Nothing burger? No, pretext

This story in the New York Post gets something wrong and it illustrates the problem conservatives have in framing the Russia-gate story. The Post states that the collusion story was a "nothing burger" but kept the story alive anyway. This frames the escapade as a well intentioned endeavor that was kept alive perhaps by mistake, but with good intentions. 

It was, in fact, a malicious endeavor that was kept alive through an excess of enthusiasm. It was not a 'nothing burger', it was a deliberate fabrication. The FBI didn't become aware of it, it started it. The FBI were not bunglers, they were manipulators.  It is like saying the Watergate burglars just found themselves in the Democratic National Head quarters and, finding themselves there, decided to leave a listening device. The FBI started with the intention of destroying Trump and looked for a means and a means was found. 'Nothing burger' turns the criminal conspiracy into a case of credulity over indulged. 

"Nothing burger" refers to something that looks like something from the outside but, upon closer examination, reveals itself to be of no significance. But if the nothing burger of the Russia hoax ever appeared to be something it is only because of the FBI's manipulations (and the Press' receptivity to those manipulations). 

The con man doesn't fall for his own cover story. He knows it is a story. So did the FBI. 

Racists

We have always had racists, except now we call them woke.

I believe Chesterton said something like, "I am not concerned about censorship of the press as I am about censorship by the press." 

I am not so much concerned about censorship of this of that person or statement as I am about the censorship of entire fact patterns or subjects. 

To see what I mean, consider the coverage of hurricane Camille. I lived in Mississippi when it hit in, I believe, 2005. It was by some measures the strongest hurricane in history and at the time all the new media had on experts telling how this marked the beginning of more extreme hurricanes due to global warming. Then, nothing. For the next ten years no hurricane made landfall. It was remarkable. The longest period without a hurricane on record, I believe. You would think that some would note that fact. 

But no, once there was another hurricane the fact that the previous 10 years had not seen a single one was never mentioned and the new global-warming caused spate of hurricanes was predicted as if the previous 10 years hadn't happened. 

This is dishonest. If you are going to note evidence that supports your theory you have to note evidence that does not support it. Maybe there is an explanation for the lack of hurricanes that is consistent with the global warming hypothesis. Maybe the unusual dearth of hurricanes can be put down to global warming. Maybe the effect of humans putting CO2 in the are is unusual variability--fewer as well as more frequent hurricanes--in established weather patterns. But what is not legitimate is to totally ignore the issue. That is dishonesty. 

The Woke as the Church Lady or Dwight Schrurte

Conservatives should treat the woke as the new Church Lady or Dwight Schrute. They should be made fun of or, better yet, condescendingly humored. They are not to be feared but ridiculed. 

You know how whatever subject came up the Church Lady (Dana Carvey of SNL) would steer it into a rhetorical question of who could be behind it, Satan?!!!! Substitute "Racism" and you could capture the contemporary woke rhetorical stance perfectly.