The Bangor Daily News editorial board shares a theory.

At Psychology Today Blogs, Robert Fuller suggest a new “ism” (emphasis added):

The abuse of rank, however, is invariably an affront to human dignity. Rankism stifles initiative, taxes productivity, harms health, and stokes revenge. By giving rankism a face—his own scowling, mocking face—President Trump has unmasked it.

Once you have a name for it, you realize that rankism is everywhere in plain sight. Bullying, belittling, derision, corruption, harassment, and self-aggrandizement—these are all manifestations of rankism. The sooner we pin a generic name on them, the sooner we’ll be able to show them all the door.

Gina Barreca worries about the incoming administration’s embrace of ignorance as a worldview. A snippet:

Look, I’m not worried about whether people in the new administration will have a piece of paper issued by an Ivy League institution or not. I’m worried about the carefully groomed and artfully constructed celebration of ignorance I regard as part of Donald Trump’s administration. In my old Brooklyn neighborhood, there used to be a joke saying, “If you’re so smart, why ain’t you rich?” but now we should be asking “If you’re so rich, why aren’t you smart?”

Being articulate, capable of logical reasoning and able to use language constructively is not an affectation. Using your language clearly and effectively is not showing off. Life is not a game of “Scrabble” where you’re awarded points for big words, but language is how we communicate.

As Diane Carman points out, this is all about power (more at the link):

Regardless of the self-serving interpretations of morality, economics and public policy that men have put forth for curtailing reproductive rights over the decades, the real motive has been and still is about something straightforward and profoundly cynical.

Power.

Q. Where do you find “alternative facts“?

When it comes to picking a fight over verifiable facts,* just where does one draw the line between silly and stupid?

Inquiring minds want to know.

________________

*All facts are verifiable. That’s what makes them “facts.”

The Charlotte Observer skewers the non-apology apology of a Republican operative who authored a “fake news” story.

The San Francisco Chronicle has more on this particular faker.

(What’s unusual about this is that the faker got his comeuppance. Wonder if he’ll get picked up by Fox News?)

There is bittersweet pleasure (but no comfort) in watching “conservative” opinion writers, who have made careers of justifying Republicans and Republicanism, express dismay at what they have helped create.

For example. And example.

And that’s just from this morning’s casual reading . . . .

Senate Committee seeking testimony from Mr. Fox:  Tell us, Mr. Fox, what are your qualifications to be Secretary of Henhouses?

Via Job’s Anger.

In the words of the immortal Yogurt, “It’s the merchandising.”

Dick Polman.

Despite what Republicans would have you believe, magickal thinking does not work.

There is no magic; there is only the con.

Scene:  Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  Lincoln is saying,


Click to see the image at its original location.

Samuel H. McGill, president emeritus of Monmouth University, is not optimistic. He sees domestic dominoes falling.

In 1944 the Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal wrote in his influential book, “An American Dilemma,” that “it is the ‘American Creed’ that keeps the diverse melting pot of the United States together. It is the common belief in this creed that endows all people – whites, Negroes, rich, poor, make, female, and immigrants alike – with a common cause and allows for them to co-exist as one nation.”

In my view it is the erosion of commitment to this creed in the United States that explains much of our current political and social malaise. It explains the polarization of the public into self-justifying political “bubbles,” political entities unwilling to hear or speak to each other without ascribing the most base motives to the other. A sense of common cause no longer resides in the ideology of conflicting parties. What has evolved is a quest for absolute power by self-righteous combatants.

I would point out that, in my observation, the “quest for absolute power by self-righteous combatants” applies much more to one party than to the other. After all, in American history, only one party has ever made the absolute failure of an elected President its policy goal.

Do please read the rest.

White House Moving Day:  Boxes labeled


Click to see the image at its original location.

White House.  President Obama says,

Via PoliticalProf.