Political Theatre category archive

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog.

Via Dick Destiny.

Steve M. explains why Nugent’s threats won’t be an issue:

I’d say a surrogate’s remarks take on significance if the press merely believes the remarks represent one side’s thinking. The press took Hilary Rosen’s remarks very, very seriously, and warped them (with right-wingers’ help) into a critique of stay-at-home moms in general, because the press really believes that right-wingers kinda have a point when they suggest that liberals want to drag all heartland Christian moms out of their homes and send them to forced high-powered arugula-eating lesbian reeducation camps — or whatever the hell it is that right-wingers think. . . .

But the press will shrug off Nugent because the press has been in denial for years about just how insane right-wingers are. No matter what angry, extreme, menacing, paranoid thing right-wingers are up to, the press is always looking for signs that it’s all just a silly phase, all just the work of a few outliers.

Find out whether you qualify to be an American citizen: Take the test.

I missed two questions. One was from reading to fast. One was from just being wrong (it had to do with succession).

Via PoliticalProf.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution considers the motives behind the spate of Republican proposals to test poor people for drugs because they are poor people.

A nugget:

The legislation in question — (Georgia–ed.) House Bill 861 — forces welfare applicants in Georgia to submit to a drug test in order to continue receiving state benefits. According to one of its champions, state Sen. John Albers of Roswell, “this legislation will better serve those who are in need by providing a ‘hand-up’ instead of a ‘hand-out’.”

Such condescending rhetoric aside, the legislation was not motivated by a desire to help people. It was intended to be punitive, to make people feel better by making the already hard lives of other people even more difficult. Put bluntly, it was motivated by a sour belief that poor people are poor because the rest of us have been insufficiently mean to them.

So much for that whole swords into plowshares thing.

Via KOS.

At the Denver Post, Kevin Horrigan sticks his tongue deep into his cheek and explains why government should just go away.

Read it.

Recently, New York Times reporter Matt Richtel tried to find out why TSA screening procedures for laptops are what they are (take them out of the bag, etc.). His quest was fruitless; he ran up against a wall of “we can’t tell” and “talk to the other guy.”

Ken Eisold thinks he knows what’s behind it:

The show must grow on.

One is to be found in the old adage, ‘better safe than sorry.’ Excessive caution feels reassuring and prudent. Along those lines, undoing a safety rule can feel dangerous. What if the rule is repealed, so this worried thinking goes, but then someone does actually figure out a way to slip a bomb into a laptop?

(snip)

We don’t expect things to be simplified and made easier. We care more about security and safety. Driven largely by anxiety and fear, we recoil not just from the physical threat of bombs but also from the risk of being blamed for what goes wrong. We don’t want to feel guilty. We don’t want to be singled out.

In the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Attilio “Buck” Favorini comments on the magical prestidigitatorial power possessed by persons of color to propel police and wannabe police to perceive stuff what ain’t there.

For Trayvon Martin it was an iced tea and a bag of Skittles.

For Jordan Miles it was a vanishing bottle of Mountain Dew.

For Jonny Gammage it was a date book and a cell phone.

For Amadou Diallo it was a wallet.

To you and me these innocent items suggest the contents of a shopping bag emptied on the kitchen counter or the things that move from our pockets to the night table before we turn out the light. But you and I are not enforcers of the law, duly sworn or self-appointed, who repeatedly mistake such objects for a frightening arsenal requiring lethal retaliation or, at best, a mauling never to be forgotten.

Read the whole thing.

Field points out the true issue at the heart of the case.

A black kid was gunned down for the crime of having a bag of Skittles and nobody in authority in Sanford, Floriday, gave a damn.

And what some of my friends in the majority population do not understand is that this case was not about racism per se on the part of the killer of this young man. The fact that he had Cuban American roots means nothing. (BTW, hang in there Ozzie. My Cuban American friends ain’t like my other brown friends if you get my drift. ) This case was about a police department devaluing the life of a young black man, who sadly laid on a slab in the morgue for days before his parents were even notified of his death. It’s about an unarmed child being killed while minding his own business by a citizen, and that citizen remaining free for 45 days while real racists and ideological whores in this country rallied around him only because his victim was black.

Republicans continue to fantasize about vicariously sticking things up women:

House Bill 1077, which is intended to humiliate, intimidate, and punish women who seek abortions, is one of the most reprehensible pieces of legislation Harrisburg has ever produced.

This legislation, deceptively titled the “Women’s Right to Know Act” and drafted under the pretext of providing informed consent, was cosponsored by seven male Republican state representatives who serve Chester County.

HB 1077 mandates a medically unnecessary procedure, including the use of an invasive transvaginal probe. In addition, it mandates a 24-hour waiting period between the ultrasound and the procedure. In addition to being burdensome, the legislation’s punitive intent is evident in the criminal penalties it imposes for failure to properly follow all the steps in this complicated legislation.

It’s the pervy party.

Headline:

Mitt Romney delays filing 2011 income tax return

Aside:

I know. There are many legit reasons to file for an extension and he’s already paid the (relative) pittance he expects to owe, but, really truly, one just can’t resist wisecrack bait like this.

At Psychology Today, J. Richard Gentry considers the pros and cons of inflicting standardized tests on little kids:

April in third grade used to be about flowers, shedding heavy jackets, and walking outside barefoot for the first time. It used to be about baseball season, fishing, the science fair, and creating colorful woven baskets or painting murals with ducks or bunnies. It used to be about practicing for the school talent show, reading favorite books in school, and going on outings and picnics with classmates.

No time for that now. The line has been drawn in the sand. Today in America, at least in a growing number of states, April in third grade is about fear of flunking a test. Today, third graders are test prepping, and they’ve been doing so since the first weeks of school. The teacher’s and principal’s job is on that same line that was drawn in the sand. Parents have been coached about getting kids test-ready at home. The nation is watching.

Fail the test and you get held back, disgrace yourself, and shame your parents. You may even cost your teacher and principal their job.

Click to read the rest.

I have come to believe that the ratio of overpriced tests (and administrators) to underpaid teachers is skewed in the wrong direction.

Tests do not teach; the claims that they can measure anything are based more on faith (and testing companies’ bottom lines) than research (*.pdf).

Via Contradict Me.

TPM thinks this moment of ignorance might indicate that Mitt the Flip is not ready for prime time.

This is slightly dated, as George Zimmerman is now in jail on charges of second degree murder, but the bit about the difference between “stand your ground” and “chase someone down” is still valid. That section starts about 2:25 into the video.