(Part 2) Top products from r/hillaryclinton

Another new book release that might interest some people here: a picture book called "The Answer", based on an episode of Steven Universe that told the backstory of how their main queer couple met and fell in love during a rebellion. The art is gorgeous, and so is the story it was based on, which you can definitely read without knowing much or anything about the cartoon. I'm excited to donate it to my local library for the kids. There are hardly any queer books for beginner readers, and the few I've seen are pretty low quality and/or focused more on neutral mommies and daddies.

Intermediate econ if you're up for it:

http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-N-Gregory-Mankiw/dp/1464182892

http://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-Policy-Practice-Pearson-Economics/dp/0321436334

http://www.amazon.com/Intermediate-Microeconomics-Modern-Approach-Ninth/dp/0393123960

http://www.amazon.com/Money-Banking-Financial-System-2nd/dp/0132994917

EDIT: For intro econ, you can just get started with the books by Krugman and Wells. I'm sure we all love Krugman here yea?

As far as history goes, just FYI, Zinn's People's History has a very poor reputation among (even left leaning) academic historians. You can ask about it at /r/askhistorians if you want to know more. You can also check their excellent book list, organized by region and topic.

EDIT: For an overview of US history, The Oxford History of the US series is an excellent primer.

I know less about sociology, but I think a good intro would be Khan's Privilege in that it touches on a contemporary sociological issue in a lay friendly manner but also goes into some theoretical foundations in the tradition of Bourdieu.

Yeah, pretty much. Obviously, I only know about it historically, but yeah. Peace and love and all that, which I believe in, but they really took it to an extreme. One of the more horrific scenes I've ever seen was a documentary about the time, and this guy is interviewing these parents who had given their 3-5 year old child acid. The kid is freaking out, and the interviewer is asking them why they did it and the parents are just like "acid is beautiful" or something (I forget the details, sorry). The point is, there was something to the liberalization of society, but there were definitely people who took it way too far.

There's a book called 1968 - The Year that Rocked The World by Mark Kurlansky that goes into detail about the era. It's really well-done and both sympathetic and critical: https://www.amazon.com/1968-Year-That-Rocked-World/dp/0345455827

You still get the reflexively anti-war people at rallies all the time, who basically are against any military engagement regardless of the situation. Again, I'm not saying you can't make the case for pacifism, but I always point out that Ghandi was a medic in two wars, had a deep respect for soldiers because of their civic courage, and that non-violence as he practiced it is a step above conventional warfare in that it's basically a willingness to go to war without weapons, rather than a means to avoid conflict.

There was also real stuff happening, just like there is today. My understanding is that Vietnam really drove people nuts. From what I've read, it was kind of this underlying thing that really stirred the pot. As much as people might talk about Iraq and Bush 1) there were far, far fewer casualties, and 2) There was no draft.

Weren't there jokes, back in the day, about how the Bush Presidential Library was only going to contain two books and he's almost finished colouring the second one?

The Trump library will contain twelve copies of "The Art of the Deal", but if you pay VIP membership you can get access to the Gold Suite where there are also three copies of "The Best Golf Advice I Ever Received".

If you're actually trying to understand, George Packer had a big article in The New Yorker about it recently. I haven't finished it yet, but it's good so far, and Packer's a superb journalist who has been looking at this question since before the election (he wrote a book called The Unwinding).

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/hillary-clinton-and-the-populist-revolt

https://www.amazon.com/Unwinding-Inner-History-New-America/dp/0374534608

https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Hillary-Presidential-Campaigns-Ceiling/dp/0062413597

That one, but dont buy it, that woman is trash.

This is the only interesting book written about the campaign so far imo:

https://www.amazon.com/Destruction-Hillary-Clinton-Susan-Bordo/dp/1612196632

Edit: I forgot to mention Palmieri's book, also a great book:
https://www.amazon.com/Dear-Madam-President-Letter-Women/dp/1538713454

Yes.


William Julius Wilson would agree.

Great book and thinker on this topic:

http://www.amazon.com/More-than-Just-Race-Issues/dp/0393337634

The thing is that Trump is not completely wrong (although he would have been a bit more correct about the currency manipulation a few years ago). The Japanese, South Korea, Taiwanese... and now the Chinese got rich protecting their own markets/currencies and selling to markets in North American and Europe (they did it by applying variations on what's called the 'developmental state" model). You could buy a South Korea car in the US long before you could buy an American car in South Korea. Their explicit national policy was to prioritize their growth over and above any "free market" considerations. In other words, they ignored the rules of free trade when it suited them. This is in fact not free or fair, and the costs of these policies are often borne by a concentrated unlucky few (even though everyone else benefits).

There is a fairly established literature on the politics surrounding trade, if anyone is interested. (I always tell people to start here and here to get in the proper analytical mindset). Notice that that NYT article never really quoted political economists, but only economists? That because the math of economics pretends the political consequences of trade do not exist. Trade absolutely needs to be accompanied by a generous welfare state to compensate the losers and keep them invested in the process.

Don't dismiss the anger of working class democratic voters. It's not sourced in irrationality.

Amazon reviews are the best. You'll want to look at the bobble-head Jesus, and the communion wafers.

https://www.amazon.com/Accoutrements-11093-Dashboard-Jesus/dp/B000CIS34U/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1473285444&sr=8-2&keywords=bobble-head+Jesus

https://www.amazon.com/Broadman-Church-Communion-White-Wafers/dp/0805470859/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1473285539&sr=8-3&keywords=communion+wafers

I agree. I've been reading a great deal about that period in the last year or so, both pre-1933 and post. This book, which I've read twice, shows how people didn't think Hitler would last long once he came to power.

The difference between Bevin and a head of state is that a state governor ultimately is limited in his or her power. However, when you put a fascistic narcissistic dissembler in the head of state chair, it's a very different story.

On a related note, if you're a reader and love RBG, you should check out this book.

His autobiography has quite good reviews. It's all about his decisions of course.

https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitive/dp/0062457713/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478214988&sr=8-1&keywords=the+subtle+art+of+not+giving+a+fuck

Might help a bit. I'm enjoying it.

I'm also quite depressed, though. So who am I to say.

Empire of Liberty

https://hbr.org/2016/04/even-the-thought-of-earning-less-than-their-wives-changes-how-men-behave

http://www.amazon.com/Greed-Lust-Gender-History-Economic/dp/0199238421

https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00571820/document

People have been asking that for over 10 years...

http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kansas-Conservatives-America/dp/080507774X/ref=sr_1_fkmr2_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1457235862&sr=8-1-fkmr2

Maybe because in the years following the invasion, no evidence was found to support the administration's main justifications for the war: namely, Iraq was engaging in large-scale manufacture of biological/nuclear WMDs and Saddam Hussein had ties to Osama bin Laden and the 9-11 attacks?

Or maybe because of the numerous revelations in the years since that indicate Bush was determined to go to war with Iraq and was seeking an excuse to justify it?

This happened pretty recently - it was in all the papers. Maybe read a book or two and educate yourself?

Galifianakis : We chatted about a book I didn’t expect her to know about. We kind of bonded over this book called “Amusing Ourselves to Death” [by Neil Postman].

Now I feel bonded to the two of them!! I read Amusing Ourselves to Death about 30 years ago! TV IS BAD, IIRC. ;)