recentpopularlog in

oripsolob : politics   397

« earlier  
RNC Didn’t Infringe Photographer’s Copyright, Montana Judge Rules | PDNPulse
The court ruled that the cropping and minor alterations to the light in the photograph did not transform the work. However, because the text in the mailer used Quist’s musicianship “to criticize his candidacy, subverting the purpose and function of the work,” it was transformative, the court ruled.
COPYRIGHT  photo  politics 
yesterday by oripsolob
Beer Track, Wine Track, Get Me Off This Fucking Train
What I think both accounts—the personality and the policy, the beer track and the wine track—miss is the role of ideology, of political argument, of collective story-telling.

The great realigners had such a story. Read FDR’s Commonwealth Club speech. Read Lincoln’s Cooper Union address. What you take away from those speeches is not a list of policies but a narrative, an ideologically-laden narrative, of the last however many decades of American politics, and how those years need to be brought to an end. Above all, they locate a variety of social ills (in Lincoln’s case, not just slavery but also winnowing democracy, constitutional decline, and so on; in FDR’s case, the end of the frontier, the Depression, reaching the limits of capitalist expansion) in a socially malignant form: the slaveocracy, in Lincoln’s case, the economic royalists, in FDR’s case. Again, they didn’t give you a laundry list of issues (sexual harassment here, taxes there, voting rights over there); they wove the whole thing into a single story, a single theory, locating each part in a larger whole.

Some non-realigners also have such an analysis. I’m not a fan of these, but you could definitely say Bill Clinton had such a story, Richard Nixon had such a story. And I would say that Obama had such a story in his speech on Jeremiah Wright.
election  politics  culture  story 
29 days ago by oripsolob
'Unexampled Courage' Tells The Story That Inspired Integration Of U.S. Armed Forces : NPR
Isaac Woodard, Judge Jay Waties Waring (aristocratic descendant of slaveowners), and Harry Truman

Waring: "I had to decide whether I was going to be ruled by white supremacy or be a federal judge and decide the law."

Dissented in the landmark 1951 Briggs v. Elliott case.

Though the plaintiffs lost the case before the three judge panel which voted 2-1 for the defendants, Waring's eloquent dissent, and his phrase, "Segregation is per se inequality" set the stage for 1954 Brown v. Board.
race  politics  history  inequalities  War  NPR 
4 weeks ago by oripsolob
Dershowitz: Should Mueller report comment on noncriminal conduct? | TheHill
For example, if the collusion took the form of someone in the Trump campaign directing the Russians to hack the Democratic National Committee or the Clinton campaign, that might well constitute an independent federal crime. But the mere use by a campaign of material previously hacked by Russia would be as protected by the First Amendment as the use by the New York Times of material previously hacked or stolen by Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning or Daniel Ellsberg.

So what would Mueller’s legal responsibility be if he came to the conclusion that members of the Trump campaign colluded with Russian operatives without committing any federal crimes? Would it be proper for him to include evidence of such noncriminal collusion in his report? Would it be proper for him to opine on the propriety of such noncriminal collusion?
constitution  history  election  politics 
9 weeks ago by oripsolob
‘Super PAC’ Plan to Link Obama to Rev. Wright - Document -
2012: A group of high-profile Republican strategists has put forward a plan that calls for running commercials linking Mr. Obama to incendiary comments by his former spiritual adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., whose race-related sermons made him a highly charged figure in the 2008 campaign. What follows is the full proposal.

election  race  politics 
december 2018 by oripsolob
John Dingell: How to Fix Government - The Atlantic
In December 1958, almost exactly three years after I entered the House of Representatives, the first American National Election Study, initiated by the University of Michigan, found that 73 percent of Americans trusted the federal government “to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.” As of December 2017, the same study, now conducted by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, found that this number had plummeted to just 18 percent.
politics  constitution  Money  election  history 
december 2018 by oripsolob
From Great Depression to Great Recession (lesson plan)
From Great Depression to Great Recession (C/C):
Fireside Chats, Speeches, and Ideology in Times of Economic Turmoil in the United States​
lessons  history  Economics  politics 
december 2018 by oripsolob
This American Life: The Unhappy Deciders
Zoe Chace
Preserving the integrity of the process on the Senate Judiciary Committee is a much less romantic story than the one about two survivors of sexual assault changing a senator's mind at the last second. That's what happened, though.

