Jerry Falwell.

Lordy, that was quick. I wouldn't call it a beef. I like Graeber A LOT better than most anarchist thinkers, whom I often can't stand at all. He's got some valuable insights ("Debt" is absolutely worth a read) and there's few of his diagnoses, at least, that I completely disagree with.

I do think Graeber, while no conspiracy theorist, tends to believe status quo systems are more effectively collusive than I believe they are. I think he sometimes perceives patterns where there aren't any or where a simpler explanation better explains things (i.e. his assertion that Chinese buying of American debt is a complicated tribute system). His faith in decentralization is too strong and when he gets outside of anthropology and more distant history, he can get a little sloppy with the facts.

Truth be told, I could probably make a similar list about a lot of thinkers I believe are worth reading seriously. Thankfully, there's not very many people I agree with 100%.

Dancing. I am a horrible dancer. It's still worth doing once in awhile, but I don't fool myself that I'm remotely good at it.

No. Or, I should add, not in its current form. Right now, it's exhibiting the worst traits of technocratic governance: an active spurning of popular support, isolated elites unable to understand grievances, and a fatal level of groupthink.

Nope. I scored high enough on a test way, way back when to qualify, but I never really saw the point. IQ is a very narrow way of measuring intelligence, and intelligence itself has its limits. Call it wisdom or age, but my perception of the importance of IQ keeps declining the older I get.

A poetic perspective combined with a few perfectly-kept secrets.

Oh my. I'll limit it to ones I've seen relatively recently that really impressed me: 13 Assassins, Red Cliff and The Black Cat

Well, look, I understand why a lot of leftist protest movements went with it, in various forms: they were reacting to over-centralization and hierarchical structures they didn't feel were inclusive enough. Their critiques had a real point but, for my two cents, the solutions were often lacking.

Thing is, every structure is set up for a purpose, and consensus structures classically aren't set up for efficiency (in the sense of quick adaptability and decision-making), they're set up to maintain broad agreement.

Now, there are places where this works quite well. For a tribe, a monastery or a communal living situation, for example, you need to keep people of similar backgrounds or ideals comfortable enough to keep living together. So a consensus structure makes a lot of sense as a way to resolve disagreements, because your main goal is to keep everyone relatively amicable.

On the other hand, as a structure to govern and resolve conflicts among diverse groups of people and quickly decide on a course of action (a.k.a. politics), it's generally terrible. Because of the huge thresholds for agreement, consensus structures tend to be extremely prone to assholes and opportunists who can bring things to a grinding halt, even more so than more traditional majoritarian structures.

Note that most of the activist movements that have adapted it have failed miserably by any criteria of practical accomplishment. I've heard more than one experienced activist cite something along the lines of "no consensus, no death by committee" as their prerequisite for joining a group.

Decentralization, whether in consensus or another form, isn't a panacea any more than centralization was. Both are choices about structure and balance of power, each with drawbacks and advantages, each devastating if taken too far. Generally the best set-ups are some form of hybrid, balancing the needs for action and accountability.

Not yet.

No, as I'm covering my local Occupy protest, I'm obviously not participating in it. I'm trying to follow it as best I can so Asheville's public can make their own decisions.

I've expressed my skepticism, many times over the years, about protest culture in general and consensus decision-making in particular (at least when it comes to larger scale politics). I've also been disgusted by the crackdowns in Oakland and elsewhere that have demonstrated how seriously messed-up much of police culture has become.

Beyond that, we'll see where it goes.

The fact that we keep trying and, every occasionally, we get something right.

Off the top of my head: Daniel Larison, Radley Balko, Andrew Sullivan and P.J. O'Rourke. I can list a litany of disagreements with each, but they're all right on some issues and intelligent writers worthy of consideration (by the same token, I'm hard pressed to think of any leftist writers I don't have a few grumbles about, either).

Balko, in particular, has done some incredible work exposing abuse of police and governmental power; something needed from all political sides. O'Rourke's "Parliament of Whores" remains one of my favorite books on government, and he's a canny enough observer to poke at the drawbacks in his own philosophy. The chapters on the drug war and town meetings, in particular, are a must-read for anyone trying to better understand the deeply absurd (and utterly human) nature of politics.

Relax, write, read and do a long, hard workout.

No. I find some of the debates around it interesting, however.

Liu Pang, Elizabeth I and FDR

No.

A tie between Spanish and Chinese (Mandarin or Cantonese).

No, not remotely.

Orange, because I had a triceratops that color when I was 3.

Ohh, good one. When someone has threatened someone else, or when someone is intent on refusing any help or initiative to get out of a bad situation. Both are absolutely human, and both make me very angry, something I try to keep a very close watch on. Still, every rule has an exception and, on rare occasions, there is a time to be neither polite nor humble.