When considering the Tucker Carlson situation there has been a lot of things said already. Unfortunately, I was slow to the punch and let the other patrons here in the salon state their piece before I got to my keyboard. Carlson is a three time loser when you also consider his time at CNN and MSNBC. In that vain, I suppose we could possibly see him again at an OAN or NewsMax, but I’m guessing those little networks don’t have the cash or the stones to bring him in. So, maybe he becomes something along the lines of an Alex Jones or Mike Lindell and funds his own YouTube/Network venture.

I’m not here to speculate on Carlson. Enough people have done that already. Maybe it was the sexual harassment suit that got him. Maybe it was being public enemy number to Dominion. Perhaps, there was an under the radar agreement as a part of the settlement that someone would pay the piper. Maybe Murdoch and his cronies tired of watching sponsors march out the door with an increasingly racist, Russian, and nativist bent on the airwaves. It is more likely a combination of those things.

The first thing we know is that Carlson just learned the first rule of business. You are only valued as an asset as long as you continue to be a net asset. The moment you become something else, the powers that be will get rid of you. That might be the one thing he and Don Lemon have in common. They just weren’t worth it anymore. I could say that it wasn’t anything personal, but it is. When you are a prick and a jackass then you have to be worth a lot for you to stay. That wasn’t true anymore. Sean Hannity, Lauran Ingraham, and Judge Pirro should heed this warning too.

The second thing we know is that whoever replaces Carlson is likely to be worse. Bill O’Reilly was bad. Everyone was happy when he left. Then, Carlson took his time slot and suddenly Bill O didn’t seem so bad. When Glenn Beck left it seemed like a breath of fresh air just long enough to realize the crazy train wasn’t stopping anytime soon. Networks don’t make money by scaling back the crazy. They just need a different brand. I have no idea who is replacing Carlson in the long run, but I know it will be someone worse in some way imaginable.

Yesterday Fox Noise announced that Tucker Carlson had “mutually agreed” to part ways with the news propaganda network which is interesting, since he said that he would be back on Monday when he signed off on Friday.  Reporting is that he was blindsided by the sudden firing, and that the decision had come straight from the top, meaning Rupert Murdoch.

There’s a lot of speculation about what happened, but my guess is that Carlson had become too powerful at the network with Republicans kowtowing to him and even pushing legislative and policy agendas he introduced to his audience.  And not inconsequential, Murdoch was undoubtedly miffed by the revelations of his uncharitable opinions of both senior Fox management and TFG that came to light during the Dominion case.  Add to these issues the Mt. Everest of lies, misogynist rants, and racist diatribes, and the result is not surprising.

Lastly, it’s been speculated that Carlson was served up by Murdoch in lieu of an apology in the Dominion settlement.  That makes a lot of sense, since he was the Grand Dragon of The Big Lie at Fox, repeating it five nights a week since the 2020 election.

Once again, Fox is in search of a new chief liar to take the prime seat at the network; in the meantime, Carlson will be searching for a new gig, joining Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck in the purgatory of online bullshit peddling to a shrinking audience.  Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.

Juanita has done a great job covering this as she obviously has an inside track. So, I will not add any details here. It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Besides, I usually get long-winded here. So, I will offer two rhetorical questions that the beloved community here can chew on if they like. Some of these have obvious academic answers, so this is more on a philosophical level.

1. How is it that people like Alex Jones exist?

Yes, I took Abnormal Psychology and Psychopathology. I know the literal textbook definition of this. This is usually where “well actually” guy comes busting out the DSM-V with the textbook definitions of psychopathy and sociopathy. Yup, we all know that. What we also know is that those conditions really aren’t curable. That makes the second question easier to answer in his case.

However, on a personal or philosophical level it is quite disturbing. He made up to 800,000 a day knowing full well that he was not only lying but also really hurting those people. That takes a special kind of cruelty. I’m not a psychologist and I can’t practice counseling outside of a school setting, but it produces a vexing question. How much do people like Jones really know? He knows that his lies were in fact lies. He knew he was making money off it. He willfully spurred his minions on those poor families. I can’t tell you how the psychopathic brain works exactly. I don’t know how much they are really cognizant of and how much they are able to compartmentalize away from whatever humanity they actually have.

