resident Joe Biden may not be a particularly ideological politician, but one of the few things he seems to absolutely believe in is debt. In particular, student debt.
On the campaign trail he appeared to suggest otherwise, repeatedly promising that he would support some incremental action to forgive student debt, tweeting that the federal government should forgive "a minimum" of $10,000 of college loans.
Last week, however, Biden defied Democratic leaders on the issue, declaring "I will not make that happen" when asked whether he supported Senators Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren's proposal to go farther and cancel up to $50,000 of federal student debt—and his administration refused to commit to using existing executive authority to reduce that debt.
The declaration echoes a point of contrast between Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, when the Vermont independent pushed for full student debt cancelation. Biden's statement also rekindles a bitter conflict between him and Warren, who as a Harvard Law professor excoriated him in harsh terms for consistently opposing debt relief. She is now calling on Americans to press Biden to use his existing executive authority to enact more debt relief, but the White House is balking.
The entire episode is a reminder that Biden's current position is consistent with his 40-year history of leaving Americans loaded down with bills as a consequence of seeking a higher education.
Most student debtors are not rich
In justifying his opposition to Democratic lawmakers' proposal, Biden asserted at a CNN town hall last week that people who went to "Harvard and Yale and Penn" should not have their federal student debt forgiven. The refrain echoed the now-pervasive talking point that people who attended expensive, elite schools would be the primary beneficiaries of student debt relief.
In reality, only 0.3 percent of people with federal student loans attended Ivy League schools, while about half attended public universities.
Biden's comment also implied that cancelling up to $50,000 worth of student debt would primarily help rich people, which is also inaccurate.
An October report from the Washington Center for Equitable Growth—which was co-founded by one of Biden's top economic policy advisers—found that "the student debt burden in the United States falls most heavily on those U.S. households in the bottom 50 percent of the income distribution—and even more on Black American households."
Those findings were echoed by a new study from the Jain Family Institute which shows that most people with outstanding federal student loans live in census tracts where the median income is less than $40,000.
"The sheer number of borrowers in low- and lower-middle income categories outnumber those in the higher-income groups," noted the study, which concluded, "Thus, the greatest share of the benefit from cancellation accrues to people living in lower-income communities, relative to higher-income ones."
Study authors Laura Beamer and Eduard Nilaj analyzed the credit reports of a million 18- to 35-year-old borrowers by census tract in order to assess the distribution of student loan debt by income.
Not only did they find that far more people who have student debt live in low- to middle-income census tracts than higher-income ones, but people in those income tracts hold about 75 percent more of the total outstanding debt than people in middle- to high-income areas.
The data directly contradicts the false argument that cancelling student debt would primarily help wealthy people.
"Cancellation of $50,000 would get over 80 percent of young borrowers out of student debt," Nilaj tweeted. "And inside that 80 percent, over 71 percent would be borrowers living in working class and lower-middle class areas."
Another key finding from the study: the average amount of outstanding loans has increased over the past decade, and low-income people and people of color comprise a much larger portion of the student debtor population than in 2009.
Those arguing against student debt cancellation point out that high-income people are more likely to have higher amounts of debt, either because they attended more expensive schools or because they were more likely to take out larger loans. But that argument misses the point: While a larger percentage of high-income student debtors have larger outstanding balances, there is a much higher number of low-income people with large amounts of debt.
And as the chart shows, cancelling only $10,000 in student debt would likely fail to adequately help the majority of low- and middle-income debt holders.
"Single biggest stimulus"
Beyond the fact that student debt cancellation would help low- and middle-income people more than it would help rich people or Ivy League grads, it is also a popular policy that would narrow the racial wealth gap and stimulate the economy.
In November, Warren said that student debt cancellation would be the "single biggest stimulus we could add to the economy." A majority of voters support student debt cancellation by a 17 point margin, according to a new poll by Data for Progress, and their support for the policy does not waver if the cancellation amount is $50,000 rather than $10,000.