And finally, that day, the world sees Jeff Flake find a third way. It's something he's been looking for for a long time on a lot of issues-- a way to vote with his Republican colleagues, but stand for certain principles with the Democrats. It's the weirdest niche. But he's a weirdo right now-- a ghost Republican. He doesn't really have a constituency he's speaking for, being anti-Trump but pro his policies.

He's retiring from the Senate in a few months. As he says, he could never have done something like this if he were still running for office. There's no value to reaching across the aisle, he says. There's no currency for that anymore. If you do that, you'll lose. So there is not much crossing over to the other side ever, by anybody-- which is maybe why, when you do cross over, this is what happens.

How you doing, Senator?

Jeff Flake
Doing well. How are you?

Good for you, man.

Jeff Flake

God bless you.

Jeff Flake
Appreciate it.

Zoe Chace
This is the consequence-- New York City loves Senator Jeff Flake.
politics  NPR  Podcast  election 
november 2018 by oripsolob
When Cooperation Doesn’t Get You What You Want
As a teenager he saw himself as an historical figure, then that ended up becoming true. Producer Zoe Chace tells the story of the man who either reinvented politics or broke it. (34 minutes)

NEWT GINGRICH, a guy who, with sheer force of will, utterly changed our politics and created the political world we live in today, alongside a second man (Rush Limbaugh) who helped him. Zoe Chace tells the tale.

ULTIMATE CAUSES of Political Tribalism:
1) Newt Gingrich
2) Rush Limbaugh (and right-wing radio)
3) 40 years of a "permanent" Democratic majority (and institutional corruption)

1) Social media
2) Trump
3) Obama
Podcast  history  politics  radio 
november 2018 by oripsolob
Frederick Douglass in Full - The New York Times
Dependent upon abolitionist charity for his family’s daily bread, Douglass nonetheless chafed under a stifling Garrisonian orthodoxy that required adherents to embrace pacifism and abstain from politics. He charted a course away from all that by starting his own newspaper and openly embracing as household saints blood-drenched figures like the slave-rebellion leader Nat Turner and the white revolutionary John Brown, both of whom he classed with the founders.
Books  history  race  politics  War 
november 2018 by oripsolob
Opinion | What America Owes Frederick Douglass - The New York Times
Editorial by David W. Blight

"The very thing Your Excellency would avoid” — a race war — “in the Southern states can only be avoided by the very measure that we propose,” i.e., black suffrage, Douglass said. As the delegation walked out, the president was overheard saying: “Those damned sons of bitches thought they had me in a trap. I know that damned Douglass; he’s just like any nigger, and would sooner cut a white man’s throat than not.”

Douglass left a timeless maxim for republics in times of crisis: “Our government may at some time be in the hands of a bad man. When in the hands of a good man it is all well enough.” But “we ought to have our government so shaped that even when in the hands of a bad man we shall be safe.” Politics, he insisted, mattered as much as the air he breathed.
history  race  War  constitution  politics 
november 2018 by oripsolob
Anger and Identity in an Age of Polarization | On the Media | WNYC Studios
Anger and tribalism appear to be at an all time high, creating political and societal rifts that can seem unbridgeable. Indeed, it’s hard to believe that only 70 years ago, the country was deemed by political scientists not to be polarized enough, leading to confusion and disengagement on the part of the electorate. Since then, party lines have been crystallized, and the parties, polarized. Most people know exactly which party they belong to — leaving us with two camps that seek to destroy one another. Lilliana Mason is professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland and author of Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. She and Bob discuss how anger and tribal identity have gotten us to the current political moment, and how we might move past it.
politics  history  Psychology 
november 2018 by oripsolob
Large Majorities Dislike Political Correctness - The Atlantic
With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

