[happyrock]

There's nothing wrong with having conventional political opinions, and I wasn't really critiquing them as such. Again, my point was really about Feuerstein's weird psychology, in that he thought cramming his database programming book with such unremarkable observations was some bold act of defiance. I'm just picturing him at his keyboard, "I'm gonna blow these SHEEPLE'S minds... by opening their eyes to the TRUTH that companies profit from operating prisons."

It reflects an indifference to his reader and a general kind of solipsism about the proper role of political discourse. His subsequent explanation that "everything is political" reflects the possibility of an obsessive, neurotic mind, focused on every possible slight or injustice, restlessly waiting to explode at any instant with unwanted political diatribes. I bet he's a joy to be around.

[PhasmaFelis]

You've got an awfully rosy view of American politics if you think any of the issues he mentioned aren't depressingly controversial. I'm not sure how you can remain so naive with Trump in the White House.

(Of course Feuerstein was awfully naive to think that all his readers would joyfully embrace this sort of thing. I'm not clear why he was surprised that controversial politics cause controversy. But that's tangential to your point.)

[tormeh]

If these opinions were conventional/universal, then there would be no controversy. It wouldn't even be political. People wouldn't have made this much noise about something that was trite, like employee/payroll systems.