2. How do we decide exactly who gets redemption and who doesn’t

I know two things. First, I know that sociopaths and psychopaths cannot really be redeemed and it is dangerous to try. Alex Jones doesn’t deserve to be redeemed. Donald Trump doesn’t deserve to be redeemed. Tucker Carlson doesn’t deserve to be redeemed. These are people that know exactly what they are doing and are aware on some level of the damage they are doing. As I said above, I don’t know exactly how much they know, but at least a large part of them knows.

The second thing I know is that some people can be redeemed because they already have to a greater or lesser extent. People have turned on these folks after the fact. Usually, they need a little legal pressure to do so, but they have done it. So, how do we draw the line between the redeemable and the unredeemable? If they can be redeemed then what does that redemption look like?

The best analogy I know comes from my own religious education. Forgive me for those not religious. Yet, that word is the very word we are concerned with. In order to get absolution, we first have to admit what we have done wrong. Then. we get some sort of penance depending on the offense. I think a number of people skip one or both of those. Some people admit they are wrong, but expect immediately to be welcomed in without atoning for their sins. Others pull the “why don’t we all just get along” without actually admitting they’re wrong. Both of those need to be present for it to work. Yet, none of that answers the question above. We can’t redeem everyone and yet we also can’t write everyone off either. So, what gives?

A lot has been made of the so-called “replacement theory” since the kid in Buffalo shot up a grocery store in a predominantly black neighborhood. Since we are always aiming to be helpful, I thought I would break it down for those folks that don’t make watching Tucker Carlson a habit.

Replacement theory is the far-right white supremacist theory that liberals, progressives, and leftists are determined to allow or even encourage minorities to move to the United States in droves so they can get a permanent majority in Washington and in key states.

That’s a very simple statement and it doesn’t require much explanation, but it does have far-reaching implications. The kid supposedly travelled to a black neighborhood on purpose. Has anyone ever wondered why there are so-called “black neighborhoods” and “white neighborhoods” in the first place?

The notion of replacement theory relies on two very insidious ideas. First, it relies on the notion that anything really belongs to any of us. Sure, there is private property, so when we finally pay back the bank then our home will literally belong to us. Our cars literally belong to us.

However, that is not what far right conservatives are referring to. They are referring to America in the larger sense. It belongs to them. That means that all policies have to continue to perpetuate this madness. This is why we oppose the estate tax. This is why we preach trickle down economics. This is why we fight a drug war that disproportionately affects people of color.

These policies are all designed to make sure that those in power remain in power. Furthermore, they are able to convince the poorer amongst us that this is ultimately a good thing. Even though they will not get the assistance they need and will ultimately remain poor, it also means that none of “them” will get that assistance either.

That brings us to the second insidious idea. The basic assumption is that if you are black, Hispanic, Asian, female, or a member of the LGTBQ+ community then you are destined to be a Democrat. It ultimately isn’t even worth trying to appeal to them. It’s destiny after all.

It’s a not so subtle conversion of people into cattle. They just follow the rest of the herd. It ignores the fact that numerous people from any group might have very conservative views on a number of subjects. They could be persuaded if their key issues were addressed. They could be persuaded if you treated them as individuals with self-determination. They could be persuaded if you treated them like equals and human beings.

Sure, they’ll traipse out the occasional Alan Keyes, Candace Owen, Marco Rubio, or Amy Coney Barrett. See, there are some women and minorities that are conservative. It isn’t literally everyone. Yet, let’s consider the implications of this point of view for a second. Why are we so afraid to allow people of color to vote in large numbers? The idea that this is not about racism is downright hilarious. Why exactly should we assume that those people would never vote for us in the first place?

Not only does it reduce America to a zero sum game, it provides a unique way for poor, white men to keep score. I’ll never get ahead by continuing to vote Republican, but I can damn well make sure that they will never get ahead too. So, ultimately it starts as an irrational fear that Democrats will take over and transfer ownership of America to all of its inhabitants. The truth of the matter is that if they had anything worth selling to the masses then they would buckle down and present their case to everyone. They know they can’t do that. They don’t have a case and they don’t have anything worth selling. It’s only about what they perceive as worth keeping.

“Where have all the good men gone And where are all the gods? Where’s the streetwise Hercules To fight the rising odds?”– Bonnie Tyler

No one could call Ukraine a fake country. It is the largest country in Europe and would be much more well-known if it were in Western Europe. The perception of Ukraine was probably that it was a de facto part of Russia trying to make a go of independence. We were supposed to feel sorry for them.

