Hypocrisy Watch category archive
Words Matter 0
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:
Follow the link for his article.
________________
*I would argue that it was not a gaffe. Ill-expressed, perhaps, but not a gaffe.
If One Standard Is Good, Two Must Be Better 0
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.)
A Notion of Immigrants, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Dept. 0
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):
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 . . . .
Twits on Twitter 0
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.
Afterthought:
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.
Precedented 0
Michael in Norfolk sees a similarity.
Follow the link for the rest.
Originalist Sin, Catch-22 Dept. 0
It’s the best catch there is.
Jonathan Wolf explains at Above the Law. Here’s a bit (warning: mild language):
Freedom of Screech 0
Shorter Elon Musk: Freedom of speech for me, but not for thee.
The Roll-Back 0
Gordon Weil espies a disturbing trend. Here’s the nub of his article (emphasis added):
Follow the link for his reasoning.
In a related vein, Professor Richard Cherwitz reminds us that, “once democracy is gone, it’s gone.”
All the News that Fits 0
Margaret Sullivan reminds us that it’s important to consider the source.
This is especially important if the story is spreading on “social” media.
Suffer the Children 0
At the Idaho State Journal, Chris Huston, in a longer article about how, in the fuss over abortion, men are somehow in no way held responsible for their role in unwanted pregnancies, expresses his befuddlement.
Misdirection Play, Merchants of Death Dept. 0
Kevin McDermott deciphers the doubletalk.
Misdirection Play, Invalid Syllogism Dept. 0
Thom gets into the weeds.
It’s All about the Benjamins, Reprise 0
At the San Jose Mercury-News, Louis Klarevas, Sonali Rajan and Charles Branas call out the absurdity of the NRA’s plan for the proliferation of portable phalli. Here’s a bit from their article:
One the same topic, the writer of a letter to the editor of The Roanoke Times calls out the misdirection play:
Shooting up a supermarket is not what a well-regulated militia does.
Follow the links for the rest.