Forgiving federal student loans would also help reduce the longstanding racial wealth gap created by job and income discrimination and school segregation, trends that have been aided by the federal government. Black borrowers hold more debt than their white counterparts and are less likely to be able to pay it back than white borrowers.
As Rep. Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez pointed out on Twitter: "Entire generations of working class kids were encouraged to go into more debt under the guise of elitism." The promise of educational attainment as a way of achieving better economic outcomes has failed to materialize, especially over the past decade.
"It used to be that people who held student debt were a relatively small share of the population, disproportionately people who went to medical school or law school or some other high-cost professional program," said Marshall Steinbaum, a senior fellow in higher education at the Jain Family Institute who advised the new study.
"It's becoming the case that there are more and more people who are student debtors... which means that there are more people who don't have that high of a level of educational attainment, who go to different types of institutions, who don't live at the top of the income distribution. The set of people who have student debt is becoming more and more like the population as a whole."
After Biden declared his opposition to Schumer and Warren's proposal for $50,000 of debt relief, White House spokesperson Jen Psaki said the president believes any "relief above $10,000 should be targeted based on the borrower's income, based on the kind of debt in question, public schools versus private schools, graduate schools versus undergraduate. Obviously, there's a lot of considerations at play."
The statement reflects the Democratic Party's commitment to complexity and means-testing. The party that once championed wildly popular universal programs like Medicare and Social Security now tends to offer narrowly tailored proposals that skimp on benefits and eligibility—even as such limitations end up excluding millions of people.
With the promised $2,000 stimulus checks and now with student debt relief, opponents contend that without strict means testing, both initiatives would wrongly aid affluent people who don't need help. And yet, data show that means testing both initiatives would exclude millions of middle-class people who absolutely do need the help.
"I would like to congratulate my worthy opponents who've spent years falsely claiming that student debt cancellation is regressive," Steinbaum tweeted after Biden's CNN event. "Congratulations: you won. You've successfully deceived the political system such that millions of people will be immiserated who didn't have to be."
A history of aiding the lending industry
Throughout his career, Biden has had a reputation for being on the side of lenders. Between 2003 and 2008, he took $500,000 from the lending industry. In 2005, he was one of 25 Democrats to sign onto Republican-led bankruptcy reform legislation that removed protections on private student loans. The bill was considered a giveaway to lenders and helped create a $125 billion bubble in private student loan debt.
In a 2015 International Business Times report, David Sirota and Matthew Cunningham-Cook detailed Biden's long record working to make it harder for Americans to discharge educational debt in bankruptcy court:
As a senator from Delaware—a corporate tax haven where the financial industry is one of the state's largest employers—Biden was one of the key proponents of the 2005 legislation that is now bearing down on students... That bill effectively prevents the $150 billion worth of private student debt from being discharged, rescheduled or renegotiated as other debt can be in bankruptcy court...
Biden helped lenders make it more difficult for Americans to reduce debt through bankruptcy—a trend that experts say encouraged banks to loan more freely with less fear that courts could erase their customers' repayment obligations. At the same time, with more debtors barred from bankruptcy protections, the average American's debt load went up by two-thirds over the last 40 years. Today, there is more than $10,000 of personal debt for every person in the country, as compared to roughly $6,000 in the early 1970s.
That increase—and its attendant interest payments—have generated huge profits for a financial industry that delivered more than $1.9 million of campaign contributions to Biden over his career, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics...
Biden led the fight against his own party's efforts to soften the bill's impact on some of the most vulnerable debtors. In one case, he voted against an amendment that would protect divorced mothers who failed to receive child support from having to repay a portion of their debts in bankruptcy. He voted to oppose an amendment barring firms from charging more than 30 percent interest on loans. In still other cases, he voted against extending special bankruptcy protections for soldiers, victims of identity theft and those with especially high medical debt.
In the early 2000s, Warren—who is now pressing the White House for $50,000 of student debt relief—led the fight against Biden's original bankruptcy bill. She slammed Biden as a "zealous advocate on behalf of one of his biggest contributors" and wrote that when it comes to debt, Biden "should not be allowed to sell out women in the morning and be heralded as their friend in the evening."
