Hypocrisy Watch category archive
At Psychology Today Blogs, Joe Pierre argues forcefully that violent political rhetoric leads (or, perhaps more accurately, has already led) to actual violence.
He also notes a double standard in dis coarse discourse:
Indeed, a kind of double standard seems to have crept into American politics. While President Obama drew widespread criticism for wearing a tan suit back in 2014 and Clinton faced a serious backlash for her “basket of deplorables” gaffe* during her 2016 campaign, violent political rhetoric—mostly coming from the right—is often either trivialized and written off as harmless metaphor or countered with “whataboutism,” . . . .
Follow the link for his article.
*I would argue that it was not a gaffe. Ill-expressed, perhaps, but not a gaffe.
Methinks David’s first caller has a point. (The second caller discusses the looming water crisis in the American southwest and is also worth hearing.)
At my local rag, Tom Wallace reminds us that theft of labor is as American as apple pie (though he does not use that precise term).
After reminding us of America’s original sin of chattel slavery, theft of labor at its most brazen, he discusses the Reagan era escape clause for those who wish to
employ exploit undocumented immigrants. An excerpt (emphasis added):
Beginning in the 1970s, American business was again in dire need of low-cost labor, and it was well known south of the border that employers were eager to hire undocumented workers. Thus, Hispanics flooded into the country, constituting America’s second massive non-white immigration. Remarkably, for decades, irreplaceable undocumented Hispanics have been productive employees, raised families . . . .
But how could millions of undocumented immigrants avoid deportation? The answer: Congress created the necessary legislation. The Reagan administration’s Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 made it illegal to recruit or hire undocumented immigrants. However, it also provided a loophole for employers to hire while not violating the law by simply neglecting to ask or verify citizenship.
And, ironically, those who most willing to exploit undocumented immigrants seem to also be those most willing to demonize them when it suits their fancy . . . .
I see two primary issues with depending on “social” media for news.
One is the number of persons who make/fake stuff up.
The other is persons who are willing to believe stuff simply because they believe in all the news that fits–their preconceptions, that is.
I have many secondary issues, but methinks those are the primary ones.
Of course, this leads to (not, for heaven’s sake, “begs”) the question, who’s more culpable, the person who sets the trap or the sucker who falls into it? Given that it’s become obvious that “social” media, is–er–not necessarily a reliable source of information, I vote for the latter.
The person who puts out fake is vile and craven, true, but the person who falls for it at a glance is worse.
That person is stupid.
Michael in Norfolk sees a similarity.
Follow the link for the rest.
It’s the best catch there is.
Jonathan Wolf explains at Above the Law. Here’s a bit (warning: mild language):
So, if a justice doesn’t think the right to an abortion should be protected because the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, then that same justice shouldn’t be saying shit in the first place, because the Constitution sure doesn’t say anything about justices of the Supreme Court getting to decide what is and isn’t constitutional.
Gordon Weil espies a disturbing trend. Here’s the nub of his article (emphasis added):
But a divide has begun to emerge between them (the two major American political parties–ed.) with some Republicans believing that their party should reverse the trend toward greater democracy. Voter suppression and misusing Senate voting practices have become part of the GOP agenda.
Follow the link for his reasoning.
In a related vein, Professor Richard Cherwitz reminds us that, “once democracy is gone, it’s gone.”