Political Theatre category archive

Ruth Ann Dailey seems to think that President Obama has a “hard-left ideology” but that, since voters like him, the Republican scamdals won’t touch him.

All that that tells me is she hasn’t been paying attention to what President Obama actually says and does.

Not even I, leftie liberal as I may be, have a “hard left ideology.”

And, compared to me, Obama is a cupcake.

Read more »

Via C&L.

Dan Amira reminds us (emphasis added):

The thing to understand is that “self-incrimination” is not tantamount to “admitting guilt.” Self-incrimination can mean providing any information that might be used against you, fairly or unfairly. Lois Lerner may sincerely believe that she’s committed no crime, yet fear that the government — which is currently investigating the IRS — could nevertheless try to use her words against her.

Considering the (legally invalid) antics of Darrell Issa, such fears are likely justified.

Citations of case law at the link.

Dick Polman notes that public buildings, such as schools, in Moore, Oklahoma, right smack at the intersection of I-35 and I-Tornado, do not have storm shelters, because freedom.

But Moore is hardly unique in Oklahoma; it takes its cues from state government, which doesn’t require storm shelters, either – all this, in a region that gets hit by tornadoes more times than anywhere else in America.

Maybe I’m just a blue-state guy posing a blue-state question, but I have to ask: Isn’t it the prime responsibility of government to protect its citizens, and provide for the common good?

Apparently not in red-state alley, because this is where Freedom comes in.

From the Roanoke Times:

Contempt is not a Christian value

Reg Henry is fed up with talking points:

Amazingly, a simple time existed not long ago when people just asked other people for the facts. Can you imagine it? The facts! Just the facts, ma’am. What’s the story, morning glory?

But then some chronically political person decided that the plain story would never do. It would be better to arrange the salient facts into a persuasive sequence in order to win arguments. The talking point, its hour come round at last, slouched toward Washington to be born.

It is important to understand that talking points are not neutral. They serve an argumentative purpose. If repeated enough, people’s brains throw a tiny rope out of their ears and slide down to a less tedious environment. At that point, political victory can be claimed.

Read the rest.

Via C&L.

The usual warning: Language, no taste.

Lyrics at the YouTube link.

More here.

More about TWIB.

Bloomberg’s Cass Sunstein explores the how wing nuts (and he applies this to both wings) think.

The short version is they think what they want to think because they want to think it.

Here’s a snippet:

For wing nuts and their many fellow travelers, there is a serious obstacle, and it goes by the name of “motivated reasoning.” When people have a strong emotional attachment to their initial convictions, they tend to heap ridicule on anything that runs counter to those convictions and to give a lot of weight to anything that supports them.

Motivated reasoning helps to account for two defining characteristics of wing nuts and their fellow travelers: a readiness to attack people’s good faith, rather than their actual arguments, and an eagerness to make the worst, rather than the best, of opposing positions.

Daniel Ruth considers the case of a “sovereign citizen.”

He has a lot of fun in the column and, indeed, sovereign citizens may reside in the “People’s Republic of Stupidstan,” as Ruth suggests, but they can also be dangerous.

You know, the one white folks don’t want?

It ain’t happening in Martinsville either.

F. T. Rea publishes a parable for our polity.

Called here.

Marco Rubio wants the Commissioner of the IRS to resign.

There is one slight problem.

There isn’t one.

The IRS commissioner during the probe was Donald Shulman, a holdover from the Bush administration. He left his job last November. There’s an acting commissioner right now, but he assumed his acting role well after the Cincinnati probe ended. The position of IRS commissioner is vacant, which may explain why Rubio’s letter calls for “the IRS Commissioner’s resignation” but doesn’t name whom Rubio wants to resign. Does he want the acting commissioner to resign? The old commissioner to re-resign? Appoint a new commissioner and then force that person to immediately resign?