politics

Archived Posts from this Category

February 6, 2012

Goodbye, Tony Blankley

Posted by Nathen under KCRW, Left Right and Center, podcasts, politics, Tony Blankley
Leave a Comment 

I am aware that Tony Blankley worked for Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich, but for me, Tony Blankley was the conservative voice on KCRW’s political show “Left, Right, and Center.” I discovered the show in the late 90s and have listened religiously for the last several years. After he died recently, they did a show in his memory and I was surprised at how emotional I became. I tended to agree more with the liberal and center voices on the show, but in retrospect, I really appreciate how Blankley approached their ongoing conversation. It wasn’t just that he was extremely intelligent and likeable. It was that he engaged the liberal and centrist positions with seriousness and respect, every week for years and years.

It’s a rare opportunity to get to listen in on that kind of conversation. It’s easy to find professional idealogs (and amateurs too, of course) mocking their enemies from a safe distance. On all sides it’s a straw-man game: shoot down a caricature of your opponent. I hope I am not an idealog, but I find myself doing the same thing. Listening to Blankley over the years has helped. In most cases, I can now see conservative positions not as differences in accuracy or integrity, but differences in values. He just had some different ideas about what was important than I do. And that is OK. We each get to say what is important to us.

A good lesson to learn. Thank you, Tony Blankley.

The cast of Left, Right & Center: Matt Miller, Arianna Huffington, Tony Blankley, Robert Scheer (photo by Marc Goldstein)

 

July 15, 2010

My News Sources

Posted by Nathen under Benjamin Lester, Darlene Lester, decisions, endorsements, Ethan Mitchell, headlines, Jay Smooth, Jeannie Lee, Left Right and Center, listening, lists, Long Now Foundation, Maya, media, National Public Radio, news, Paul Krugman, Planet Money, politics, Radiolab, This American Life, Thomas Friedman, Wall Street Journal
1 Comment 

I like to know what everyone thinks is going on. To this end, about a year ago, I filled up my igoogle home page with feeds from a bunch of different news sources. They are political news sources, for the most part. I don’t care at all about sports or celebrities. I tried to pick stuff from the hard left and hard right and then some mainstream stuff, thinking I could read headlines every day or two and read the articles that grabbed my attention.

It’s not working out that well. I’m too busy to read much. I do glance over the headlines a bit, but there are a lot of them and often my eyes just glaze over. And while I want to know about the rest of the world, I’m even more interested in what my friends and family are doing. If my sister-in-law, Maya, has posted on her blog, or my mom on hers, my brother Benjamin on his, or my friend Jeannie on hers, or my friend Ethan on a couple of his blogs (one about everything and one about his wife Susannah’s struggle with leukemia–both amazing), or several other friends and family with blogs have posted, that’s what I read while I’m brushing my teeth or during whatever scanty extracurricular-reading time appears.

So I need to cull. I’m considering getting paring it down to the few feeds that I actually click on. That would look like this:

Paul Krugman and Thomas Friedman columns at NYTimes.com–occasional reads.

Wall Street Journal feed–very occasional reads.

NPR’s political feed–pretty regular use, but usually just audio clips from “All Things Considered,” plus a nearly-daily five-minute news overview, also audio.

A google news feed gathered from a bunch of sources–very occasional reads.

Plus PsychCentral‘s Mental Health News and Children/Parenting News feeds–pretty frequent reads, a few a week–and Nildoctrine‘s feed for his hilarious feminist political vlogs.

And plus my podcasts, which I have absolutely no problem keeping up with: Left, Right and Center, Planet Money, This American Life, Radiolab, and The Long Now Foundation’s Seminars About Long Term Thinking. These I love the most.

I’d call that a US-centric, left-leaning-centrist list. I’d be ditching my right-winger stuff besides the Wall Street Journal–FrumForum which looked pretty good when I checked it out, but I just haven’t been checking it out, and National Review, whose cartoony headlines and terrible writing meant that I almost never looked at it, and regretted it when I did. I’d ditch quite a bit of left-winger stuff–The New Republic & Mother Jones (cartoony headlines again), Truthdig (generally good but not catching me), and Democracy Now! which I think is great but consistently depressing. Also The Onion, which is hilarious but I’ve stopped looking at it, and a CNN feed, which is weak.

That list doesn’t really do what I originally wanted–covering hard left to hard right–but it seems OK for now. What do you think? I’m interested in the media-intake schemes of anyone who made it this far through my post. How do you make these decisions? Do you think I’m missing anything crucial? Make me some recommendations!

Also, anyone interested in my actual media diet can look at my reading list here.

