This diary's title is a tribute to neurologist Oliver Sacks, whose book The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat chronicles ways in which brain damage can affect our perceptions in odd ways. But our brains can also lead us astray when they are working normally, in everyday life. A case in point is the now-infamous New Yorker cover that features false views of Barack and Michelle Obama taken by their fiercest opponents.
Some of you here might know of me/my ideology, others not. In any event this diary has been a long time in formulation so I hope it makes some sense. People have been asking me for my thoughts on this topic and so I hope it does make some iota of sense.
I have given the issue a lot of thought.
What makes a conservative "different" from a "progressive" To me there is not one answer that could cover every and all situation since of course not all progressives nor are all conservatives the same. But I do think there might be an overarching theme, something that might cover the chasm of what separates the two groups.
Sure, some on the progressive side will say "Conservatives are evil, evil I tell you" that is how they differ from us... well those on the right will answer with "Progressives? They’re anti-American evil-doers" and be done with it. Case closed. Or is it? I do not think so. Even if everyone on one side thought everyone on the other was evil there has to be a reason for it.
I just returned from a trip during which I had the treat of reading The Political Mind, Why You Can't Understand 21st Century American Politics with an 18th Century Brain by George Lakoff. For a while now, I've been wondering how the right is using psychological manipulation to influence the public. Lakoff's book is not only hopeful and enlightening; it illuminates the very questions I've been kicking around and argues that the Right has used cultural narratives and familial paternalistic structures to not only get out their message but to change brains.
Yesterday, George W. Bush took a time out from his grueling schedule of insulting world leaders and playing Xbox to hold a press conference about the economy.
As is typical with a Bush press conference, is was a unicorn pony ride through fields of candy corn. Follow me over the jump, to revel in wonder and merriment.
For those of you new to this:
Questions from the press are italicized for your pleasure.
Bush's bullshit is thick and bold, like in real life. My responses are in plain text, which I'm sure means something profound.
It's easy to get bored of political writing. It usually takes the form of airbrushed policy hackwork that you could as easily read on a FAQ or on Wikipedia, or someplace else where you don't have to endure subscription nags or the pretext of topicality. Happily, "Obama, Shaman" by Michael Knox Beran is just the opposite: a piece of unintentional art whose hypotheses reveal so much about the psyche of the author that the subject itself practically vanishes. This isn't about Obama the man. It's about Obama the idea, and why the author is terrified of the Left. Beran conveys the conservative nightmare with surprising, perhaps unintentional expressiveness.
No, it's not spam. It's an important issue. I bought this book at an Office Max the other day--I'm not going to plug it here by name, but it's on a very interesting topic.
According to author (and just about every feminist I've read for the past thirty years), women are often marginalized in the workplace, at meetings, at decision making forums. That's due to sexism, but this author claims that it's also due, in part, to the fact that American women have been socialized into adopting a "weak" communications style.
The day was delightful. The water was superb. The sun was full and bright. A few billowy, puffy clouds floated through the sky. They were white, cumulus, fluffy fellows, the type that excite many a child as they gaze into the heavens. In parks, on lawns, little ones were likely looking up and pointing. "Look," they might say, "It is a horse, a donkey, or perchance a unicorn." It was a day for whimsy.
Think of this as a neurophysiological analysis of the winning Obama strategy.
Amidst all the excitement about FISA and refinements of the Obama position on withdrawal from Iraq, I think people are missing the essence of the Obama strategy.
This is particularly true in the online world where people actually care about issues and policy.
Obama's single minded goal on his course to the White House is simple: stay cool, stay boring, say nothing, do nothing, threaten nothing.
His goal, it seems clear, is to become an empty vessel, a mirror on to which people can project their own fantasies about who an American president is, what he should look like, how he should sound. You can't be that mirror, that empty vessel, if you say things that enable others to define you as "controversial" or "flip flopping" and if you become perceived that way. You've got to keep people's limbic systems (the fight or flight response system) quiet, so that they can hear your discourse, keep in mind their aspirations for a better America, and accept you as a President.
Born in New York City, raised and educated in California, a world traveler, moving in power circles for much of my professional life, I have had a great deal of exposure to famous people. Governors, Mayors, academic super stars, film and stage personalities, I have met and known a lot of famous people. Some times they are pleasant and competent, and some times they are cardboard figures, propped up by their celebrity or office. Always, they are just people, replete with the foibles of you and me. I have never met a single one who commanded my passion, or dedication, or sacrifice based on their status, or fame.