One obvious question is what people mean by “political correctness.” In the extended interviews and focus groups, participants made clear that they were concerned about their day-to-day ability to express themselves: They worry that a lack of familiarity with a topic, or an unthinking word choice, could lead to serious social sanctions for them. But since the survey question did not define political correctness for respondents, we cannot be sure what, exactly, the 80 percent of Americans who regard it as a problem have in mind.
politics  race  sociology 
october 2018 by oripsolob
Jonathan Haidt: Can a divided America heal? | TED Talk
We evolved for tribalism. One of the simplest and greatest insights into human social nature is the Bedouin proverb: "Me against my brother; me and my brother against our cousin; me and my brother and cousins against the stranger."

And that tribalism allowed us to create large societies and to come together in order to compete with others. That brought us out of the jungle and out of small groups, but it means that we have eternal conflict. The question you have to look at is: What aspects of our society are making that more bitter, and what are calming them down?

Diversity and immigration do a lot of good things. But what the globalists, I think, don't see, what they don't want to see, is that ethnic diversity cuts social capital and trust.

There's a very important study by Robert Putnam, the author of "Bowling Alone," looking at social capital databases. And basically, the more people feel that they are the same, the more they trust each other, the more they can have a redistributionist welfare state.

There's wonderful work by a political scientist named Karen Stenner, who shows that when people have a sense that we are all united, we're all the same, there are many people who have a predisposition to authoritarianism. Those people aren't particularly racist when they feel as through there's not a threat to our social and moral order. But if you prime them experimentally by thinking we're coming apart, people are getting more different, then they get more racist, homophobic, they want to kick out the deviants. So it's in part that you get an authoritarian reaction. The left, following through the Lennonist line -- the John Lennon line -- does things that create an authoritarian reaction.

JH: You have to see six to ten different threads all coming together. I'll just list a couple of them. So in America, one of the big -- actually, America and Europe -- one of the biggest ones is World War II. There's interesting research from Joe Henrich and others that says if your country was at war, especially when you were young, then we test you 30 years later in a commons dilemma or a prisoner's dilemma, you're more cooperative. Because of our tribal nature, if you're -- my parents were teenagers during World War II, and they would go out looking for scraps of aluminum to help the war effort. I mean, everybody pulled together. And so then these people go on, they rise up through business and government, they take leadership positions. They're really good at compromise and cooperation. They all retire by the '90s. So we're left with baby boomers by the end of the '90s. And their youth was spent fighting each other within each country, in 1968 and afterwards. The loss of the World War II generation, "The Greatest Generation," is huge. So that's one.
Video  politics  culture  Psychology  sociology  Social  Media  WWII  history 
october 2018 by oripsolob
Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives | TED Talk
1) Harm/Care (compassion for the weak, eg.)
2) Fairness/Reciprocity (unclear if this appears in animals)
3) Ingroup/Loyalty (tribal psych/found in animal groups, too)
4) Authority/Respect (voluntary deference)
5) Purity/Sanctity (attaining virtue via body control, the Left & food)

Across cultures, Liberals tend to value or function on 2 channels, Conservatives function on all 5 channels.
Video  education  politics  Psychology  culture  sociology 
october 2018 by oripsolob
Exclusive: we re-ran polls from 1991 on Anita Hill, this time on Christine Blasey Ford - Vox
The answer might seem obvious, but some of Kavanaugh’s defenders have argued that he should be confirmed — even if guilty. The understandably pseudonymous Federalist contributor Soren Midgley has argued that “what we know about Kavanaugh’s record for the last 30 years of his life tells us the realized negative consequences would be minimal if he were actually guilty.” Washington Post columnist Megan McArdle has gone further, stating, “I would be cool with a teen murderer getting a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.”