In campaigning for president, Biden distanced himself from—and at times misrepresented—his record trying to slash Social Security, passing draconian criminal justice policies, and helping lead America into the Iraq War. By contrast, when it comes to student debt, he is sticking with his old ways, offering as little relief as today's politics would allow.
While his past defense of debt bondage involved him defending a powerful private finance industry that bankrolled his campaigns, he is now refusing to erase debt owed to the government, a public entity to which he has no political obligations. Biden won't even budge on the issue of publicly held debt, despite the fact that doing so would be extremely popular and wouldn't enrage any campaign sponsors.
He seems to genuinely believe that when it comes to student debt, nothing needs to fundamentally change.
 |
|
FOCUS: Is Harvard Denying Tenure to Cornel West Over His Views on Palestine? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=51519"><span class="small">Juan Cole, Informed Comment</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 24 February 2021 11:59 |
|
Cole writes: "There are over a million post-secondary teachers in the United States, and the vast majority know exactly what is going on in the Occupied Territories. They can't all be silenced."
Cornel West. (photo: Gage Skidmoore/MPR)
Is Harvard Denying Tenure to Cornel West Over His Views on Palestine?
By Juan Cole, Informed Comment
24 February 21
 aximilien Alvarez writing at The Chronicle of Higher Education interviews eminent Black philosopher Cornel West on the latter being denied tenure at Harvard University. West is convinced that his views on the Palestine issue are the real reason for which Harvard will not give him a permanent job.
Universities have a custom of giving “tenure” to professors whose work they value, which means the individual cannot be fired under most circumstances. Obviously, they can be let go if they do something criminal. But if they teach their classes, they cannot be summarily fired. The tenure system evolved in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century largely because the big businessmen who often served on university boards of regents kept trying to fire professors for doing things like criticizing child labor (as with Scott Nearing, a Wharton school sociologist, who was in fact fired.) The graduate students in the Political Science Department at the University of Pennsylvania had me in to give a lecture on the Iraq War in Nearing’s honor in the Bush era.
West told the Boston Globe that he heard the university views him as “too controversial” and “a risk” and questions whether his work over the past five years has shown “substance.”
Professor West edited The Radical King in 2015, which most people would consider substantial. It is certainly a sign that he continues to produce important scholarship. But anyway, the idea that you would judge a scholar of his stature by his past 5 years is anyway weird.
West left Harvard in 2002 after Lawrence Summers, then president of Harvard, called him in and complained about his public intellectual activities, including rap CDs. It seems obvious that Summers was trying to get rid of West, and it worked. He also tried to get rid of Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, Jr. and Kwame Appiah, and Appiah also left. Summers also dissed women science professors as biologically inferior. West called him, in the aftermath, a gangster for the Establishment. He was polite enough not to say “the White Establishment.”
West went to Princeton, and then to Union Theological Seminary, before coming back to Harvard as an untenured “Professor of Practice” five years ago. Harvard has a controversial practice of hiring people as professors of practice, especially language instructors, retired diplomats, etc., when it does not expect them to produce critical scholarship. West has positions in several units and has been offered a prestigious chair, but he wanted it to come with tenure attached, and it didn’t.
This controversy would not be addressed at Informed Comment, perhaps, except for West’s assertion that Palestine is at the heart of it.
Professor West told Alvarez,
“I was first tenured 37 years ago at Yale University and have served as University Professor — the highest faculty position — at Harvard and Princeton. Therefore, the only grounds I can conceive of Harvard’s refusal to pursue a tenure process for me are age and politics. Like everyone, I grow old. However, the recent invitation extended to me to give the prestigious Gifford Lectures in Edinburgh, Scotland, leads me to conclude that some people believe I have something significant yet to say. In regards to politics, I do not believe that my intense and joyful support of my dear brother Bernie Sanders for president is a cause of any concern on behalf of the powers that be at Harvard. So, I surmise it must be my deep Christian witness based on the idea that an ugly Israeli occupation of precious Palestinians is as wrong as any ugly Palestinian occupation of precious Jews. I would bear any burden or pay any cost in order to stay in contact with the precious humanity of any oppressed people.”