I never became a fan. Even when young, I never understood the screaming, fainting, and hysteria surrounding Frank Sinatra, or the Beatles. I knew Frank as a pathologically generous and caring man with an enormous talent. I viewed the Beatles as creating a remarkable new form of music, sophisticated and complex. But I never screamed.
In today's New York Times, I have an editorial on the brain science of why people form false beliefs, co-written with my co-author, Sandra Aamodt. It's timely because of the many rumors that have sprung up around Barack Obama - for instance, the false idea that he is a Muslim.
Jim Garrison and Ken Wilber discuss the increasingly dangerous crises the world is currently experiencing, and the unique ability for Integral consciousness to face the precarious challenges of the 21st century head-on.....
I heard Fareed Zakaria talking with Brain Lehrer on WYNC yesterday on the topic of differences between McCain and Obama on foreign policy. Fareed thought that there was a time when he would have said not much separated the two, but that McCain had taken several positions recently which made him think there were meaningful differences. (The main change seemed to be McCain’s recent idea to rid the G-8 of Russia and China, which is of course plainly counter-productive.)
What struck me though, was how little appreciation Fareed had for the enormous differences between the two candidates. His idea about politics seems to rest on an entirely left-brain approach where one simply compares the competing policy proposals and selects the one which is more closely matches one’s own idea of the best policy proposals. I think the emotional and psychological differences between the candidates tell us far more about the kind of governance we are likely to get from the candidates.
THis is a short film narrated by Naomi Klein and based on her book The Shock Doctrine, which is probably the most must-read book to come out in years.
I'm not going to comment on it too much. I'll let the video speak for itself. But I will say, Klein's book is not just another well crafted depiction of how screwed up things are. There are plenty of those. This book, however, is, as Tim Robbins says, "a revelation". I've yet to see another work so completely encapsulate the dark forces shaping our world, and their origins. This little movie, while shocking in itself, is just hint of what the book contains. It is required reading for any citizen who desires to be informed.
"Respect" means different things to different people. I'm not talking about the urban usage of the word, I'm talking about "respect" as it gets used in the family.
To me, "respect" would mean not doing things behind my back or lying to me. When I was a kid, that was more or less a given, so I hardly ever recall hearing anyone use the word. In a home where there is respect, people don't yell about "respect," just like in a house with running water people aren't pitching a fit about water every day.
But using the word "respect" is like saying "honesty" or lots of other words for various virtues - the more someone talks about it, the less of it they have. The home where the word "respect" gets used every day is the house that the cops pull right into the driveway without looking at the address on the mailbox, because they are there more often than the pizza boy. In the environment where there is no respect, the word "respect" takes on a distorted but very specific meaning.
Let's take the example of a dysfunctional family where Dad drinks and gambles, and mom is a codependent enabler (although the gender roles are often reversed). Both of these adults demand "respect." They demand it loudly, frequently, and with furious anger.
I know that my views and the views of the vast majority of people that post here on our Iraq policy do not agree. We more than likely do agree however agree on actions in Afghanistan. Where I know we both agree is support for our individual troops both while they are overseas and when they come home.
The focus of this diary is on post-traumatic stress disorder.
From the National institute of Mental Health:
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, or military combat
I don't like saying this, but it would be worse not to say it simply because so many people -- so many of my friends and colleagues -- have jumped to a conclusion that I think is wrong. I'll leave out a jar for troll-ratings, but unless the admins have a huge lapse of taste, at least it will be a permanent part of the database.
Twice in the past few days, a woman speaking in public has made a statement that has led people here to infer that she either favored or found amusing the prospect of Barack Obama being assassinated. The immediate response here, in both cases, was massive outrage.
In both cases, I believe, the women conveyed something other than what they meant. In both cases, seeking clarification would have been appropriate. In both cases, judgment -- at least that the worst interpretation was appropriate -- was premature.
Some look at this and say "isn't it great that progressives are being tough?" I say that there's a difference between being tough and being unfair, and that the latter -- precisely because we are a minority when it comes to media presence -- will generally end up blowing up in our face.
