> Let’s go to a person we’ve worked with before who is able to break this down in a way that I, and my readers, will understand.
That will have an anemic opinion that is close to your own, and works for an institution that is as establishment as they come [1]. How can you "speak truth to power" when you get your commentary and opinions from one of the seats of that power?
I’d love to respond substantively on this topic, but every followup I’ve written so far in this thread has been immediately flagged, so I’m not inclined to risk the time. (I’m sorry for that. That’s not your fault.)
I could fly off on a tangent about how that’s a conspiracy to suppress my view, but I think it’s more productive to look at that as a misunderstanding of the role of the “flag” button. Maybe that’s my substantive response I’d leave you with: when presented with opportunity to presume the worst in people, find the middle if you can?
That will have an anemic opinion that is close to your own, and works for an institution that is as establishment as they come [1]. How can you "speak truth to power" when you get your commentary and opinions from one of the seats of that power?
[1] Eight of the nine members of the current [supreme] court went to law school at either Harvard or Yale. - https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/wireStory/supreme-court-cov...