 

June 4, 2010

Jay Smooth’s Ill/Nil Doctrine

Posted by Nathen under feminism, homophobia, homosexuality, Jay Smooth, politics, Potter & Heath, Rebel Sell, video
1 Comment 

A couple days ago I posted a great clip from Jay Smooth, called “How to Tell People They Sound Racist.” I’ve looked over his websites, illdoctrine.com and nildoctrine.com and his you tube channel and have decided to officially endorse him. He’s very smart, very hip, and I just like him. He’s a feminist hero, too in an often mysogynous hip hop culture. About half of his posts are political and about half are about hip hop. All of them seem insightful and funny, though keep in mind that I am no judge of hip hop or hip hop commentary.

Here are three clips I liked a lot. The first reminds me of Potter & Heath’s Rebel Sell: It’s a critique (and possibly a mocking) of the idea that you can simultaneously (and self-righteously) know nothing about politics and somehow “know” that politics is not worth paying attention to. It’s great.  The second is about homosexuality in hip hop (this is him being a hero). The third is about hipsterism. They are all short and good.

 

April 14, 2010

Only a Few More Days to Weigh in on Changes to the DSM

Posted by Nathen under diagnostic criteria, DSM-IV-TR, DSM-V, eating disorders, Gender Identity Disorder, headlines, healthcare, insurance companies, mental disorders, mental illness, normalcy, pharmaceutical companies, politics, psychopathology, psychosis, psychotropic medication, schizophrenia, transparency
[8] Comments 

I posted in February about how the committee that is redesigning the DSM is accepting feedback on their proposed changes. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders is the book used around the world by clinicians to determine what kinds of human suffering count as mental disorders, what symptoms one has to show to qualify as having one of those disorders, and what what can get covered by insurance. The content of this book will shape the lives of those who will interact with the mental health system for the next generation. Being labeled with a mental disorder is a big deal, and which one you get can mean the difference between decent and indecent treatment. Personality Disorder? You’re pretty much screwed. Very few people think they can help you and no insurance will cover you. Adjustment Disorder? PTSD? You’re in luck, most likely. We’re all very hopeful for, and will pay for, your recovery.

If you’re life has in any way been affected by anything labeled a mental disorder, I encourage you to look at the appropriate proposed changes to your future and the future of your loved ones, and write them an email about what you think. You have until April 20, 2010.

Structural, Cross-Cutting, and General Classification Issues for DSM-5
Disorders Usually First Diagnosed in Infancy, Childhood, or Adolescence
Delirium, Dementia, Amnestic, and Other Cognitive Disorders
Mental Disorders Due to a General Medical Condition Not Elsewhere Classified
Substance-Related Disorders
Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders
Mood Disorders
Anxiety Disorders
Somatoform Disorders
Factitious Disorders
Dissociative Disorders
Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders
Eating Disorders
Sleep Disorders
Impulse-Control Disorders Not Elsewhere Classified
Adjustment Disorders
Personality Disorders
Other Conditions that May Be the Focus of Clinical Attention
 

March 26, 2010

Earth Hour

Posted by Nathen under climate change, decisions, Earth Hour, ego-centrism, electricity, endorsements, global thinking, global warming, headlines, ideological immunity, Long Now Foundation, politics, predicting the future, psychology
1 Comment 

Tomorrow, March 27, 2010, hundreds of millions of people on all seven continents will use no electricity between 8:30 and 9:30 pm, their time. “Earth Hour,”  is an annual “action against global warming” event that started in Australia, four years ago.

At first I thought it was silly–a drop in the bucket–but I’ve decided I’m going to do it. This is why:

1) I think it will be nice to turn everything off for an hour. I always love it when the power goes out. It’s relaxing.

2) I like that it is a global event. I like things that encourage people to think globally. Yes, this event could be a bit of an ego-stoker or guilt-assuager, but overall I imagine it stands to reduce ego-centrism in participants, a little less focused on ourselves, a little more focused on everything else.

3) There is good evidence in social psychology that token acts like this can be a gateway to real political action. People who participate may come to think of themselves as someone who takes action about global warming, like voting or spending money differently.

4) I think that global climate change may well be the biggest challenge humans face in the next several generations. The people I know who think the most about it are divided into two camps. One group prioritizes amelioration: If we act quickly and dramatically, we can keep things from getting out of control. The second prioritizes adaptation. These folks say that we’re just now experiencing the effects of the beginning of the industrial revolution, over a hundred years ago, and anything we do now may help our ancestors, should they come to exist, but not us. They say it’s time to start figuring out how at least some of us can survive the coming incredibly harsh conditions. There is a third group, of course, who are ideologically immune to the idea of catastrophic climate change. If they are right, hooray! I’ve yet to come across one who seemed knowledgeable about complex-system behavior, though. (Can anyone point me to one?)