Americans at large took a different stand in October 1991, and take a mostly identical one today. In both cases, a minority of 31-33 percent say that the allegations, if true, shouldn’t disqualify Thomas/Kavanaugh from the court, while 67-69 percent argue they should.

It’s easy, especially in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein revelations and #MeToo, to assume that the American public takes allegations of sexual harassment and assault more seriously than it did decades ago. And some parts of our survey confirm that, especially the findings that American voters think less of Trump and of senators who support Kavanaugh.

But in the crucial matter of whether a true accusation of sexual assault is important enough to derail a nomination, things haven’t changed much since 1991.

In part because of the demographic makeup of the parties, there are significant gaps based on age, race, and church attendance as well. Eighty-four percent of black respondents and 75 percent of Hispanic respondents say a true allegation is enough to reject, compared to 66 percent of whites. 78 percent of people between 18 and 30 said a true allegation would be enough, compared to 63 percent of people 66 or older.
politics  gender  women  inequalities  history  sociology 
october 2018 by oripsolob
What is populism, and what does the term actually mean? - BBC News
In political science, populism is the idea that society is separated into two groups at odds with one another - "the pure people" and "the corrupt elite", according to Cas Mudde, author of Populism: A Very Short Introduction.
september 2018 by oripsolob
NYTimes: From Trump to Trade, the Financial Crisis Still Resonates 10 Years Later
It is hardly a stretch to suggest that President Trump’s election was a direct result of the financial crisis.

The crisis was a moment that cleaved our country. It broke a social contract between the plutocrats and everyone else. But it also broke a sense of trust, not just in financial institutions and the government that oversaw them, but in the very idea of experts and expertise. The past 10 years have seen an open revolt against the intelligentsia.

Mistrust led to new political movements: the Tea Party for those who didn’t trust the government and Occupy Wall Street for those who didn’t trust big business. These moved Democrats and Republicans away from each other in fundamental ways, and populist attitudes on both ends of the spectrum found champions in the 2016 presidential race in Senator Bernie Sanders and Donald J. Trump.

“Our conclusion: Financial crises tend to radicalize electorates,” Mr. Sufi wrote. “After a banking, currency, or debt crisis, our data indicate, the share of centrists or moderates in a country went down, while the share of left- or right-wing radicals went up in most cases.”
history  politics  election  economics  money 
september 2018 by oripsolob
10 Steps Towards Open Inquiry, Constructive Disagreement - Heterodox Academy
1) Add language to your syllabi that makes clear open inquiry and constructive disagreement are expected. Help set the tone in your class by using the syllabus to communicate the value you place on open inquiry and constructive disagreement. A post on our blog from last January offers some suggestions; the comments on that post provide even more great ideas.


3) Say these two sentences at least once every day in class: “I don’t know” and “How do you see it?” Intellectual humility and intellectual curiosity are productive starting points for constructive engagement across lines of difference. By admitting to ourselves and others that we don’t have all the answers, we open the door to being genuinely interested in others’ perspectives and the path they took to seeing the world as they do. Let’s model these dispositions for our students.


5) Lie to your students. To encourage your students to question claims and engage evidence, Jim Lemoine encourages us to lie to our students. As he writes here, “I’ve found that one of the best ways to get your students to freely tell the truth as they see it, is to warn them that you will be untruthful.”
politics  education 
september 2018 by oripsolob
The Politics of the Professoriat: Political diversity on campus | CBC Radio
"We've created a hostile climate for people who don't fit in intellectually. We've marginalized them. We've made it clear they don't belong; they're not welcome. And then the really smart ones among them don't apply! And what we're left with is a politically homogeneous field of inquiry, which therefore has problems studying anything that is politically valenced."
– Jonathan Haidt