West is saying here that in his youth when his views on the Palestine issue were not so well known (or perhaps had not evolved to where they are today), he had no problem getting tenure at universities like Yale.
It is certainly the case that using language like “an ugly Israeli occupation of precious Palestinians” would be enough to keep someone from being hired at most American universities. This is because many pro-Israel professors and administrators (as well as those hoping for big donations from pro-Israel donors) are corrupt, and are entirely willing to misuse their positions to silence voices that are inconvenient for Israeli propaganda.
We have seen such incidents, such as the denial of tenure at DePaul to Norman Finkelstein (in which pressure from Alan Dershowitz is alleged to have played a role). Then there was Steven Salaita, fired from the University of Illinois Urbana Champaign for tweets that seem nice compared to Trump’s. Cary Nelson, the former head of the American Association of University Professors, which is supposed to advocated for professors’ rights, actively connived at Salaita’s dismissal. So did the provost at the time, who engaged in skulduggery like deleting emails. At the University of Michigan, John Cheney-Lippold was disciplined in an unprecedented way for standing for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions on Israel’s Occupation policies toward the Palestinians. There is a reason that these things happen to the untenured. They have no real protection from being fired.
It also happens to public intellectuals. Marc Lamont Hill was fired from CNN for supporting Palestinian rights.
I have no way of knowing if the Palestine issue led Harvard to decline to tenure Professor West. He seems to have some indication that that is the obstacle, though. What can be said is that it is plausible. You can stand up for a lot of oppressed people — Native Americans, Uyghurs, Rohingya, etc.– and keep your job in American universities, but you can’t stand up for Palestinians without being smeared and risking being gotten rid of if you can be gotten rid of.
This is why more tenured professors should educate themselves on the stateless, Occupied Palestinians, the conditions they face, and the international laws that Israel is daily breaking. They can’t be fired, though their career ladder up to the Ivy League can be destroyed. Assuming they like where they teach, they should speak out. There are over a million post-secondary teachers in the United States, and the vast majority know exactly what is going on in the Occupied Territories. They can’t all be silenced.
|
|
|
The Right to Vote Is Under Siege |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53871"><span class="small">Jesse Jackson, The Chicago Sun-Times</span></a>
|
|
Wednesday, 24 February 2021 10:01 |
|
Jackson writes: "In state after state, Republicans want to suppress voting because they know they are a minority party."
The Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. (photo: CommonWealthClub)
The Right to Vote Is Under Siege
By Jesse Jackson, The Chicago Sun-Times
24 February 21
In state after state, Republicans want to suppress voting because they know they are a minority party.
 he fundamental right in a democracy — the right to vote — is once more under siege. In state after state, Republican legislators have introduced literally hundreds of bills designed to suppress voting.
Their passion is fueled by Donald Trump’s big lie that the presidential election was “stolen” from him. Their targets are minorities — African Americans, Latinos and Asian Americans, and the young. They call themselves Republicans, but their lineage comes not from Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, but from Jefferson Davis, the southern Democrat who led the Confederacy in its battle to keep Blacks enslaved.
The current debates have a haunting history. After the South was defeated in the Civil War, Congress passed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Often termed the “second founding,” these amendments ended slavery (13th), guaranteed equal protection under the laws (14th) and prohibited discrimination in the right to vote (15th).
The defeated south then began what was called Reconstruction. To be readmitted to the Union, they had to create new constitutions that rendered equal rights to all. In some states, newly freed Blacks constituted the majority. In many states, a new fusion politics began, often bringing the newly freed Black citizens together with small farmers and merchants against the old plantation aristocracy. In states like North Carolina, the new majorities passed remarkable progressive reforms in public education, public works, progressive taxation, land redistribution and more.