While I’m on the topic of climate change, my favorite lectures on the subject are two of the Long Now Foundation’s Seminars About Long Term Thinking: John Baez’ “Zooming Out In Time” and Saul Griffith’s “Climate Change Recalculated.” They are worth checking out.

 

March 10, 2010

Will Someone Write Me a Transparent-Government Program?

Posted by Nathen under government, ideas, Long Now Foundation, politics, Sunlight Foundation, transparency
Leave a Comment 

I listened to the new seminar from The Long Now Foundation today, by Beth Noveck. (You should listen to the Long Now Seminars, too, by the way. They are a series of great lectures by really smart people applying long-term thinking to their area of expertise. Find them here.) She is Obama’s Deputy Chief Technology Officer for Open Government. Her lecture is called “Transparent Government.” It’s not nearly the best of the series, but I was interested in what she was saying about what some private companies are doing with the data that is now available about the operations of the government. She talked about Sunlight Foundation‘s coverage of the health care summit, how as each politician spoke, you could see who donated how much to their campaigns. I imagined video of the speakers, with subtitles laying out the relevant campaign contributions floating in front of their faces. I checked it out and it wasn’t like that. It was more like a chat that happened at the same time as the summit. Pretty cool, but probably too much work to catch on with the public.

But why can’t we have what I imagined? It seems like it could be automated. The data is available. We have face-recognition programs and voice-recognition programs. I wonder how it would change things if there was a cheap app that effortlessly outed any politician in real time like that, if a senator speaking about health care reform could be seen as a mouthpiece for insurance companies, based on the actual amount of money they’ve received. It would make politics more entertaining to watch, at the least. And probably creepier, too, but I am willing to make that trade-off.

 

August 23, 2009

Hey, All You Fervent Obama Supporters

Posted by Nathen under Barak Obama, healthcare, politics, rants
Leave a Comment 

With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed. – Abraham Lincoln

Thank you so much for helping to get Obama into office. I didn’t think you could do it and it’s a huge deal. It’s also not nearly enough, and if you stop there I will have to conclude that you just wanted a guy who looks cool in office, or maybe to assuage your White guilt, and didn’t listen to what he was saying.

The president is not a vigilante you send in to fix everything. You have to continue to represent yourself and your movements, to him and to the system he’s operating in. Yes, he represents you, but he also represents hundreds of millions of other Americans, most of whom do not share your opinions. He also has to negotiate with some very, very, very powerful organizations who do not have your best interests at heart.

Consider the current battle for health care reform. You are a stakeholder in the outcome. With you are millions of very confused and apathetic Americans. Against you are several huge, entrenched, and very politically savvy industries—insurance and pharmaceutical, off the top of my head. I say “against you” because these are made up of publicly traded corporations, legally bound to be as profitable as possible, but not legally bound to keep Americans healthy. These companies are already doing great. They don’t need or want reform. Your politicians don’t need it either. You do. So it has to be from you that the political will comes. It can’t be Obama against them. It has to be us against them.

Maybe you don’t care that much about health care. It’s understandable; you’re probably 25 and your healthcare crisis of the year will probably be a sprained ankle or a bad cold. Think about your grandparents—ask them how much of their income they spend on health care, or would if they didn’t have the veterans’ benefits that you will probably not have. Imagine yourself old and dependent. What kind of a system do you want in place then? Everyone ends up disabled eventually, everyone lucky enough to live that long. What happens now may determine your quality of life then.

Maybe you think that health care reform is like the election: The media is making it look like a close call, but Obama is unbeatable. He is not, I promise you. And I also promise you that you don’t want him to go down in flames on this. Ask anyone over 35 what bombing on health care did to Bill Clinton’s presidency, and he could lay that failure on Hillary. Civil rights and immigration reform in the 1960s did not happen because Kennedy was thoughtful, well-spoken, and charismatic. They happened because the Civil-Rights Movement was undeniably strong and insistent. Ask anyone over 60.

Or maybe you’re confused. Perhaps the pseudo-news shows shouting “socialized medicine” in irate and/or scared voices are having their intended effect on you. If so, try talking to a Canadian or, better yet, someone from Finland. They tend to love and be proud of their country’s health care in a way that is alien to someone from the US.  Believe me, Canadians are not pouring across the border to take advantage of our amazing health care system. The Canadians I know make a trip home if they need to see a doctor. Or perhaps you’ve gotten lost in the mundane details. It is a complex issue—a lot more cognitively demanding than whooping for Obama at a rally, or even making phone calls or going door to door—but you can do it! Less than ten generations after the abolition of slavery, you got an African American into the presidency of the United States. You can handle it. And if you did listen to his campaign speeches, continued interest and work is what you signed up for.

