At the Idaho State Journal, Mike Murphy posits that recent “bombshell” books about Donald Trump, such as those by Mary Trump and John Bolton, are hardly bombshells by any definition, maybe not even firecrackers or squibs.
He suggests that anyone who has followed Donald Trump’s career already knows what Donald Trump is.
A snippet (emphasis added):
Which is really sort of a head scratcher since one definition of the term bombshell is “an overwhelming surprise, a shocking revelation.” Since none of the claims describing the president’s behavior in any of the books come as the teeniest bit of a surprise to informed individuals, labeling any of the books as a bombshell is classic hyperbole.
(Brain skip fixed.)
Sam speaks with Heather Digby Parton, of Hullabaloo and Salon, primarily about Donald Trump’s
reaction inaction to COVID-19. It’s about half an hour, but well worth your while in these viral times.
At about the 25-minute mark, Sam advances an interesting theory as to why Republican office holders are opposing Trump’s trial balloon about
staging a coup postponing the election.
At AZCentral, E. J. Montini is raising Cain concerning communicating coronavirus in crowds.
At The Seattle Times, One of organizers of the #StopHateForProfit campaign to boycott Facebook to encourage it to clean up its act writes that Mark Zuckerberg just doesn’t get it.
Earlier this month, I joined the leaders of ADL, Color Of Change and the NAACP at a meeting with Zuckerberg, Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg and other Facebook execs. We came away disappointed by their indifference to our demands — and shocked by their apathy toward those who are on the receiving end of online hate.
Our meeting made one thing clear: Zuckerberg has an extremely limited understanding of systemic racism and the ways it has infiltrated his company.
I just deleted a comment that Akismet, quite correctly, had idenfied as spam. It offered to provide umpty-ump comments for every $5 I was willing to pay.
I am quite happy sitting here shouting into the void from the relative obscurity of my third tier blog, and I will be damned if I will pay anyone to deceive my two or three regular readers into thinking I am anything other than who I am.
At Psychology Today Blogs, Alison Escalante explores why persons fall for fake news and misinformation on “social” media. She focuses on (mis)information about COVID-19, but I believe her conclusions can be generalized to larger topics.
The study she discusses suggests that much of the bilge is broadcast because the persons “sharing” it just don’t think before they click. Here’s a bit:
“People often assume that misinformation and fake news is shared online because people are incapable of distinguishing between what is true and what is false,” said lead author Gordon Pennycook of the University of Regina, Canada in a press release. “Our research reveals that is not necessarily the case. Instead, we find that people tend to share false information about COVID-19 on social media because they simply fail to think about accuracy when making decisions about what to share with others.”
Man refuses to wear mask by wielding his politeness.
The story goes on to say that employees offered to provide curbside service if he didn’t want to wear a mask. He refused the offer, politely.
And, in more news of the maskless . . . .
AZCentral’s Elvia Diaz wants to know what ICE is doing to the children.