Looking pathetic would have created a similar effect as to what we have seen. Millions of Americans and citizens of other NATO countries would feel sorry for the Ukrainians and want to intervene. In essence, the Ukrainians haven’t played their part in that morality play.

The leader in Ukraine is a legitimate badass. Volodymyr Zelenskyy got his start as a comedian and satirist. His rise to prominence would be most similar to Al Franken in our own country if you remove the sex scandal and instead make Franken the president of the United States. Zelenskyy has a presence and charisma that few American politicians can muster. He’s needed every bit of that over the past few weeks and more.

Something special has happened in Ukraine. Great sports teams often take on the personality of their coach. I suppose bad teams do as well. The Ukrainian people have embodied the spirit of their leader and are winning over the citizens of the world. They are fighting all the way down to the last adult, often making weapons through Google searches and whatever supplies they can find on hand.

Meanwhile, they are getting support from some of the unlikeliest of places. No one could scarcely say that the entire world is behind them. Even the most cockeyed of optimists wouldn’t go that far. However, it is pretty safe to say the majority of the world is behind Ukraine and that support has caused some Russia backers here in the U.S. to change their tune. They know who they are, so there is no need to belabor the point.

Meanwhile, the Russian army has embodied the spirit of their leader. They came in with a big, imposing force hoping to bully the Ukrainians into submission. Yet, their effort was largely disorganized and many of the soldiers don’t seem to have the will to continue. They may eventually overwhelm Ukraine, but they certainly haven’t looked good doing it.

Since the Cold War days you could credibly say that the U.S. and Russia were mirror images of each other. That might be more true than we thought. One wonders if we would even be capable of mounting the same kind of defense that Ukraine is mustering. All people are capable of acts of courage and bravery collectively and we are no different. Yet, you have to wonder if we have any leaders capable of doing what Zelenskyy is doing. Even if we did you’d openly wonder how many people would actually follow them.

Lord knows why these things happen. There are certainly no shortage of working theories here. Many think our former president was either an unwitting or witting Russian agent. Others just think he saw himself as an autocrat and therefore gravitated towards those kinds of guys. Maybe that explains guys like Tucker Carlson too. I’ve never been much to buy into conspiracies, so I’m not about to start now. What I do know is that we could use own Zelenskyy right now.

“Cowards die many times before their deaths; the valiant never taste of death but once.” — William Shakespeare

If the Texas GOP political delegation were a cast of characters they would almost certainly come from the Wizard of Oz. Louie Gohmert would almost certainly be the scarecrow in search of a brain. Dan Patrick would play the role of the Tin Man searching for a heart. That would place Ted Cruz as the lion searching for courage.

Whether he’s bailing the state when the freeze comes, buckling under to Donald Trump even after Trump insulted his wife and father, or assuming the position with Tucker Carlson, Cruz has long established that he is far from being the king of the jungle.

One could analyze his statements about the insurrectionists and then his overwhelming desire to somehow take it back. Psychologists could analyze the whys and what fors until the cows come home. I think what we know and what we suspect are not all that far away from each other. Cruz was a part of a plan to delay the certification of the election. I’m sure they trusted him with the parliamentarian side of the plot. No one ever accused Cruz of being dumb.

The less you know in a conspiracy the better. I’m willing to guess he didn’t know about the violence before January 6th. Goodness knows what he would have done with that information had he known. Maybe he would have assumed the position. Maybe he would have blown the whistle. My guess is that the human part of him was horrified at what transpired.

That’s the part that came out and called the participants terrorists. It is one thing to steal an election through parlor tricks and slight of hand. It’s another to steal it on the tip of a sword. As per usual, his first words spoke the truth before he forgot who was in charge.

This brings us to the real scary part of this dilemma. The story is not that Cruz was groveling, but who he was groveling to. We would expect him to grovel to Trump. Having him grovel to a prime time talking head is a cross between bizarre and unsettling. How did Carlson get this much power and who exactly is Carlson accountable to?

A number of folks have thought Carlson could make a run for president. I suppose it makes sense. He has money. He has name recognition. He has a brain. He can match being an outsider with his knowledge of the key players on the inside. However, this would involve him getting in the game. He can snipe from the outside and wield much more power. Power and a lack of responsibility is a dangerous combination. No one on the left has this kind of power. It could be about Carlson, but it really isn’t. Democratic politicians don’t grovel to the talking heads. As long as the wizard denies Cruz and others their courage people like Carlson will be in total control.