Or maybe you are angry at Obama for not taking on your pet issue first. Health care reform is not my pet issue either, so I can sympathize, but don’t believe that he has lost interest in your cause, or decide that he is abandoning his campaign platforms because you disagree with his priorities. I believe he cares about and wants to accomplish all of the ideas he talked about while campaigning, but again, the political urgency and will has to come from you and your movement, not him. And if he goes down on health care, he’ll be that much less able to back you when it’s your turn. I think your best strategy is to back him on this, if you can, and keep your movement strong and insistent.

Please, don’t give up on your man. He needs you now more than he needed you a year ago. Don’t do it because I will look down on you if you don’t—I know, fat chance—do it because Obama is more than just a beautiful, cool guy who speaks well: He is a real chance for systemic, progressive change in this country, and we really need it.

 

November 4, 2008

Election Day

Posted by Nathen under Ken Wilber, politics
Leave a Comment 

This post is a mess but I’m not going to revise it. I think it captures my day.

I’m feeling happy about politics for the first time I can remember. I don’t know the outcome of the presidential election yet, but it’s looking good. I feel differently about this election than I have about any other I’ve participated in. It’s just dawning on me. It may be that the way I’ve treated past elections has been pre-conformity masquerading as post-conformity—the pre-trans fallacy for Ken Wilber folks—meaning it’s possible that the reason I’ve never voted for a winning candidate (without a vote-trade, at least) has as much to do with my sense of being disenfranchised as with any sense of investment in the government of my country; I have always voted with consideration and integrity, and there’s always been that sense of “fuck you, you clueless idiots” towards mainstream political culture.

I’ve avoided watching any news about the campaigns. One of my professors, at the end of an evening lecture said he hoped he could get home in time to catch some of the debates and I joked, “Oh, you haven’t decided who to vote for yet?” His eyes bugged a little before he assured me he knew who he was going to vote for. That’s been my attitude toward the campaign: I already know who I’m going to vote for, so watching TV about the campaigns is just entertainment, except that it just makes me feel anxious, so it’s not even good entertainment. If I had time to devote, I’d rather volunteer.

I did go hear Obama speak on campus last spring. My family, especially my brother Ely, had gotten really excited about Obama, so I decided to go out. It was great. He was great. I didn’t get into the arena so I stood outside in the cold on the Astroturf with a bunch of other Eugene folks, crying, listening to the speech piped out. This is what I said into my journal that night: “He was a good speaker…he actually moved me. Partly it was just because I became…it just hit me how bad it’s been for the last eight years—it’s been really terrible! It’s so creepy, what’s going on. It would be better to have anybody else in there. And Obama said some stuff that I really liked, like it’s time for a Manhattan–project style sustainable energy project…and a lot more stuff that now I’m forgetting. I wish I had brought this recorder. He sounded pretty right on, for a major party candidate. He’s saying things that people could not say and get elected even four years ago.” I remember thinking ‘This guy is saying this stuff and is probably going to be the president.”

I’ve felt plenty of frustration in past elections, but never anxiety and never hope. I spent today working at the Lane County election office, mostly in the sorting room, watching thousands of ballots move through. It’s fun. There is a nice team spirit and such care taken with the process. I have no criticisms of the way votes are handled here. (Some criticisms of the voters, though. I saw some strange interpretations of the ballot, like the person who did not vote for Obama but wrote him in.) Most of the time I was a ‘runner,’ moving boxes of ballots to the sorting teams, but for a while I was sorting myself. The first box I went through was from the city I live in, Springfield, and I surreptitiously counted the votes for president. They came out three to two for McCain. I started feeling anxious. “Who are these people?” Later, at school, a professor got a call from his mother during his lecture. He took it and the news was Obama had won Pennsylvania, which had been in question. Riding home I started feeling happy and hopeful and that’s when I realized that this is a new thing for me. Maybe my attitude towards America and national politics is so embarrassed and preemptively pessimistic because I’ve never had anyone in there representing me who I liked, much less someone I could be proud of.

And I’m wanting to say something hipper. I’m feeling guilty about this. I’m so apathetic, politically. I didn’t volunteer this year, and a lot of my friends did. I don’t pay much attention to local politics—I usually just take the advice of our local progressive newspaper when it comes to the local and state races and ballot initiatives. And I suspect that paying attention to presidential races is like going to watch some Christians get eaten by lions while Rome falls—more like the heavyweight championships than…. WOOHOO! I just got the news that Obama won, from a friend calling. I feel happy. I’m smiling. I feel relieved. I’m crying. Yeah! I’m going to go hug someone. America, seven generations after the Civil War, is not racist enough to keep Barack Obama from being president! Hooray! I’m actually feeling proud… I’m proud to be associated with that man. I can, right now, imagine an America I wouldn’t be primarily ashamed or embarrassed to be part of.

 

« Previous Page