Why does a "political monoculture" hurt social science research?

ophobophobia = fear of being branded Islamophobic, homophobic, etc. For example, to address poverty/inequality, three factors are critical in why certain groups or individuals do better than others:

1) Whether parents are married (even if you're poor)
2) Subculture that emphasizes importance of education and/or delayed gratification
3) IQ

But though these are the most important determinants, we have not made progress in research, because of ophobophobia: "no one dares address these major factors"; instead, more focus on structural racism, etc. And this issue of poverty/inequality must be solved. But ophobophobia rules out 90% of the causal factors.

"Students and professors know, he adds, that 'if you step out of line at all, you will be called a racist, sexist or homophobe. In fact it’s gotten so bad out there that there’s a new term—‘ophobophobia,’ which is the fear of being called x-ophobic."

"Human beings are tribal creatures. We evolved for small religions....We're really good at making something sacred and trusting each other....You can see this easily with fundamentalist Xians. Some of the them will deny evolution -- seems silly from the outside. You can see the same thing on college campuses. The causes of college campuses are laudable, but we should pursue them practically, pragmatically, and rationally. But "when we make them into a religion, that's when we activate all of our 'religious software', which is a set of mental concepts that include blasphemy, heresy, burning at the stake, witch hunts. The basic language is one of sin, and blasphemy, and punishment. No one speaks up for anyone because then they'll be called a witch.

But there is NO ROLE for religion in the classroom in intellectual matters. There we need communities in which NOTHING is sacred. Now there so much that is sacred on campus, can't be said."

The Religion of Social Justice. Justice is a good thing, but when Social Justice becomes a religion...

IGen believes in the concept that "words are violence".
politics  Podcast  sociology  education  race  inequalities  religion  Speech 
september 2018 by oripsolob
A Conversation with Mark Lilla on His Critique of Identity Politics | The New Yorker
To understand any social problem in this country, you have to understand identity. And we’re more aware of that than ever, and that’s been a very good thing. But, to address those problems with politics, we have to abandon the rhetoric of difference, in order to appeal to what we share, so that people who don’t share this identity somehow can have a stake, and feel something that other people are experiencing.

I’m sick of noble defeats. I’m tired of losing. I’m sickened by the fact that Donald Trump is in power right now, and not just that but that Republicans control two-thirds of our state legislatures, two-thirds of our governorships, twenty-four states outright. If they win two more they can call a constitutional convention.

The distinction I’m trying to make—between analyzing a social problem and developing a political program in order to win power—people who are in movement politics fail to see the distinction, I think. Because identity politics is maximalizing. That’s how you succeed—you see this as the only issue.

Obama did not list groups. Because he talked about “we.” He didn’t always finish his sentences—he would say, “That’s not who we are,” and wouldn’t quite tell us who we are. But he understood that. Both Obama and [Bill] Clinton understood that playing identity politics in electoral politics is a disaster for the liberal side.

An election is not about self-expression. It’s not a time to display everything we believe about everything. It’s a contest. And once you hold power, then you can do the things you want to do.
race  politics  election 
july 2018 by oripsolob
The internet isn’t why Trump won, Stanford and Brown study finds.
Trump performed worse than previous Republican candidates among internet users and people who got campaign news online, the authors find in a paper published July 18 in the journal PLOS One. And he outperformed his predecessors among the demographic groups least likely to be online. In other words, Mitt Romney and John McCain got more support from internet users than Trump did.

The paper, from Stanford economists Levi Boxell and Matthew Gentzkow and Brown economist Jesse Shapiro, adds to a growing body of research indicating that the internet’s effects on U.S. political opinion may be overstated. The same authors found in 2017 that the country’s polarization has been most intense among the oldest Americans, who also spend the least time online. Cable news has been a more significant driver of partisan divisions, research suggests. In November 2016, just weeks after Trump’s election, media studies professors Keith Hampton and Eszter Hargittai made a persuasive case in the Hill that Trump’s win wasn’t Facebook’s fault. Hampton and Hargittai pointed out that research shows Facebook users are more likely to be connected to different kinds of people, while disconnection from the internet is broadly associated with social isolation and intolerance. Trump voters were also far less likely to use Twitter or Reddit than Clinton voters, they noted.

