Monday Reading

As always, please follow the links to the full articles/ op eds for the full reads.

Penn political scientist and communications professor Diana Mutz writes in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about what many of us knew all along:  it wasn't "economic anxiety" that the media loves to cite as the reason for nitwit narcissist Donald "Rump" Trump's election;  it was another kind of anxiety.  From the Abstract:

Support for Donald J. Trump in the 2016 election was widely attributed to citizens who were “left behind” economically. These claims were based on the strong cross-sectional relationship between Trump support and lacking a college education. Using a representative panel from 2012 to 2016, I find that change in financial wellbeing had little impact on candidate preference. Instead, changing preferences were related to changes in the party’s positions on issues related to American global dominance and the rise of a majority–minority America: issues that threaten white Americans’ sense of dominant group status. (our emphasis)

With all the tail- dragging media safaris to Rump Country, they seem to have missed a rather glaring point, eh?

Erin Gloria Ryan weighs in on the snowflake media's desire to slam Michelle Wolf's roast at the WHCD as a deflection from their own sorry conduct, which continues apace:

I suspect that much of the umbrage over Wolf’s treatment of Sanders was actually a smokescreen for issues observers had with the uncomfortable truths Wolf said to a room full of people complicit in and profiting from the current awful state of American politics. For example, Wolf noted that Brzezinski’s relationship with her co-host Joe Scarborough was “like when a #MeToo works out.” Mean, but true. 

Wolf pointed out that cable news was oversaturated with Trump. Also not a lie. And that every show involves “a panel of four people who remind you why you don’t go home for Thanksgiving.” Also not a lie...  (our emphasis)

The complicit Brzezinski was one of the ones tweeting later about the false narrative of Wolf focusing on White House Spokesliar Sanders' looks:

Watching a wife and mother be humiliated on national television for her looks is deplorable. I have experienced insults about my appearance from the president. All women have a duty to unite when these attacks happen and the WHCA owes Sarah an apology.

— Mika Brzezinski (@morningmika) April 29, 2018

No, no, no, you deplorable, ridiculous person you.

Ever heard of "Project Blitz?"  Paul Rosenberg alerts us to the danger:

... Its goal is to pass an outwardly diverse but internally cohesive package of Christian-right bills at the state level, whose cumulative impact would be immense. 

The agenda underlying these bills is not merely about Christian nationalism, a term that describes an Old Testament-based worldview fusing Christian and American identities, and meant to sharpen the divide between those who belong to those groups and those who are excluded. It’s also ultimately "dominionist," meaning that it doubles down on the historically false notion of America as a “Christian nation” to insist that a a particular sectarian view of God should control every aspect of life, through all manner of human institutions. Christian nationalists are not in a position to impose their vision now, and to be fair, many involved in the movement would never go that far. But as explained by Julie Ingersoll in "Building God's Kingdom: Inside the World of Christian Reconstruction" (Salon interview here), dominionist ideas have had enormous influence on the religious right, even among those who overtly disavow them.

These dangerous fanatics will keep trying to foist their religious views on everyone else if given half a chance.  Keep alert.

Last but not least, please check out the latest link round- up by Infidel 753, where you'll find an array of cultural, political and topical (not to mention the occasional comical) links to satisfy your cravings.