Political Theatre category archive

Parler has sued Amazon for pulling the plug on its website.

I (am not a lawyer) doubt they have a case. The Constitution’s freedom of speech clause guarantees neither an audience nor a platform.

Also, hosting providers have things called “Terms of Service.” I know my hosting provider does. I’ve never read them through, because I try to behave myself in public, but, once when I was on the phone with tech support, the support person said to me, “Nothing I see on your site violates our terms of service.”

It will be fun to watch this play out.

Above the Law has more.

Aside:

I think it very likely that, after the storming of the Capitol, the right-wing nutbags have worn out their welcome with the larger polity, at least for a while.

But they won’t give up.

They are always rising again.

Writing at the Des Moines Register, retired professor David W. Leslie makes strong case that we knew all along that current federal executive was–er–less than adequate, but we (too many of us, especially in politics and journalism) chose to look the other way. Here’s a bit of what he writes:

But it was all hollow. There was nothing behind the façade but a sorry little boy playing at “president” without any script and without any inner compass, moral or otherwise. It was actually a remarkable performance, but it was only a performance. The country now bears the brunt of four years without a leader, four years of lost time in solving its most serious problems, four years of grifting officialdom in a corrupt capitol, four years of ignorance and self-glorification at the expense of the nation’s collective humanity.

At the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Gene Collier considers the role played by “social” media in fomenting insurrection. A snippet:

Social media platforms are not serving you. They are selling you to advertisers based on your clicks and “likes” and what activates you online, and they are not just trafficking in data analysis to click-motivate your idiot cousin who lives in the flat-Earth chat room, but members of the Senate and the House of Representatives as well. One House member contended in chambers Wednesday that Mr. Trump won the election in a landslide, because he believes it, and he believes it because social media fed him all kinds of conspiracy theories and disinformation its algorithms correctly predicted he could not resist.

Deserting–er–voyagers.

Aside:

Jody Hamilton floats a theory as to why some cabinet members are resigning towards the end of yesterday’s Bob Cesca Show. She may indeed be onto something.

Donald Trump de-assimilated.

Thom and a caller explore the factors which might cause an individual to embrace authoritarianism.

I wonder whether trying to overthrow the results of an election would qualify under Article III, Section 3, of the United States Constitution.

Read more »

Writing at the Las Vegas Sun, Ed Koch (not the late New York Mayor, the Sun reporter) explores the legal and political history of martial law in the United States. It is, sadly, a timely read; here’s a bit:

Since the early 19th century, presidents and Congress have had the right to employ martial law in the wake of national disasters, violent insurrections, etc. Governors also can take similar action, but only in their own states.

There was an attempt in 2006 to give the chief executive the right to call out state national guards without getting the OK from state governors. It rode in as part of much larger legislation.

The Senate later repealed that part of the law and restored the 1807 Insurrection Act to limit the president’s martial law powers to its original — and current — limits.

My guess is that 14 years ago, lawmakers must have feared that one day a lunatic wannabe autocrat would wind up in the White House and would not want to leave after losing a reelection bid in a lawful balloting procedure. For the sake of the republic, I pray that never happens.

Afterthought:

Methinks his prayers were not answered.