***Still, the authors were careful to acknowledge that more research is needed. The conclusion that “the internet was not a source of advantage to Trump,” they explain, relies on a series of three assumptions, each of which could be called into question.

If any media platform is to blame, it is not the web. It is more likely television, which is a more important source of political information. Growing polarization may also result from structural economic changes, like rising inequality, that have occurred in recent decades.
Social  Media  politics  literacy  election  mythology  tv 
july 2018 by oripsolob
How the baby boomers — not millennials — screwed America - Vox
This is a generation that is dominated by feelings, not by facts. The irony is that boomers criticize millennials for being snowflakes, for being too driven by feelings. But the boomers are the first big feelings generation. They’re highly motivated by feelings and not persuaded by facts. And you can see this in their policies.

Take this whole fantasy about trickle-down economics. Maybe it was worth a shot, but it doesn’t work. We know it doesn’t work. The evidence is overwhelming. The experiment is over. And yet they’re still clinging to this dogma, and indeed the latest tax bill is the latest example of that.

Time after time, when facts collided with feelings, the boomers chose feelings.
politics  inequalities  history 
june 2018 by oripsolob
How Trump's 'War' On The 'Deep State' Is Leading To The Dismantling Of Government : NPR
GROSS: One of the new hires in the Trump administration is John Bolton. He is the new national security adviser. You're probably familiar with him from the Iraq War days.

OSNOS: Right. Exactly. John Bolton was one of the advocates for the invasion of Iraq. He was a senior arms control expert at the State Department and has been sort of in Washington ever since - you know, not in especially prominent roles, but he's well-known, particularly to Republicans, in that administration.

GROSS: One of the people you spoke to for your New Yorker piece is Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell's chief of staff during the George W. Bush administration, and - you know, during the lead-up to the war in Iraq and during the war in Iraq. And he told you he's afraid that the Trump administration is building a case for attacking Iran just as the Bush administration built a case for invading Iraq under the false charges that Iraq had functioning weapons of mass destruction. Do you share his concern about Iran?

OSNOS: Well, I do see a pattern emerging - that the administration is making an increasingly strident case that Iran as a national security threat to the United States, as they put it, is something that we cannot afford to wait to resolve. And that is language that is very similar to what we heard in 2002 and 2003. You know, the key message in the run-up to the war in Iraq was that this was a war of necessity. We didn't have a choice was what we were told because if we didn't do it - that Iraq was developing the chemical, biological and perhaps nuclear weapons that would be a risk to the U.S.

And Lawrence Wilkerson was, as he readily described, one of the people who was responsible for making that case. He helped write the speech that Colin Powell gave to the U.N. Security Council in which he argued for support of the invasion of Iraq. And what Wilkerson says today is that he sees very much, as he put it, the same playbook, and that worries him. And I think there's some real truth to that. But as he put it, you know, some of the same people are now in place, and John Bolton is at the center of his argument.

