Political Theatre category archive
All the News that Fits 0
In the midst of a longer post about the who-shot-john over Green Day’s having the unmitigated gall to express a political opinion, Vixen Strangely states an obvious truth–one which, like many obvious truths, is too seldom remarked on–and states it very well.
Fox News talking heads are not political analysts. They are propagandists.
The Ultimate Election? Reprise 0
Dick Polman lists three reasons to be (cautiously) optimistic about this year’s presidential election. Here’s one (emphasis in the original):
Follow the link for the others.
Dodging Deception on the Disinformation Superhighway 0
At Psychology Today Blogs, David Evans suggests that three simple questions can help us protect ourselves against deceivers on the Disinformation Superhighway (emphasis in the original).
- Who said it? (For any piece of data or information we are considering.) Many times the person conveying the information we are considering is more important (for our decision) than the information itself.
- What is the source of their information? Like the person conveying the information, the source of that information may be more important than the information itself.
- Do they have a personal stake in the information they are conveying? Will they get rich or gain power or importance by getting you to believe it?
Follow the link to read a real-life application of his reasoning.
The Ultimate Election? 0
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette’s Gene Collier is not sanguine. A snippet:
Follow the link for his reasoning.
Courting Disaster 0
Above the Law’s Joe Patrice is less than impressed with Chief Justice Robert’s Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.
Here’s a bit from his assessment:
Follow the link for context.
News You Can Lose 0
David explains why he has given up on cable news.
Me, I’ve gone him one better.
I gave up on broadcast news years ago, when I realized that
-
1) broadcasters were choosing to sacrifice accuracy to entertainment and eyeballs and
-
2) I can read more in ten minutes than some talking head on the telly vision or the radio can spout at me in an hour.
A Tune for the Times 0
Mangy is optimistic.
Boebert Is the New Gohmert 0
At The Colorado Sun, Mike Littwin looks back on a year of Boebert. A nugget:
The Authoritarian Appeal 0
Bernard Golden, writing at Psychology Today Blogs, explores the psychology behind the appeal of authoritarianism.
I shan’t attempt to excerpt or summarize his piece. In the light of dis coarse discourse, I commend it to your attention as deserving to be read in its entirety.
The Rule of Lawless 0
In a letter to the editor of the South Jersey Times, Evan F. Grollman argues for enforcing the insurrection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. He writes:
Click Here To Get Scammed 0
Thom warns us not to get taken in by “smishing” (he explains the term in the video). His advice is well worth a listen.
Aside:
I ignore emails and texts from (those purporting to be) political activists. And, believe me, I get a lot of emails and an annoying number of texts. (In Thunderbird, my preferred mail client, I filter the emails into a special folder and delete them unread.)
I also get texts from persons who think I am Jeremy from North Carolina, even though I’m not Jeremy and I have never lived in North Carolina (and given what’s happening in North Carolina these days*, I wouldn’t move there on a bet) and I’ve had my cell phone number for years.
Even when said emails and texts are legitimate, they are almost always overwrought and often obnoxious. They are designed to appeal to emotions, not to brains.
My advice, for what it’s worth: Use your brains.
I do my contributing, political and otherwise, the old-fashioned way.
I use the United States Postal Service.
As I told someone who called me on the telly phone yesterday claiming to represent a cauxe that I support, “I do my contributing by mail.” Then I hung up the phone.
_______________
*I’m so old, I can remember when North Carolina was considered a “progressive” Southern state.
A Tune for the Times 0
(Embed height fixed.)
Manifest Dynasty 0
Thom looks at the intellectual rationales plutocrat propaganda used to justify This New Gilded Age.
The Rule of Lawless 0
The Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that Donald Trump’s role in fomenting insurrection disqualifies him from appearing on the 2024 ballot in Colorado under the Insurrection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, an amendment which was passed after–er–an insurrection. This was properly a state matter because, in the United States, individual states are responsible for administering elections.
From the Denver Post:
“We conclude that because President Trump is disqualified from holding the office of President under Section Three (of the 14th Amendment), it would be a wrongful act under the Election Code for the Secretary to list President Trump as a candidate on the presidential primary ballot,” the court’s majority opinion says. “Therefore, the Secretary may not list President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, nor may she count any write-in votes cast for him.”
Trump is expected to appeal to the Supreme Supremacist Court. (It may be the only time in his long history of litigation that he does not try to draw things our as long as possible.)
I do not think it a foregone conclusion that the Court will accept his appeal or rule in his favor,* but that’s just me.
But if they do accept his appeal, we might finally have an answer to this question:
How many laws must a lawbreaker break before breaking the rule of law?
____________________
*A majority of the Justices might be happy never to hear his name again . . . ..