The white plantation aristocracy could not abide the new order. They organized a systematic effort to suppress the new coalitions. America’s first domestic terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan, unleashed a wave of violence against newly freed Blacks and the whites who joined them. An estimated 5,000 Blacks were lynched. The violence that included setting fire to Black stores and neighborhoods was designed to drive Blacks and their allies out of polling booths and the South.
The plantation aristocracy successfully took back power, then imposed Jim Crow laws that made it virtually impossible for Blacks to vote. The federal government failed to check the violence, and in 1876, in a corrupt deal, Republicans agreed to end Reconstruction and remove the remaining federal troops. In 1896, to its lasting shame, the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson ratified the surrender, declaring separate but equal laws constitutional. It took more than 50 years before the civil rights movement and the Voting Rights Act restored the right to vote to African Americans.
Today’s Republican Party is founded on the reaction to the civil rights movement. From the 1964 Goldwater presidential campaign on, Republicans traded hats with southern Democrats to become the party of state’s rights, white sanctuary and opposition to racial equality.
Today’s Jefferson Davis Republicans know that they are increasingly a minority party. In Georgia, Arizona, Texas, North Carolina and other states, Republicans fear they will lose control. Once more, intimidation, mass incarceration and violence are used to intimidate.
After the last election, Trump rallied his supporters with the big lie that the election was stolen, inciting them to sack the Capitol and to march on state legislatures. Worse, even after the riot, 147 Republicans in the House and Senate voted to overturn the election.
The violence, just as in Reconstruction, is combined with a systemic campaign to suppress the right to vote. In 33 states, legislators have introduced 165 bills to restrict voting, the Brennan Center on Justice reports. In nine states, Republicans have introduced legislation to limit mail-in voting (nearly half of votes in the 2020 election were cast by mail due to the pandemic). In 10 states, Republicans are pushing more stringent voter ID requirements, knowing that these discriminate against minorities (25% of African Americans but only 8% of whites have no government-issued photo IDs). Other states are pushing to prohibit the use of student IDs to make it harder for the young to vote, roll back automatic voter registration laws, end Election Day registration or reduce the number of days for early voting.
In Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas, Republicans control all branches of government, giving them power to gerrymander districts in the redistricting after the 2020 census.
Once more the Supreme Court has aided and abetted these anti-democratic actions. The right-wing majority gutted the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder. For the first time, there will be no prior review by the Justice Department to limit racially discriminatory gerrymandering. Then in Rucho v. Common Cause, the “gang of five” ruled that the courts would no longer review challenges to partisan gerrymandering. No federal court will stand in the way of discriminatory outrages.
It took decades to overcome the Jim Crow laws imposed at the end of Reconstruction. It required mass demonstrations, immense courage on the part of ordinary heroes, and finally the leadership of Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King Jr., among others, to begin to correct the injustice.
We can’t wait decades this time. Jefferson Davis Republicans are once more intent on imposing minority rule, and using the law and a partisan majority on the Supreme Court to enforce it. They’re using both terrorist threat and legal measures to intimidate and impede voters. Once more it will take popular opposition — demonstrations, voter registration and mobilization drives, popular education and engagement — to protect the right to vote. The House of Representatives has passed a law, HR 1, to expand and protect the right to vote. The bill is likely to face universal opposition from Republican senators, unless popular mobilization forces some to stand up.
It is time for ordinary heroes once more.
|
|
500,000 Americans Have Died of Covid. Will We Wake Up to Our Own Callousness? |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=53343"><span class="small">Reverend William Barber, Guardian UK</span></a>
|
|
Tuesday, 23 February 2021 13:50 |
|
Barber writes: "As the United States marks the terrible milestone of half a million souls lost to Covid-19, these deaths demand a grown-up conversation about the policies that shape our public life."
Lila Blanks is comforted by her friend Nikki Wyatt, her son Brandon Danas, 17, and her daughter Bryanna Danas, 14, at the casket of her husband, Gregory Blanks, 50, who died from complications from Covid-19 in Texas, on 26 January 2021. (photo: Callaghan O'Hare/Reuters)
500,000 Americans Have Died of Covid. Will We Wake Up to Our Own Callousness?