MADMAN THEORY: Melvin Laird in 1969 was Richard Nixon's secretary of defense. And Nixon had this idea which he called the madman theory - the idea that if he made the Soviet Union think that he was crazy - that he was unhinged - that they might capitulate to American interests. And so he wanted to do things that were especially aggressive. And in 1969, he ordered Melvin Laird to put the U.S. nuclear forces on high alert, meaning that they would send out planes and let it be known to the Soviet Union that they were essentially, potentially, preparing to use the nuclear arsenal.
politics  history  War  iraq  NPR 
may 2018 by oripsolob
Are you really Facebook’s product? The history of a dangerous idea.
But even that isn’t where the story begins, because “you are the product” had been deployed to criticize media decades long before “social” entered the equation. Whether or not blue_beetle knew it, a version of the quote predates not just Facebook and Digg but the entire modern consumer internet. The invaluable online resource Quote Investigator traces it all the way back to 1973, and an unlikely source: a short film by the artists Carlota Fay Schoolman and Richard Serra called “Television Delivers People.”
This was not a novel idea even then: You can hear in “Television Delivers People” echoes of Gil Scott-Heron’s 1970 protest anthem, “The Revolution Will Not Be Televised.” These works aimed to expose broadcast television as a corporate-sponsored force for homogeneity and conformity, an obstacle to social or political change.

In this respect, Facebook is nearly TV’s opposite. The social network stands accused of unduly amplifying, not crushing, divisive views—of polarizing rather than homogenizing us.

There are at least two alternative ways of viewing our relationship to Facebook that hold more promise for making that relationship a healthier and less exploitive one. The first is to view ourselves as customers of Facebook, paying with our time, attention, and data instead of with money. This implies greater responsibility on both sides. If we understood that Facebook and other “free” online services exact real costs to things we value, we might use them more sparingly and judiciously.

The second is to view ourselves as part of Facebook’s labor force. Just as bees labor unwittingly on beekeepers’ behalf, our posts and status updates continually enrich Facebook. But we’re humans, not bees, and as such we have the capacity to collectively demand better treatment.

How about this, then, as an (admittedly ungainly) alternative to that overused maxim: “If you aren’t paying for it with money, you’re paying for it in other ways.”
advertising  Media  Social  Corporation  Video  art  tv  politics 
april 2018 by oripsolob
Myth of ending Trump presidency
Until 2015, these problems were mounting but largely faceless. Donald Trump gave them a human form. He illustrates the US’s susceptibility to demagoguery and to the influence of billionaires seeking to deregulate their own businesses and cut their own taxes. He won with the assistance of one of America’s most broken and anti-majoritarian institutions (the Electoral College) with a congressional majority bolstered by gerrymandering and the underrepresentation of left-leaning urban areas.
politics  mythology  election  history 
april 2018 by oripsolob
Why is the media—including the liberal media—supporting these teachers’ strikes?
One has to wonder if these strikes were happening in blue states, with Democratic governors and state legislatures, what the reception might be. One also has to wonder if the strikers and/or students were of color, what the reception might be. The coverage could turn out quite different, with the concerns of students of color being pitted against the unions, or with the ugly undercurrents of race working against the concerns and interests of both the teachers and the students.
Media  inequalities  literacy  labor  politics  education 
april 2018 by oripsolob
The United States of Amnesia - On The Media | WNYC Studios
Fifteen years since the start of the Iraq War, we live in what many see as a fresh hell: the erosion of institutions and standards at the highest levels. But political science professor Corey Robin argues that the Trump era is merely an extension of the same reflex that gave us the Iraq War — and much that preceded it. Robin recently wrote a piece for Harper's Magazine about the American tendency to re-imagine the past. He and Brooke discuss our collective failure to draw connections between Trump and what came before, and how it forms part of a longer pattern of forgetting in American culture.

This segment is from our March 30, 2018 program, We, the Liberators.

"Whatever you're currently confronting is something we've never seen before..."

"The very person who ten years ago you would have been reviling in exactly the same terms, suddenly becomes anodyne, human, a man you'd want to hug..."

FDR, Lincoln: These were "realignment presidents". Presidents who don't just run against a candidate; they run against a whole nexus or web of institutions

When liberals make it personal (about Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Trump), they are signaling to everybody, "just get this guy out" and "everything will go back to normal."

Missed opportunities.
Podcast  history  NPR  War  iraq  politics  Books 
april 2018 by oripsolob
« earlier      
per page:    204080120160

Copy this bookmark:

to read