Political Theatre category archive
News You Should Lose 0
At Psychology Today Blogs, Bobby Hoffman offers some techniques for avoiding falling into the sewer of falsehoods that masquerades as news, particularly on “social” media and propaganda websites. In the course of his exposition, he makes this point, which we see played out many times a day:
The refutation problem is typically addressed in two ways by those who harbor irrefutable beliefs. Too much evidence means a conspiracy theory is being advanced. Too little evidence means there is a cover-up. The conspiracy supporter can never be wrong!
I commend his article to your attention.
(Yet Another) Wall-Eyed Piker 0
E. J. Montini writes of local Arizona officials who called out Arizona Governor Ducey for grandstanding at the southwestern border. A snippet (emphasis added):
Sheriff David Hathaway of Santa Cruz County and Sheriff Chris Nanos of Pima County told the governor thanks, but no thanks.
Hathaway said, “We both responded saying, ‘We don’t have a migrant crisis on the border. We do not need to militarize our counties and have troops come to the border.’”
Follow the link for the rest.
(Missplet wrod fixked.)
A Tune for the Times 0
(Warning: Language)
Russian Impulses 0
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Gene Collier looks at some news that hasn’t gotten much attention in the media frenzy surrounding the Chauvin trial. A snippet:
So that Russia hoax? Not a hoax.
Details at the link.
A Pillow of the Community 0
I would say that this pillow has no case.
Life in the Bubble 0
A life-long Republican writes to the editor of The Roanoke Times wondering what the heck has happened to his party.
The Swinging Gaetz 0
Sam marvels at how Republicans are trying to distance themselves from Matt Gaetz and maintain that they were unaware of his behavior.
Both Sides Don’t 0
NJ.com’s editorial board reminds us that bipartisanship is a two-player game.
(Rotten to the) Core Values 0
At the Washington Monthly, David Atkins uses Tucker Carlson’s recent endorsement of “replacement theory” as a springboard to dive into what passes for (as?) “conservatism” in America’s current discourse. Here’s the crux; follow the link for the rest.
Because it is a fact that white men have held and continue to hold the vast majority of wealth and power in America, you must believe one of two things must be true: either you believe that white men are intrinsically more deserving, or you believe that institutional patriarchy and racism have combined to suppress and oppress women and people of color from gaining access to wealth and power on a level playing field. If you believe the latter, you meet the minimum standard for adherence to modern social liberalism and make yourself a pariah among conservatives. If you believe the former, you are by definition a chauvinist and white supremacist. If you claim not to be a chauvinist or white supremacist, but you believe that no actions should be taken to even protest–much less regulate or redistribute resources–to mitigate structural racism and patriarchy, you are inseparable from chauvinists and white supremacists at a social or policy level. One cannot simply declare the problem solved and assume everyone now has the same opportunities to succeed, because the problem is so obviously not solved at either a social or a policy level, and everyone so obviously does not have the same opportunities.
This is yet another reminder that Richard Nixon’s odious Southern Strategy has come full circle and turned the Party of Lincoln into the Party of the Secesh.