By Reverend William Barber, Guardian UK
23 February 21
During a global pandemic, 87 million Americans are uninsured or underinsured. Many are frontline workers who cannot practice social distancing
 s the United States marks the terrible milestone of half a million souls lost to Covid-19, these deaths demand a grown-up conversation about the policies that shape our public life. When we look at the impact of this pandemic on other wealthy nations around the world, the disproportionate death toll we have sustained in the US exposes a basic failure of national security. Though we spend more than the next several nations combined on our military budget, our government was unable to protect its citizens against a deadly pathogen.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported this week that, during the first six months of the pandemic, life expectancy for the average American dropped by a full year. For African Americans, the impact was nearly three times as severe, exposing persistent systemic racism that was not corrected when corporations agreed to say “Black Lives Matter”. We have not simply suffered a disaster. This disaster has unveiled dysfunction in our society.
As I listen to our ongoing conversation about what a rescue plan for America should include, I hear a dysfunction more basic than infrastructure, investment or partisan disagreement. The very language we use to talk about how we might respond to this crisis is insufficient. It does not allow us to tell the truth about either the problems we face or the possibilities to address them.
As a parent, I remember having to explain the world to my children in simple terms when they were young. Whether or not the stove was on, it was “HOT!” No matter how clumsily they tried, every attempt at a new skill was praised with, “GOOD JOB!” We communicate with children in the simplest of terms because their growth and development demand it. But there comes a time when it would be insulting and counterproductive to not offer children a more nuanced understanding of the world. Eventually, we have to learn to have grownup conversations.
For far too long in American public life, we have accepted the simplistic framing of any attempt to establish justice or address systemic inequality as “far-left” or “progressive”. This framing has persisted even as issues like universal access to healthcare or raising the minimum wage have gained the support of a vast majority of Americans. If “far-left” issues are the concerns of a fringe minority of the American public, how did 80 million Americans in 2020 vote for a president who promised to make sure everyone has access to healthcare? How did the state of Florida, which Donald Trump won in 2020, vote on the same ballot to raise their state minimum wage to $15 an hour if raising the minimum wage is a concern of the “far left”?
It is insulting to a people who have lost half a million parents, grandparents, siblings and partners to continue talking about the root causes of a national crisis in simplistic terms that do not fit the reality we can all see. In the US Congress, where the issue of raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour is being debated as part of Biden’s American Rescue Plan, we are told that “moderate” Democrats are hesitant to support the measure. But what is moderate about denying just wages to the frontline service workers whom we’ve called “essential” throughout this pandemic? These poor workers are disproportionately Black and Latino, though the largest racial group in raw numbers is white. Senators like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin think they are guarding against the power of Trump’s fake populism among their white base by hedging on bold action to raise wages. But this simplistic framing plays into the divide-and-conquer tactics that pit poor white people against their Black and brown neighbors by telling them that the “far left” wants to take away their jobs and their freedoms. When we repeat the lie that raising the minimum wage is a “far-left” idea, we implicitly suggest that it is something the sensible people of West Virginia would never support.
The same is true of healthcare. Politicians who get free healthcare just because they have been elected to public office suggest that guaranteeing every American access to healthcare is a “far left” position. But it was first proposed by Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, a century ago. Eighty-seven million Americans are uninsured or underinsured in the midst of a global pandemic and many of them have not been able to follow public health advice about social distancing because their economic circumstances require them to go to work at frontline service jobs. These are the families that have borne the brunt of half a million deaths. But their suffering is not separate from their more wealthy neighbors. As local health systems have become overwhelmed by Covid patients, we have witnessed that they are not able to care for some people no matter how much money they have.
It may sound simplistic to some to suggest that half a million deaths demand we change our language. But I am reminded of what the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein said: “Words make worlds.” We cannot see the solutions that our very words prevent us from naming. Until we can honestly name the challenges we face, there’s little hope we can meet them. As James Baldwin said: “Not everything that’s faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it has been faced.” It’s past time we face the need for policy solutions that our language has allowed us to too easily dismiss.
|
|
